SAEDNEWS: The Foreign Minister told Al-Araby Al-Jadeed: The U.S. cannot use other countries' territory as a safe haven to pursue its goals and destabilize the region. Clear and direct warnings have been issued—this was emphasized in the recent closed OIC foreign ministers’ meeting.
According to Saednews, following an intense diplomatic tour under wartime conditions—which began in Geneva and continued to Istanbul, Moscow, and finally Ashgabat before returning to Tehran—the Tehran bureau chief of Al-Araby Al-Jadeed conducted an interview with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The interview addressed key developments, including the ceasefire, the targeting of the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, and the fate of negotiations with the United States. The Foreign Minister appeared calm and optimistic throughout the conversation.
After 12 days of war, a ceasefire agreement was reached between Iran and Israel. What are the main terms of this agreement? Was there also an agreement to resume negotiations with the United States?
The first principle in the current situation is to determine whether the aggressors have the capacity to implement and sustain their own proposals, or whether—as in the past—internal power rivalries within the Zionist regime will hold the ceasefire hostage to domestic political challenges and lead to a new cycle of escalation.
Was achieving such a ceasefire possible before the attack on nuclear facilities?
Iran did not initiate the war. Our country has always been subjected to aggression and has adopted the principle of defense as its foundation. Even now, if any aggression is committed against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran, our response will be the same. As I emphasized during the press conference in Istanbul, U.S. involvement in the war marked the failure of Israel and its inability to stand on its own. They naively assumed that American intervention would lead to Iran's surrender. But when they saw our response—using third-generation “Kheibarshekan” missiles—was even stronger and more decisive, they backed down from the war and proposed a ceasefire through intermediaries. Iran’s acceptance of the ceasefire was based on preserving its moral and normative superiority, aiming to turn this approach into the foundation of a new policy rooted in regional and Islamic values. The support of Muslim governments and peoples for this collective and decisive stance can further isolate the Zionist regime, which abides by neither ethics nor values.
In response to American attacks, Iran targeted the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Some observers consider this a strategic mistake against Doha, especially considering the influential roles Qatar has played.
Iran’s strategic action—responding to U.S. military and intelligence bases in the region—falls within the framework of legitimate self-defense. This was an action against the United States, not a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran’s neighbors. The Islamic Republic of Iran, with full respect for the sovereign and national rights of neighboring countries, believes it must act decisively in defending its existence. This means the United States cannot use the soil of other countries as a safe haven to pursue its objectives and destabilize the region. Necessary warnings have been delivered clearly and directly. For instance, at the most recent closed-door meeting of the foreign ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation last Sunday, I addressed this issue, and it was recorded in the organization’s official documents.
Iran’s relationships with all neighboring countries—including the friendly and brotherly nation of Qatar—are built on strategic depth, historical ties, and strong social bonds that remain unshakable. We respect the sovereignty of all these countries and are fully committed to maintaining stable and comprehensive relations with them. Ultimately, it is the American bases in the region that these countries—due to their own reasons, whether security-related or otherwise—have allowed the U.S. to use. We have explained to them that we do not intend to target their territories. Our respect for their sovereignty and territorial integrity, including that of Qatar, remains firm, and this action should not be interpreted or perceived as an act of aggression against them.
After the U.S. attacks on nuclear facilities, did the United States send any messages to Iran, and what was their content?
Yes, the Americans continuously sent messages before and after the aggression through various channels, which is natural since certain matters must be exchanged. We received their messages and responded through intermediaries and indirect channels, which is common in diplomacy. The goal was to avoid misunderstandings, de-escalate tensions, and clarify each side’s position. We emphasized to all intermediaries that Iran will not return to the negotiating table with the U.S. or resume the diplomatic path until the aggression ceases. We communicated this position clearly to the intermediaries and also explained it to the Europeans. I believe they now understand our position well, and we must wait to see what unfolds.
If the ceasefire does not hold and Israel or the U.S. resumes aggression, how capable is Iran of resisting?
The answer is clear. We have demonstrated very strong resistance—contrary to the aggressors' expectations that their initial strikes would force Iran into submission. That didn’t happen. In fact, our firepower grew stronger each day, our resolve hardened, and our missile accuracy improved. Events proved that Iran remains powerful. Our people showed immense patience and perseverance, and the level of solidarity between the public and government was highly encouraging. The people witnessed the Iranian government’s honesty: it engaged in negotiations, but the other side betrayed that effort. The government stood firm at the negotiating table, defended the people’s rights, and did not retreat. Likewise, on the battlefield, it stood firm and powerful. There is visible national unity and mass public endurance despite the hardships of war, martyrdoms, injuries, and fear. I am confident the system and government will remain steadfast to the end in defending unity, sovereignty, independence, and the people’s interests and achievements.
To what extent have Israel's and America's aggressions impacted Iran's resolve to continue its nuclear program, particularly uranium enrichment?
The effect has been positive. These aggressions have strengthened our resolve and made us more determined and steadfast. We have invested great effort in acquiring this technology, and our scientists have made immense sacrifices—even sacrificing their lives. Our people have endured sanctions for this, and a war has been imposed on our nation over it. Undoubtedly, no one in Iran will abandon this technology. Iran's nuclear program has been transparent and under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Is it possible that, following these attacks, Iran’s nuclear program may enter a phase of ambiguity or that Iran may reconsider its cooperation with the IAEA?
It is too early to discuss this in detail, but the aggression that targeted our nuclear facilities will undoubtedly have deep and serious effects on Iran’s future course, and that is unavoidable. For years, we tried to show the world that we adhered to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and intended to operate within its framework. Unfortunately, the treaty could not protect us or our nuclear program. That is a fact that must be considered. The IAEA’s reports played a major role in leading to the current situation, and we are not satisfied with the agency’s reporting methods. We believe there are political motives behind them, which also affects the situation. Moreover, we must now reconsider how to protect our nuclear facilities in the future. Why did 20 years of transparency and confidence-building not yield positive results? That will be seriously examined. I expect that our view of the nuclear program and the NPT regime will shift, though I cannot predict the exact direction at this moment.
In the midst of war and aggression, you launched a broad diplomatic campaign. What was the objective of these efforts?
Naturally, our main goal was to help enhance national security by exposing and condemning the aggressor to the world and by engaging other countries to adopt firm stances against the aggression and the actions of the U.S. and the Zionist regime. The aim was to create political deterrence against these attacks and prevent their recurrence.
Diplomacy can play an effective role in this, and I believe we have succeeded. All regional countries have stood by us and condemned the aggression. Islamic nations have supported us, and many other countries have as well. Of course, the West—Europeans and Americans—have shamelessly not only failed to support us, but tried to justify Israel’s aggression using various excuses. Nevertheless, we strive to make the Iranian people's case heard worldwide, and other countries must understand our positions to take the right stance. This is the role of diplomacy in both peace and war, and during wartime, we naturally pursue these efforts with greater determination.
Did your meetings with Europeans in Geneva result in any agreements or specific outcomes?
These meetings were helpful in better informing the Europeans of our positions, even though they support Israel. In terms of dismissing the accusations leveled against us, the meetings were important. The view that there is no military solution to this issue with Iran has now taken root in Europe and has been reinforced by recent developments. It has become clear that such aggressions ultimately do not solve the problem. While these talks didn’t fully resolve the matter, they helped strengthen mutual understanding. Therefore, both sides expressed willingness to continue these discussions.
As I said before and repeat now, I do not call this a negotiation process but rather a dialogue between Iran and Europe. Negotiations are usually aimed at reaching an agreement, but we are not seeking an agreement with Europe, nor is Europe capable of offering one. The agreement we seek must include the lifting of sanctions, which is beyond Europe’s capacity. Still, dialogue is always positive, especially under normal circumstances. I believe ongoing dialogue between us and Europe helps reduce misunderstandings.
Did the Europeans offer any specific proposals during the Geneva talks?
There were general proposals—some regarding halting the conflict, others concerning the future of Iran’s nuclear file. But Europe is not the main or decisive party in these matters; its role is limited to dialogue.
Are you satisfied with the outcomes of your trip to Russia?
Yes, very much so. I had an excellent meeting with President Vladimir Putin. Russia has taken strong and clear stances in condemning the aggression by the U.S. and the Zionist regime. Russia is an influential player in Iran’s nuclear file. We cooperate with them in various areas, from the Bushehr reactor to future nuclear plants. Russia was part of the P5+1 nuclear deal, and we have always consulted with them, exchanged views, and benefited from their suggestions. In light of the current escalation, close coordination and consultation were necessary, and we are continuing on a joint path.
How do you assess the position of regional governments and peoples regarding the aggressions?
The stance at both the official and popular levels was positive. All countries condemned the aggression—some strongly, others more mildly—but there was a near-unified stance across the region and the Islamic world. The statement issued by the foreign ministers of Islamic countries in Istanbul was very strong, including a specific clause condemning the U.S. aggression, which was released on the second day of the meeting. I believe governments' positions were constructive, and among the public and media in Arab and Islamic countries and beyond, we saw unprecedented solidarity with the Iranian people—evident in tweets, articles, interviews, and public events.
For years, some parties tried to make the region fear Iran and portray it as a threat, but today that fear has dissipated, and the true enemy has been exposed. Israel spent years trying to invert this narrative. I believe public opinion in the Arab and Islamic world has never been closer to the Iranian people than it is now, and that is one of the blessings of these events. I am truly glad that Israel’s aggression at least served to unite Arab and Islamic public opinion in an unprecedented way and strengthen regional solidarity.
![Tel Aviv in Ruins: Iranian Missiles Reduce Israel's Coastal Hub to Rubble [Photos]](https://en.saednews.com/storage/files/post/08ae102a-7e61-4583-9956-6b3420b5596f-IteaUIZccucIbnw5/1x1-5554011.jpg)