SAEDNEWS: Iran’s top diplomat said Tehran has held three rounds of negotiations with Washington so far, all of which ultimately led to war against Iran.
According to Saednews, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that three previous rounds of negotiations with the United States had ultimately been followed by war against Iran, emphasizing Tehran’s deep distrust of Washington.
In an extended interview with the Iraqi Media Network on Tuesday, Araghchi said that during the third round of negotiations, understandings had been reached with US President Donald Trump, but the American side honored them for only two weeks before abandoning its commitments.
He was referring to two rounds of what Iran describes as unprovoked US-Israeli aggression, launched against Iran last June and again from February 28 to April 7 this year, both amid negotiations between Tehran and Washington. He also pointed to negotiations in June that resulted in a Pakistan-mediated memorandum of understanding, which Washington subsequently violated.
“Therefore, there is no trust in the American approach,” Araghchi said.
The foreign minister revealed that Iran had put forward a Seven-Day Plan for the conditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran closed in response to the latest US-Israeli attacks and continued American violations.
Under the proposed sequence, the United States would first fulfill its commitments under the Islamabad memorandum. The parties would then reach an understanding on the Strait of Hormuz, reopen the strategic waterway under agreed arrangements, and proceed with further negotiations toward a comprehensive agreement.
Araghchi said the plan was intended to prevent diplomacy from collapsing entirely, stressing that negotiations could produce results only if the other side honored the understandings already reached.
Progress, he added, depended on Washington fulfilling its previous commitments and reaching an understanding over the Strait of Hormuz.
Addressing the underlying dispute between the two countries, Araghchi argued that Washington's opposition to Iran's Islamic political system and its refusal to accept American dominance were at the heart of the confrontation, while the nuclear issue was merely a pretext.
“In my view, what they oppose and refuse to accept is the thinking underpinning Iran’s [Islamic] establishment and the Iranian mindset,” he said.
According to Araghchi, the United States rejected Iran's approach of resisting American domination and refusing to submit to US power. He therefore described the nuclear issue as “nothing more than a pretext.”
Asked whether economic pressure from Washington might prompt the Islamic Republic to reconsider its policies and ideology, the foreign minister said Iranians had accepted the resulting costs to preserve their dignity, independence, honor, and national greatness.
He reiterated that Tehran's immediate demand was for Washington to implement its commitments under the Islamabad understanding. Only after those obligations had been fulfilled could the two sides move on to other issues.
Araghchi also said Iran had been coordinating with Oman on designated maritime routes through the Strait of Hormuz. The routes had been mapped and their geographical coordinates established, he explained, but they would still need to be registered with the International Maritime Organization and submitted for consideration.
He described the arrangements with Oman as preparatory work for a possible future reopening of the waterway.
The Iranian foreign minister also rejected attempts to separate Tehran's actions in the Strait of Hormuz from the broader conflict, arguing that the current situation was the consequence of US-Israeli aggression.
Pointing to Washington's continued violations and their repercussions, Araghchi said the international community needed to recognize which side was obstructing progress.
“The whole world must understand that it is the American side, not Iran, that is blocking the way,” he said.
At the same time, Araghchi stressed that Iran remained prepared for diplomacy while also making preparations for the possibility of renewed aggression.
“I reiterate that we are just as prepared for diplomacy as we are for war.”
