Araghchi: When the U.S. failed to achieve its goals through negotiations, it gave Israel the green light to attack Iran

Speaking on a special political program, Araghchi said: “To deprive the Iranian people of their nuclear rights, they imposed various types of sanctions and pressures on us. The policy of 'maximum pressure' initiated during Trump’s first term was intensified in a different form during his second term. They used all kinds of threats and tactics. In the recent talks, they tried to lure us into giving up our people’s rights. And when all of this failed, they tried war. They have used every tool so far to deprive Iranians of their legal rights."

He added: “After Trump won the presidential election, a new phase of maximum pressure policy against Iran began. As you may recall, he signed a presidential memorandum issuing instructions to increase pressure on Iran, accompanied by numerous threats.”

Araghchi continued: “Despite these threats, Trump then requested negotiations and sent a letter, which I have previously discussed. That letter was a mix of threats and an appeal for diplomacy. At that time, we faced a difficult dilemma: if we agreed to negotiate under such pressure, the negotiations would not be genuine; and if we refused, we risked being accused of rejecting diplomacy and peaceful solutions.”

He stated: “The policy we adopted at that point was very precise and well thought out. We declared that we are not opposed to diplomacy or negotiation—but we will not play on the field defined by them. Instead of direct talks, we proposed indirect negotiations, changed the framework, and entered talks on our own terms.”

He emphasized that the success of this policy was evident when it took the U.S. almost two weeks to accept Iran’s proposed format for negotiations. “Essentially, we reversed the trap they had set for us. They had to accept our terms.”

Araghchi said that during the negotiations, the Americans presented their demands in a different language, but Iran defended its people’s rights just as it had resisted threats. “It’s only natural that a nation that stood firm under sanctions would also defend its rights at the negotiating table. When they couldn’t achieve their goals through diplomacy, they turned to other methods and enabled the Zionist regime to carry out attacks.”

He called this a betrayal of diplomacy, saying: “We are proud of the path we took. We presented our case to the world, and now both the global community and our own people recognize that we were in the right. Had we not tried diplomacy, we might have been questioned as to why we didn’t negotiate. But now it is clear—we tried every peaceful path. We didn’t run from talks; it was the other side that turned diplomacy into war.”

Araghchi stressed: “We proved to the world and our people that we were honest. The route was chosen, and it became clear that their intentions were something else. That’s when resistance became meaningful—otherwise, there might have been doubt, wondering whether we had exhausted all options.”

He explained that when the war began, the country’s foreign policy aligned with national resistance: “While our armed forces were defending the country and responding to enemy attacks to create military deterrence, our foreign policy acted in tandem—taking Iran’s message of legitimacy to international forums, countries, and global public opinion. In all diplomatic engagements, we had the upper hand.”

Araghchi added: “Not a single foreign minister I spoke with could deny our position. Even if they didn’t openly support us, they had nothing to say in defense of the other side. European officials called and urged us to stop the war and return to diplomacy. I responded: What do you mean? We were already engaged in diplomacy—it was they who started the war.”

He clarified that from the very first or second day, European countries began calling Iran, urging restraint and a return to talks. “We told them our stance was clear. We were in negotiations. Those calling us included some countries that clearly wanted to shield the Zionist regime and pressure us not to defend ourselves. Others were traditionally in favor of diplomacy, which we interpret as goodwill—but when two countries enter conflict, other nations typically call for restraint, ceasefire, and diplomacy. In our case, this logic didn’t apply. Our logic was simple: we were negotiating, and the other side launched an unprovoked and illegitimate attack. That aggression must stop without conditions for diplomacy to resume.”

Araghchi emphasized that during this period, Iran received unprecedented support from regional countries. “In contrast to past behavior, this time they all stood behind the Islamic Republic and openly condemned the attacks. The resolution issued by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) last Sunday was unprecedented in its support for Iran, using strong language to condemn Israel and showing solidarity with the Iranian people. This resolution was especially notable because, during the second day of the OIC foreign ministers' summit—right after the U.S. attacked Iran—we added two paragraphs condemning the U.S. as well.”

He further explained Iran’s rejection of the term “ceasefire”: “The policy approved by our decision-making bodies was that if the enemy stops unconditionally, Iran will also stop its responses. This makes sense—they attacked us, and we were defending ourselves. If they stop attacking, the basis for our defense also fades.”

He added: “Around 1:00 AM Tuesday, while I was traveling back to Tehran overland—from the Islamic foreign ministers’ meeting to Moscow, then Ashgabat, and then Tehran—we received a message from the other side declaring they would stop attacks by 4:00 AM Tehran time and asked Iran not to respond further if attacks ceased.”

“We do not accept the term ‘ceasefire’,” Araghchi stressed. “What we demanded happened—without any preconditions. I coordinated with relevant institutions and informed the other side that we do not recognize the term ‘ceasefire,’ which implies a negotiated mutual agreement. But if Israel stops, we have no intention to continue either. Future decisions will follow accordingly.”

On the suspension of cooperation with the IAEA

Araghchi addressed the new law suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): “This bill, approved by parliament and ratified by the Guardian Council, is now law and must be implemented. There is no doubt about that. The reason is clear: the IAEA report—more accurately, Mr. Grossi’s report—laid the groundwork for a resolution that the Europeans introduced in the IAEA Board of Governors. We believe this report triggered Israel’s aggression. Grossi did not act honestly or fairly. He highlighted questions from 20-25 years ago and framed it as Iran’s non-cooperation. The Board then politically interpreted it as non-compliance with the NPT and safeguard agreements. It was a political move.”

He continued: “Secondly, after our nuclear facilities were attacked, the IAEA didn’t even condemn the assaults. According to international law, attacking nuclear sites is an unforgivable crime. This wasn’t just one site—several were hit. Yet the IAEA director-general did not even issue a personal condemnation. The Board ignored our request for an emergency meeting, though 11 member states issued separate condemnations.”

Araghchi said cooperation with the IAEA will now take a different form: “The law defines our obligations but leaves room for flexibility based on decisions by the Supreme National Security Council. We need to conduct further legal work to define how to manage our relations with the agency under the law.”

He added: “Inspections are currently halted due to the damage to our facilities. One of the reasons they’re pushing for cooperation is to send inspectors to see the extent of destruction. The damage is serious. Whether or not we allow inspections is a decision to be made in accordance with the new law.”

“We currently have no intention to host Grossi”

Araghchi stated: “We do not intend to host Mr. Grossi at this time. Inspections will be reviewed based on legal criteria. The facilities have suffered heavy damage, and it’s clear the inspectors want to assess that—but allowing them to do so is a decision for the Supreme National Security Council.”

On the U.S. base in Al Udeid, Qatar

Araghchi explained: “Our message wasn’t directed at Arab countries—it was meant for the U.S. Before the attack, I met with the foreign ministers of all six Arab states at the OIC summit in Istanbul. I told them our missiles don’t yet reach U.S. soil but can strike nearby bases. Unfortunately, those bases are on your land. So, this is not an attack on your countries. For us, American bases are a separate matter.”

He concluded: “Our message to these countries remains one of friendship and good neighborliness. We regret that some Qatari citizens may have been injured as collateral damage. That was not our intention.”