WANA (Jun 03) – Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi stated on Wednesday evening that contacts with the Americans have not been severed, but noted that no progress has been achieved yet as both sides continue to review exchanged texts and work on drafting a final version.

 

He emphasized that a return to negotiations must be based on securing the rights of the Iranian nation and ending the war against Iran, Lebanon, and the entire region.

 

He explained that these talks are influenced by external factors and currently lack a specific framework, though messages continue to be exchanged, including a message transmitted by Iran to the U.S. two days ago regarding the necessity of halting Israeli attacks on Beirut.

 

The Lebanon Front and the Intertwined Ceasefire

Turning to the situation in Lebanon, the foreign minister emphasized that Iran views Lebanon as a brotherly and friendly country, asserting that Tehran has never sought to interfere in its internal affairs, and adding that Hezbollah is an important part of Lebanon’s political structure that cannot be ignored.

 

Araghchi pointed out that Lebanon has been an inseparable part of the war involving Iran, the U.S., and Israel, and has consequently faced aggression within this framework.

 

He remarked that the fate of the war between Iran and the U.S.-Israeli axis is not separate from the fate of the war in Lebanon, noting that a close link has existed between the Lebanese front and the war against Iran since the beginning of the crisis.

 

The foreign minister explained that during talks aimed at ending the war, Tehran maintained the principle that the end of the war and the establishment of a ceasefire must include Iran and all resistance fronts, including Lebanon.

 

He noted that during ceasefire efforts, the Prime Minister of Pakistan was requested to explicitly include the phrase “especially Lebanon” in the statement regarding the cessation of hostilities across all fronts, which eventually led to Lebanon’s inclusion in the ceasefire framework.

 

Furthermore, Araghchi stated that in the negotiations aimed at reaching a memorandum of understanding with the United States, the first clause pertains to ending the war, with the opening sentence emphasizing that the cessation of hostilities must be established across the entire Axis of Resistance, and in the first degree in Lebanon.

 

He noted that Lebanon has paid a heavy price in this war imposed by the U.S. and Israel, and that Iran’s friends and allies there have been targeted by Israeli strikes. He stressed that the fates of Iran and Lebanon in this war are bound together, meaning the conflict will either stop in both countries or it will stop in neither.

 

Red Lines in Beirut and Regional Deterrence

Araghchi stated that the halt in the war over recent days was the result of the capability of the Lebanese resistance in the first degree, alongside the capability of Iran’s armed forces.

 

He stated that when the possibility of Israeli forces attacking the southern suburbs of Beirut (Dahiyeh) arose, Iran adopted a decisive stance and prepared its armed forces to respond.

 

The top diplomat observed that Israel has violated the ceasefire between Iran and the U.S., as well as the truce in Lebanon over recent days, though these actions met a response from Hezbollah.

 

He warned that any violation of the ceasefire in Beirut constitutes aggression, adding that Iran has informed all parties that Tehran will not tolerate attacks on the Lebanese capital. He stated that the consequence of any aggression against Beirut would be the return of war, a scenario Iran considers itself obligated to confront.

 

Araghchi expressed gratitude to regional countries that contacted Washington to prevent further escalation, noting that U.S. pressure ultimately deterred Israel from attacking Beirut following Iran’s firm stance and the pressure exerted.

 

He emphasized that Iran’s armed forces remain ready at any moment to resume military operations and target Israel, particularly if Beirut comes under attack.

 

Miscalculations and the ’40-Day War’

Reflecting on the 40-day war, Araghchi stated that Washington initially perceived Iran as a weak nation in West Asia and initiated two conflicts based on that premise.

 

He said that Washington attempted to mobilize its full power to force an unconditional Iranian surrender within days—a condition put forward by Donald Trump on the first day of the war.

 

He added that the U.S. also sought regime change in Iran, but remarked that not only did this fail to materialize, but the Iranian public also took to the streets to support the Islamic Republic and condemn the aggression against their country.

 

The foreign minister reiterated that all U.S. calculations proved incorrect and its attempts to dismantle Iran’s missile strength failed, forcing the adversarial front to request negotiations once Iran’s true power in this war became apparent to the U.S., Israel, and other parties.

 

He stated that the opposing side was forced to recalculate its options once Iran firmly declared that it would respond to any strike on Beirut.

 

Araghchi remarked that if Donald Trump acts rationally, he will not return to war. He emphasized that while Iran does not seek conflict and desires peace and security based on dignity and honor, it possesses the capability to sustain a war for a very long period.

 

According to the foreign minister, any aggression against Iran will be met with a decisive and powerful reaction, a reality he said was proven during the two recent wars, concluding that the power to end the conflict does not rest with the opposing side, and that the war will ultimately conclude in Iran and Lebanon.

 

Hezbollah’s Role and Internal Lebanese Dialogue

Turning to Lebanon’s internal stability, Araghchi reiterated that the entire world recognizes Hezbollah as a part of Lebanon, its society, and its political system, asserting that no actor can eliminate or ignore it.

 

He noted that extensive efforts were made to assassinate the “martyr Seyed Hassan Nasrallah,” but emphasized that Hezbollah’s core principles have not changed following his “martyrdom.”

 

He concluded that Lebanon’s internal affairs must be resolved through the participation of all sides and within the framework of Lebanese-Lebanese dialogue, reaffirming that Iran has not and will not interfere in Lebanon’s domestic matters.