Araghchi: “Don’t take Trump’s remarks about resuming negotiations too seriously”
WANA (Jun 26) – Iran’s Foreign Minister responded to Trump’s remarks about a possible negotiation with the U.S. next week by saying: “Don’t take his remarks too seriously. No agreement has been made to resume talks. We are consulting internally to determine which path best serves Iran’s interests.”
Araghchi made these remarks on Thursday night during a special news interview on IRIB where he addressed recent developments.
At the beginning of the televised conversation, Araghchi noted that before joining the program, he had visited the IRIB headquarters, which was damaged during Israeli attacks. He expressed his appreciation for the efforts of the national broadcaster’s staff, calling them part of the broader resistance.
He added: “The aggressors aimed to break the spirit of the Iranian people, but instead, over these 12 days, we witnessed a unified national resistance. The people showed the world that Iran and Iranians are resilient and unbreakable. IRIB itself is a symbol of this collective resistance.”
“The U.S. Gave Israel a Free Hand to Attack Iran”
Referring to the U.S. “maximum pressure” policy, Araghchi said Washington has long tried to prevent Iran from securing its rightful demands. “During negotiations, they attempted to tempt us into giving up our rights. When that failed, they resorted to military tools against the Iranian people. We stood firm in defense of our national rights. When their negotiations hit a dead end, they gave Israel a free hand to attack Iran.”
He stressed: “By doing this, the Americans betrayed diplomacy. At that moment, we had chosen the path of dialogue to make our case to the world and prove our sincerity — that we never left the negotiating table. It was them who betrayed the process.”
Araghchi added that during this period, Iran sought to advance diplomacy in parallel with the actions of its armed forces. “In conversations with foreign ministers from various countries, many acknowledged our position. Some European officials, unable to offer a coherent argument, merely urged us to ‘return to diplomacy.’ We told them: we were in the heart of diplomacy when Israel attacked — it was they who betrayed it.”
The Iranian foreign minister also expressed appreciation to the Gulf Cooperation Council states, members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, and others who condemned the Israeli attacks on Iran. “Our aim was to demonstrate the legitimacy of the Iranian people’s stance,” he said.
Araghchi concluded by saying: “These 12 days should be seen as a symbol of a nation’s resistance against the powers backing Israel and supporting these attacks.”
“Iran is not Lebanon”
He explained how the ceasefire came about: “At around 1 a.m. on Tuesday, I was traveling by land from Ashgabat to Tehran when a message arrived from the other side stating that they would halt their attacks at 4 a.m. Tehran time, and if Iran did the same, they would not continue their attacks. They made this proposal unconditionally, and I coordinated it with the relevant authorities.”
Araghchi emphasized: “We do not accept the term ‘ceasefire,’ because a ceasefire implies a negotiated agreement, and no such negotiation occurred. Therefore, we do not recognize any ceasefire. As we stated before: if the Zionist regime stops its attacks—and does not resume—we will have no intention to continue either.”
He added: “The Zionist regime, out of desperation, had reached the point of wanting to stop the aggression. Based on our standing order—that if the other side halts its attacks, we shall halt ours too—we made that decision. Meanwhile, they were crafting a narrative claiming that some mediation or talks had occurred between Iran and Israel. I clarified in my Tuesday morning tweet that the Zionist regime, without any preconditions or demands from us, simply requested to stop the attacks—and given our policy, we acted accordingly.”
Referring to “some misunderstandings” after 7:30 a.m. Tuesday, he said: “We communicated clearly that if they try to play such games, we will respond forcefully. We told them, ‘Iran is not Lebanon’—we are not a country they can act upon without consequence. Any action against us will be met with a corresponding response. We hope this is clear, so they respect the cessation of attacks.”
“We’re evaluating whether to return to talks with the U.S.”
On returning to negotiations with the U.S., he said: “Whether we go back to negotiations with America or not is under review. What matters to us is our interests. Negotiation isn’t sacred; it’s a process based on cost-benefit calculations.”
Regarding Trump saying talks will happen next week, Araghchi remarked: “As I said, don’t take his words too seriously. No agreement—no discussions or commitments—has been made. As I mentioned, internally we are assessing our paths forward in Iran’s best interest. That’s a separate matter.”
Inspectors’ intentions are clear
Addressing his journey to Geneva despite the country’s airspace being closed, he explained: “I left by land to Turkey, where Iranian aircraft had already flown passengers in and out but faced issues on their return. We used one of those Iranian planes to reach Geneva, then went on to Istanbul, then Ashgabat, and finally returned overland.”
Responding to questions about parliament’s vote to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, he said: “The measure was passed in parliament, approved by the Guardian Council, and is now law, which applies to us.” He added that, “in his report, Mr. Grossi acted inaccurately. That report paved the way for the Europeans’ IAEA resolution and Israel’s attack on our facilities. The Agency couldn’t even condemn the attacks.”
Given the law and recent developments, Iran’s relationship with the IAEA will take on a new shape. While parliament hasn’t closed all doors—it’s leaving the final decisions to the Supreme National Security Council—we must proceed in line with both the legislation and institutional guidance.
As for Grossi’s potential visit, Araghchi said: “Currently, we have no intention to host him. They say they want to inspect and assess the damage, but we understand what their real agenda is.” Any inspection must comply with the new law and the Supreme Council’s decisions.
“The Americans, once disappointed, shifted course”
On the sixth round of nuclear talks he said: “We were to present our proposal, which we believed was balanced and reasonable, built on two pillars: Iran’s right to enrichment and the lifting of sanctions—accompanied by our commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons. We hoped this threefold framework would lead to an agreement. But they came in insisting on zero enrichment—and when they became disillusioned, they changed direction.”
Acknowledging the role of Oman’s Foreign Minister, he said: “We are grateful to Mr. Busaidi. He sincerely worked to facilitate indirect dialogue, actively mediating rather than merely relaying messages. In five rounds of talks, he submitted written proposals to both sides, attempting to bridge the gap.”
“U.S. bases are separate from regional governments”
Asked whether Iran’s strike on the U.S. al‑Udeid base in Qatar was meant to send a message to GCC countries, he clarified: “We weren’t targeting Arab states—it was aimed at the Americans.”
He continued: “In Istanbul, I spoke with GCC foreign ministers, also via phone. I told them: if the U.S. attacks Iran, our missiles won’t reach American soil but will strike U.S. bases in the region—and we must respond. Attacking these bases is not an attack on you. The Americans’ bases are distinct from your countries.”
He asserted that Iran’s message to Gulf neighbors was one of peace, friendship, and neighborliness. While Qatar and GCC states were upset by the attack, he told them: “Your interests are separate from those of the Americans.” He confirmed that GCC ministers condemned the strikes and that Tehran has evidence showing U.S. bases were used to track Iranian missiles.
He said: “Our policy is to foster good neighborly ties with GCC countries—especially Qatar, Iraq, and also Egypt.” Over the past year, he said, he’s spoken with Egypt’s president four times. Egypt has performed well, issuing several pro‑Iran statements condemning the strikes. Iran has tried to separate relations with regional countries from ties to the U.S.—and they have understood and condemned the attacks.
Regarding reports that Qatari nationals were injured during the strike on al-Udeid, he said: “If that happened, we regret it. We did not intend to harm Qatari citizens or any place apart from the U.S. base.”
“Restoring diplomatic ties with Egypt is up to them”
Finally, on the question of restoring full diplomatic relations with Egypt, he said: “Our current relationship with Egypt is better than with many countries we already have diplomatic ties with. During the recent war, Egypt’s foreign minister reached out to me more than anyone else.” He added: “It’s important for us to engage with Egypt, but as to when diplomatic relations will be officially restored—that’s up to the Egyptians. Whenever they’re ready, so are we.”
German Chancellor’s remarks strip international law of its credibility
The Iranian Foreign Minister, commenting on the positions taken by German and French officials regarding recent developments, and the consequences they must face, stated: “They must pay a political price, which they are already paying. They have disregarded international law and legal norms. They must explain where these principles fit into their positions and behavior.”
Referring to the German Chancellor’s comments about Israel’s attack on Iran and his praise for the assault, the minister said: “The Chancellor of Germany stated that Israel is doing the dirty work we all want done. With such remarks, no credibility remains for international law, legal norms, or principles like non-proliferation.”
Araghchi also criticized the European countries’ conduct regarding Gaza, accusing them of turning a blind eye to human rights violations during the attacks. “Today, there is no European country that can comfortably speak about human rights. Some still do, but with embarrassment — because we confront them about their double standards, which have led the world toward destruction and the erosion of human rights. The events of the past two years, especially these recent developments, have dealt a serious blow to international law.”
UN tasked with identifying the aggressor
Regarding measures to increase the cost for the U.S. following its aggression against Iran, the Foreign Minister said: “The Foreign Ministry’s Department of International Affairs has been tasked with pursuing the identification of the aggressor at the United Nations and with following up on compensation for damages. The Presidential Legal Department has also been activated in this matter. This requires a comprehensive assessment of the damage and proper documentation to determine what losses were incurred. The pursuit of compensation alone will be a highly complex legal challenge.” He added that “This issue was emphasized today by the Supreme Leader.”
U.S. has dealt a serious blow to the NPT framework
In response to a question, Araghchi said: “What Israel did — and more importantly, what the United States, as a member of the UN Security Council, did — has seriously undermined the credibility of the NPT. Western powers are weakening the NPT regime. The U.S. has inflicted major damage on it, if not delivering the final blow. When such actions are taken, other countries inevitably begin to question whether being part of the NPT offers any protection at all. This is a serious question. Our decisions will be based on national interests.”
Triggering the snapback mechanism would be Europe’s greatest historical mistake
When asked whether he believes European countries may move toward activating the snapback mechanism, the Iranian Foreign Minister replied: “The U.S. cannot do so, as it is no longer a participant in the JCPOA. However, the UK and France — being both JCPOA participants and permanent members of the Security Council — technically can. I told European countries very clearly in our Friday meeting in Geneva that the biggest historical mistake they could make would be to invoke the snapback mechanism. Doing so would permanently end their role in the Iranian nuclear file. Of course, this move would also cause damage for us, and we too may respond with decisions of our own.”
Araghchi added: “If they take this path, the Iranian nuclear issue will become much more difficult and complicated. The recent war has already made the situation harder. Those who started this war thought we would be left empty-handed and forced to negotiate under pressure — but that did not happen. The same applies to the snapback mechanism. Through these attacks, the Americans have made negotiations far more complex and challenging, especially for themselves. Their mistakes have only worsened the situation — blood has been shed, and damage has been done.”
He emphasized: “On Friday, I explained all this to the Europeans, telling them that using this tool would effectively remove them from the Iranian nuclear arena.”
To be continued…