WANA (Mar 25) – Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, in an extensive interview with Iran’s state broadcaster (IRIB), outlined Tehran’s positions on the ongoing war, stating explicitly that there are no negotiations underway with the United States. What has been exchanged in recent days through intermediaries, he said, amounts only to message-passing—not dialogue, and not negotiations.

In the interview, Araghchi rejected claims about backchannel talks and spoke about the role of certain regional countries in enabling the United States to use neighboring territories and airspace against Iran.

He warned about the silence of Persian Gulf states in response to the attacks, described Iran’s asserted control over the Strait of Hormuz as one of the war’s key achievements, and emphasized that the Islamic Republic is not seeking a ceasefire but rather an end to the war in a way that prevents its recurrence.

He also sharply criticized Europe, describing the conduct of European governments as a sign of the continent’s declining role in the international system. According to him, in the recent war, Europe chose to appease the aggressor rather than condemn it.

No negotiations—only indirect message exchanges

In one of the most significant parts of his remarks, Araghchi firmly rejected any negotiations with the United States, stating that in recent weeks there has been no dialogue or negotiation with the American side. What has occurred, he explained, has been limited to message exchanges via friendly countries or intermediaries who in some cases attempted to convey ideas—ideas that were later, in some instances, presented in the media under titles such as a “15-point plan.”

He stressed that these exchanges do not constitute dialogue or negotiation, and that Iran’s position has remained consistent. Tehran’s current policy, he said, is to continue resistance and defend the country, with no plans for negotiations under present conditions.

At the same time, he interpreted Washington’s renewed talk of negotiations as a sign of shifting dynamics, noting that a party which previously spoke of “unconditional surrender” is now discussing talks and mobilizing senior officials for communication. In his view, this change in tone amounts to an acknowledgment of failure.

Warning to neighbors: U.S. bases used against Iran

Araghchi also addressed the role of some neighboring countries, stating that Tehran had not expected their territories or facilities to be used against Iran. However, it has become clear, he said, that U.S. bases in the region were used against Iran contrary to prior assurances.

He pointed to logistical and support services provided to American forces, including facilities beyond official bases, arguing that available evidence suggests these actions cannot be dismissed as occurring without the knowledge or will of host governments. Iran, he said, cannot accept that such use of land, airspace, or facilities happened without their awareness.

He conveyed a clear message to neighboring states: they should distance themselves from the United States and from involvement in military actions against Iran. The attack, he said, was entirely unlawful and unjustified, and at the very least, regional countries were expected to condemn it verbally—something that, according to him, did not occur.

People walk past a huge billboard displaying images of Iranian missiles, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 16, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

Criticism of Persian Gulf states’ silence

Expressing surprise at the stance of some Arab governments, particularly in the Persian Gulf, Araghchi said that despite the clear nature of the military attack on Iran during ongoing negotiations, not even a verbal condemnation was issued by some neighbors.

He stressed that such an attack is not something the Muslim world can easily ignore, yet many regional governments did just that. At the same time, he sought to distinguish between governments and peoples, saying Iran still regards neighboring populations as “brothers and sisters,” and that Iran’s actions are not directed at them.

However, he warned that any country allowing its territory, airspace, or waters to be used against Iran cannot expect Tehran to remain silent.

Any partner in aggression is a legitimate target

In one of his most explicit statements, Araghchi expanded the scope of potential targets, saying that if attacks continue, U.S. bases, facilities, interests, and gathering points of American forces would all be considered legitimate targets.

These targets, he added, are not limited to military bases but also include support infrastructure such as fueling centers. He also noted that when Iran’s infrastructure was targeted, Tehran responded by striking infrastructure linked to American shareholders or companies.

Referring to attacks on civilian sites in Iran—including hospitals, schools, historical sites, and residential areas—he said that when ordinary people are targeted, Iran cannot remain passive. According to him, by the time of his meeting with the health minister, 53 hospitals had been attacked. Under such conditions, any party involved in these actions would be considered a legitimate target.

Emergency personnel work at the site of a strike on a residential building, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 12, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

On Hormuz: “They thought Iran was bluffing”

A significant portion of the interview focused on the Strait of Hormuz, which Araghchi described as a key display of Iran’s power in the war. He said one of Iran’s major achievements over the past 25 years has been consolidating its regional position, and that the recent conflict allowed Tehran to demonstrate its authority in the strait in practical terms.

Many, he said, had assumed Iran was merely bluffing about Hormuz and lacked the willingness to act at that level. However, Iran demonstrated that it can exercise power in this strategic waterway when necessary. He claimed that the United States and its allies attempted to counter this but failed, even seeking help from other countries—efforts that, according to him, were unsuccessful.

He added pointedly that when even U.S. fleets hesitate to enter the strait, it is unrealistic to expect other countries’ fleets to do so.

Hormuz not “fully closed” from Tehran’s perspective

Araghchi nonetheless described the situation in controlled terms, saying the Strait of Hormuz is not completely closed, but restricted to enemies and their allies. For other countries, passage remains possible, although insecurity has led some vessels to avoid the area due to insurance and operational risks.

He revealed that in recent days, several countries and ship owners have directly contacted Tehran seeking guarantees for safe passage. Iran’s armed forces, he said, have provided such assurances to countries including China, Russia, Pakistan, Iraq, and India, and this could continue if necessary.

He also reffered  to ongoing studies aimed at defining new navigation arrangements in the strait—remarks that may carry significant geopolitical implications.

Iran seeks an “end to war,” not a ceasefire

Responding to proposals for halting the conflict, Araghchi reiterated that Iran did not initiate the war and does not seek it, but does not view a ceasefire as a desirable solution.

He explained that Iran is seeking an “end to the war,” not a temporary halt, arguing that ceasefires can reproduce cycles of “negotiation, war, and ceasefire.” Tehran wants the war to end in a way that prevents recurrence, deters future attacks, and ensures that adversaries reconsider any similar actions.

He also emphasized that damages inflicted on Iran’s population must be compensated.

People attend a funeral ceremony for the Iranian military commanders who were killed in strikes, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 11, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

“The main guarantee against future war is the power Iran demonstrated”

Araghchi claimed that Iran has shown the world that it cannot be easily confronted. He said Tehran has created a form of “security shield” demonstrating that attacking Iranian interests carries heavy consequences.

While acknowledging possible international mechanisms to prevent future conflict, he argued that the most effective guarantee is the power Iran demonstrated on the ground—what he described as an inherent security guarantee.

Four “realities” of the war

Araghchi outlined four strategic realities revealed by the war:

First, U.S. bases in the region are not sources of security but drivers of insecurity.

Second, Washington’s primary objective is the security of Israel, not regional stability.

Third, Israel’s goals extend beyond slogans like “two-state solution” toward regional dominance.

Fourth, the current war is fundamentally Israel’s war—one that, he said, has drawn the United States in, with both regional populations and Americans bearing the costs.

Sharp criticism of Europe

Araghchi argued that Europe’s behavior shows it is no longer a central global actor. While claiming opposition to continued war, European governments failed to condemn aggression and often adopted inconsistent positions.

He noted gradual shifts in some countries, including Germany, suggesting they are beginning to recognize that they should have condemned the attacks from the outset. He also pointed to differing voices, such as in Spain, as examples of political courage, but maintained that Europe’s broader approach has been to appease rather than confront the aggressor.

He warned that this reflects acceptance of a “peace through force” logic, which undermines international norms and resembles a return to “the law of the jungle.”

Domestic resilience and diplomatic efforts

Araghchi praised what he described as the resilience of Iran’s population and institutions during 26 days of war, saying people remained engaged, armed forces made sacrifices, and the government worked to minimize economic disruption.

He referenced reports by foreign media expressing surprise at the relative normalcy in markets and the availability of goods, calling it a sign of internal resilience.

He also defended Iran’s diplomatic missions abroad, saying diplomats served as the voice of the Iranian people, conducted numerous interviews, and documented violations of international law for submission to the United Nations.

Iranian women shop at Tajrish Bazaar, ahead of Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 19, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

Acknowledgment of humanitarian cooperation

Despite his criticism of some regional governments, Araghchi thanked several neighboring countries for cooperation in humanitarian areas, including assisting stranded Iranian citizens. He cited collaboration with Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, Pakistan, and in some cases Saudi Arabia.

He also mentioned aid deliveries such as medicine and food, emphasizing that Iran welcomed these not out of necessity but as a demonstration of regional and international solidarity.

Reference to the “Dena” naval incident

Araghchi also referred to an attack on the Iranian naval vessel Dena, which he said was targeted without warning while on a ceremonial mission. The attack resulted in casualties among Iranian naval personnel.

He thanked India and Sri Lanka for assisting in relocating other vessels, treating the wounded, and returning the bodies, noting that efforts to transfer additional personnel are ongoing.

Taken together, Araghchi’s remarks went beyond a typical media interview, resembling a strategic political statement by Iran’s diplomatic establishment during wartime. The message conveyed multiple points simultaneously: there are no negotiations; a ceasefire is not the goal; any partner in aggression is a legitimate target; Europe has failed the test of war; and the Strait of Hormuz has become part of Iran’s new deterrence equation.

Through this interview, Araghchi sought to present an image of Iran not only as active on the military front but also as reshaping the rules of engagement and deterrence on the political and diplomatic stage—signaling that Tehran seeks not a temporary pause, but a redefined balance to bring the war to a lasting end.