WANA (Jul 14) – Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs, said the country’s foreign ministry and armed forces were fully coordinated during both negotiations and the 12-day conflict with Israel.

 

Speaking on Sunday night on Iranian state TV, he warned against welcoming the activation of the so-called “snapback” mechanism by the three European states, emphasizing that Iran should take necessary measures to prevent it—but that such measures did not mean giving concessions, but exploring various options to stop them from resorting to that mechanism.

 

Trump’s Letter Highlighted Both Diplomacy and Military Threat

Gharibabadi recalled that when former US President Donald Trump sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Iranian officials noted that it included two key points: diplomatic solutions to the nuclear issue and the lifting of sanctions, alongside military threats. He said this dual approach meant Iran’s political, diplomatic, and military structures had to prepare simultaneously. He explained that even before Trump’s letter, Iran’s military was prepared to counter threats, but it boosted readiness afterward, while the foreign ministry prepared for diplomatic negotiations within Iran’s strategic framework.

 

Claims of Iranian Negotiators Being Deceived Are Unfounded

He rejected accusations that Iran’s negotiators were “tricked” during talks, calling such claims illogical. He said all diplomatic moves were coordinated with relevant bodies in advance, making the idea of negotiators being “fooled” incorrect.

People attend the funeral procession of Iranian military commanders, nuclear scientists and others killed in Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 28, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

Prepared for All Scenarios

Gharibabadi stressed that Iran’s political, diplomatic, and military institutions were prepared for any scenario. He argued that negotiating from a position of distrust requires full readiness for threats while also pursuing diplomatic channels to buy time for further military preparation.

 

Israel’s Broader Strategic Goals

He said Israel’s attacks were not merely aimed at Iran’s nuclear program but had broader strategic goals, including destabilizing and potentially overthrowing Iran’s system. He argued that assessing the conflict cannot be reduced to damage statistics alone but must consider whether strategic goals were achieved.

 

Gharibabadi acknowledged Israel caused damage, including civilian casualties and infrastructure hits, but insisted Iran inflicted heavy losses in return. He suggested Israel deliberately hid the scale of its own damage while Iran’s media showed its own casualties openly.

 

Iran’s Core Positions Unchanged After Conflict

He said Iran’s fundamental negotiating positions remain unchanged after the 12-day war, especially regarding protecting Iran’s rights in the nuclear and sanctions spheres. He stressed Iran would never accept excessive demands and would always negotiate from a position of distrust, with military forces remaining fully prepared during talks.

People attend a gathering to support Iran’s Armed Forces following the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, in Tehran, Iran, June 24, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

No Iranian Request for Ceasefire

Gharibabadi asserted Iran did not request a ceasefire but was prepared to continue defending itself. He claimed that Israel was the side that, through the US, sent Iran a request for a ceasefire. He framed Iran’s post-war position as strengthened, citing national unity and improved standing among Muslim publics and even some governments in the region.

 

Preventing Narratives That Paint Iran as the Threat

He said the foreign ministry’s priority during the conflict was to build international consensus condemning the aggressor and counter deceptive narratives portraying Iran as the threat even after being attacked. He cited Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council statements condemning Israel’s aggression as diplomatic successes.

 

Criticism of European Support for Israel

Finally, he criticized the UK, France, and Germany for what he called their one-sided support of Israel during the conflict, saying they had undermined their own credibility by doing so.