WANA (May 22) – In a special televised interview, Seyyed Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s  Foreign Minister, outlined Iran’s latest international stance ahead of the fifth round of negotiations between Iran and the United States.

 

Regarding talks with the U.S. and the framework of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), Araghchi stated: “The JCPOA is no longer effective, but that doesn’t mean it’s dead. It hasn’t been entirely dismantled and could still be revived. However, even if revived, it will no longer bring us the same benefits as before.”

 

JCPOA requires fundamental changes

He added: “In the area of sanctions relief, the JCPOA needs serious changes due to new sanctions imposed and structural changes made by the other side. On the other hand, Iran’s nuclear program has advanced beyond what was originally envisioned in the JCPOA. We are now far ahead of those limits—even beyond where we were before the JCPOA negotiations began.”

 

Returning to the JCPOA terms is not in our national interest

Araghchi made clear: “It is absolutely not in our national interest to return to the conditions of the JCPOA. Therefore, we believe it must be set aside in practice, as it is no longer effectively revivable for us. While officially still in place—with all parties except the EU still participating—it lacks the operational capacity to serve our interests as before.”

 

He emphasized: “The logic of the JCPOA still holds: Iran would take confidence-building steps within a peaceful nuclear framework, and in return, the other parties would lift sanctions.”

 

We will not relinquish our nuclear rights

“We accepted to continue uranium enrichment, and at the same time agreed to transparency, expanded inspections, and time-bound restrictions to ease concerns about our nuclear program’s goals. In exchange, sanctions were to be lifted. That formula remains valid.”

 

Araghchi said: “There is no realistic alternative formula. Our current approach is the same—we won’t give up our rights. Our nuclear program, including enrichment, must continue. At the same time, we are ready to take transparency measures and accept broader inspections, because we are confident in the peaceful nature of our program.”

 

Iran has no problem with increased oversight—within reason

“Iran fundamentally does not oppose more supervision or transparency, as long as it’s within internationally accepted norms. We are prepared to take such steps, provided that arbitrary or extralegal demands are not imposed. In return, we expect the unjust sanctions against us to be lifted.”

 

When asked about guarantees for sanctions relief in exchange for Iranian trust-building measures, Araghchi responded: “That’s precisely what the negotiations aim to achieve. We’re working on how to ensure reciprocal steps are implemented correctly and on time. We’ve learned from our past JCPOA experience.”

 

We will apply our past experience

“In the past, the U.S. broke its promises and eventually withdrew from the deal. This time, we will apply all those lessons to ensure any steps we take are matched by guarantees from the other side. We’re still not at that stage, as fundamental differences remain.”

 

If the U.S. insists on stopping enrichment, no deal will be made

“The American side has openly declared its fundamental opposition to enrichment in Iran. If that’s their aim, there will definitely be no agreement.”

 

If they try to deny the Iranian people the right to peaceful nuclear energy, there will be no agreement

“If they intend to strip Iran of its right to peaceful nuclear energy, there will be no deal. But if President Biden’s stated goal is to ensure Iran doesn’t pursue nuclear weapons, that’s absolutely achievable—because we have no intention of doing so. We faced similar opposition during the Obama administration. They resisted for months, but finally accepted our right to enrichment.”

 

Araghchi continued: “Even then, they tried to limit enrichment to symbolic levels, proposing a small chain of centrifuges just to say Iran was enriching. We rejected that approach firmly. Our goal is not decorative enrichment—it is industrial-scale enrichment. We’ve developed domestic technology, built infrastructure, and want to operate it as a real industry. After months of negotiations, they accepted it.”

We will stand against American overreach

“In any negotiation, extreme demands are not unusual at the beginning. Americans are known for such overreach, and we have resisted it—and will continue to resist. Their logic is flawed: they argue that enrichment can lead to weaponization, so enrichment must be banned. That’s like saying knife factories should be shut down because knives can be misused.”

 

We could have made a bomb—but chose not to

“If we had ever intended to build a nuclear weapon, we could have done it already. But we haven’t, because we don’t want to. A fatwa by the Supreme Leader forbids nuclear weapons, and our strategic and security doctrines have no place for them. Our decision is rooted in geopolitics and strategic reasoning.”

 

We’ve proven in practice we don’t seek nuclear weapons

“Despite facing sanctions, economic pressure, being referred to the Security Council, subjected to sabotage, and assassinations of our nuclear scientists—we never pursued nuclear weapons. Instead, we entered negotiations to show our goodwill.”

 

“We negotiated to secure our inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy and reached an agreement. But the other side withdrew and reimposed sanctions. Still, we did not move toward building a weapon. That clearly demonstrates the principled nature of our policy. Nuclear weapons have no place in our national security doctrine.”

 

Our nuclear facilities are not imported—they can’t be dismantled

“The claim that Iran must dismantle its enrichment facilities because it might pursue weapons someday is completely unrealistic. Our facilities are not imported equipment that can simply be boxed up and removed. This is a fully indigenous technology. Iranian scientists designed every stage—initial, intermediate, and final. The infrastructure is local. It’s like asking Iran to shut down its auto industry. Our nuclear industry is just as complex and established.”

 

Calling for a halt to enrichment is illegal, illogical, and impossible

“The demand to stop enrichment is not only illegal and irrational—it is completely unenforceable. Our stance is clear. We enter negotiations with this stance and do not fear talks. Negotiation does not mean retreat. Just as the other side defends its position, so do we.”

 

“Negotiation is like a battlefield where both sides bring their full strength and do not withdraw at the first challenge. This is a battle of wills, and we are bringing ours to the table.”

 

When asked whether continued talks mean the issue of enrichment is resolved, he replied: “No, the issue remains unresolved—but that’s no reason to stop negotiations.”

Diplomacy never ends completely

“As long as both sides believe a solution is possible, diplomacy continues. Oman is now mediating and has asked us to join a new round of talks in the hope that progress can be made.”

 

“I reminded Oman’s Foreign Minister, Mr. Busaidi—whom I thank for his efforts—that since the other side made its position public, I also responded publicly. I asked, ‘Is there still a reason to continue?’ He explained his view and insisted the talks go on. He shared messages from the other side, and we agreed to participate.”

 

On U.S.-Israel coordination and threats

Regarding reports of meetings between the CIA and Israeli officials about Iran, Araghchi said: “This isn’t surprising. We don’t consider the U.S. and Israel separate. We know they consult with each other. I sent letters today to the U.N. Secretary-General and the IAEA Director General, responding to media reports suggesting Israel may strike Iran’s nuclear sites if talks fail. That claim is ridiculous.”

 

We warned the U.S. about Israeli threats

“In my letter, I stressed that Iran will defend itself and is prepared to respond swiftly and decisively. If threats persist, we will be forced to take special protective measures for our facilities and materials. Those who need to understand what ‘special measures’ means will get the message. I also made clear that if Israel acts—even without direct U.S. involvement—we will hold the U.S. responsible.”

 

U.S.-Israel tactics are meant to extract leverage

“These moves are negotiation tactics aimed at gaining leverage. The U.S.-Israel meetings may be to coordinate or restrain Israel, which opposes diplomacy and has tried to push the U.S. toward war. So far, the U.S. has avoided that trap. Still, we don’t factor this into our plans. What matters is that we negotiate with the U.S.—indirectly—based on our principles.”

 

Conclusion: Enrichment is non-negotiable

Araghchi concluded: “We’ve repeatedly declared that enrichment in Iran is non-negotiable. Everyone acknowledges this. When the other side accepts this reality, negotiations can move forward. Until then, we are ready to engage and present our reasoning.”

 

“Some may declare their red lines publicly to pressure us into retreat. But as I said in my tweet right after their remarks: ‘Iran’s enrichment will continue—with or without an agreement.’ We will respond just as publicly and clearly.”

 

“This deadlock must be broken. Either the other side accepts that halting enrichment in Iran is impossible—or reconsiders its position. The talks will continue in this framework. Tomorrow, we’ll see whether they are ready to revise their stance.”

 

Snapback Could Push the Non-Proliferation Regime into Crisis

Regarding the possibility of European countries triggering the snapback mechanism, Iran’s Foreign Minister said: “The three European countries could, in October this year, activate the JCPOA’s dispute resolution mechanism in a way that would lead to the reimposition of previous UN sanctions and resolutions. While this is technically possible, it has given them the illusion of leverage they can use to enter the game. However, I believe this tool is ineffective for Europe, and the more they threaten to use the snapback, the more isolated they will become on the Iranian nuclear issue.”

 

Asked whether Europe can actually trigger the mechanism, he replied: “Perhaps they can. But first, it is not as though we would forfeit our rights just because they initiate snapback. The real impact is minimal. The main consequence would be that, from the moment they take such action, Europe will lose all its diplomatic leverage with Iran. I won’t go into specifics, but both European countries and others know exactly how we would respond if snapback is triggered.”

 

He emphasized that “Iran has repeatedly stated—across different administrations—that triggering snapback would lead the global non-proliferation regime into a serious crisis. I won’t detail what that means, but the regime would certainly face a new challenge that could affect many aspects of international affairs. Therefore, if Europe seeks a role in the ongoing dialogue between Iran and the U.S., it must abandon its confrontational posture. Unfortunately, they have recently adopted a more adversarial tone in foreign policy.”

 

Europe Is No Longer a Priority in Iran’s Foreign Policy

Araghchi also stated: “Europe is not a priority in Iran’s foreign policy. At the beginning of this administration, I presented our foreign policy agenda to Parliament, based on the Supreme Leader’s guidance. Our first priority is our neighbors, then those who stood by us during hard times—such as African countries, Latin America, and East Asia. Europe has no special position unless it changes its approach. So far, instead of easing their stance, they have intensified their hostile policies. If they truly want a role, they must abandon this confrontational strategy.”

 

On the arrest of Iranian nationals in the UK, he said: “These arrests, based on unfounded allegations, are part of a flawed game. Moves by France and Germany in this regard are also mistaken. We are closely monitoring all of this.”

 

He added: “We are open to separate negotiations with European countries, and if they engage with goodwill, we have no objection to dialogue. But they must not think that snapback is a sword hanging over our heads. If they try to wield it, they will have to deal with the consequences.”

 

Most Key Sanctions on Iran’s Economy Are Nuclear-Related

On U.S. officials’ claims that non-nuclear sanctions would remain in place, Araghchi explained: “The previous JCPOA negotiations only covered Iran’s nuclear program, so the lifting of sanctions was limited to nuclear-related ones. Back then, it was made clear that if we were to discuss removing missile-related sanctions, we’d need separate talks on that—and that wasn’t our objective. So, the scope was intentionally limited to nuclear issues.”

 

He continued: “Nearly all of the major sanctions affecting our economy—oil, banking, petrochemicals, transport, ports—are nuclear-related. We haven’t yet fully entered this phase, and we’re currently at a critical juncture. If we pass this stage in a way that aligns with the Islamic Republic’s preferences, the rest of the process might not be as difficult. If not, things will take a different turn. If we resolve this stage, particularly the issue of uranium enrichment, we can then move to the discussion of which sanctions to lift and how. That’s when we will need to get into the technical details.”

 

“Our position will be guided by the National Security Council’s directives, the Parliament’s Strategic Action Law, and of course, the nation’s interests.”

 

Too Early to Judge the Outcome of Talks

Asked whether the fifth round of negotiations has brought Iran closer to a deal, Araghchi said: “It’s still too early to judge. We will have a clearer picture tomorrow on whether progress has been made. At some point, the talks evolved to a point where technical discussions became useful. Experts were brought in, exchanges took place—still indirectly—but written questions and answers were exchanged. Some clarity was achieved, but we haven’t reached the drafting stage yet.”

 

Iran Ready to Join Nuclear Fuel Consortium

On the idea of a nuclear fuel consortium, Araghchi said: “A consortium typically means establishing a joint nuclear fuel production facility with shared ownership among several countries, possibly in one regional state. We are not opposed to the concept. If regional states are genuinely interested in cooperation, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to participate in such a project.”

Claim That Iran Doesn’t Need Nuclear Energy Is Ignorant

Responding to U.S. claims that Iran doesn’t need nuclear energy due to its oil and gas resources, Araghchi said: “This claim is repetitive and baseless. First, Iran’s nuclear program started before the revolution with American support. Their own pre-revolution studies concluded that Iran would need 20,000 megawatts of nuclear power for economic development. That was their recommendation to the previous regime. Now, the same people say we don’t need it? The U.S. Energy Secretary went to Saudi Arabia to discuss nuclear power. Saudi Arabia has vast oil and gas reserves—why would it pursue nuclear energy? The same goes for the UAE, which has built a nuclear plant despite being an oil-rich country. So the argument that Iran doesn’t need nuclear energy is rooted in ignorance and has lost credibility.”

 

“Nuclear energy has many advantages,” he added. “While there are risks, they are manageable, and clear safety standards exist. Moreover, nuclear power is one of the cleanest energy sources for the environment. Our Bushehr plant is currently operating safely and efficiently.”

 

Sanctions Relief Must Not Come at the Cost of National Dignity

When asked about Iran’s “Plan B” if talks fail, Araghchi replied: “That is a question they must answer. Iran’s nuclear program will continue. This is a highly advanced sector with applications in medicine, healthcare, agriculture, the environment, and power generation. We are currently working on reactor construction, heavy water production, and its various uses.”

 

He emphasized: “Sanctions are costly and burdensome—we’ve lived under them for over forty years. That doesn’t mean we welcome them. If we can lift sanctions, we must. As the Supreme Leader once said, if sanctions can be lifted, we shouldn’t delay for even an hour. But that must not come at the cost of national dignity or our achievements. If we can achieve sanctions relief while preserving our honor and accomplishments, we will; otherwise, the country will continue on its own path.”

 

A Genocide Is Unfolding in Gaza

On developments in the region and Israel’s actions in Gaza, Araghchi said: “What is happening has become a deep wound. The killings and atrocities committed by Israel have become so routine that the world is growing numb to them. This normalization is both disturbing and extremely dangerous.”