WANA (Oct 28) – The Secretary-General of the World Assembly of Islamic Awakening, Ali Akbar Velayati, criticized the United States for what he described as a lack of genuine interest in de-escalation. “Iran’s long and bitter experience in negotiating with the U.S. reveals they are untrustworthy,” Velayati said in an interview. He also addressed recent Israeli attacks on Iranian sites and broader regional dynamics.

 

Key Excerpts from the Interview

 

On Israel’s Attack on Iranian Military Sites

Velayati opened by commending Iran’s armed forces, saying, “I would like to thank all members of Iran’s military, especially the Army and the IRGC, for standing bravely against aggressors.” He dismissed Israel’s actions as futile, asserting that “Iran, with its deep-rooted history, has defenders among its own people.” He argued that Israel’s attack had damaged its own standing, even drawing criticism from its supporters, and called the strike “insignificant” given Iran’s ability to compromise Israel’s Iron Dome system.

 

Concerns About Broader Regional Conflict

When asked about the risk of a regional war involving Israel, Velayati replied, “Israel is too minor to engage directly with Iran, a regional and international power. However, it can ignite tensions in the Middle East, the world’s most sensitive region.” Velayati added that Iran and its allies are capable of maintaining stability, noting that “the Resistance forces are the only entities capable of curbing Israeli aggression.” He emphasized that Iran has never started a war but will respond decisively to any aggression to deter further hostilities.

The U.S. Approach to De-escalation

In response to inquiries about potential U.S. offers to reduce tensions, Velayati criticized the U.S. stance as duplicitous, arguing that “America supports Israel militarily and diplomatically while simultaneously sending regional intermediaries to claim they want to prevent further conflict.” He insisted that the U.S. approach—arming Israel while advocating for peace through intermediaries—reflects a contradictory policy that lacks credibility.

 

Iran’s Stance on Reopening Talks with the U.S.

Asked about the possibility of resuming talks with the U.S. on regional tensions and the nuclear issue, Velayati expressed skepticism, citing a history of broken promises. “America has shown no willingness to de-escalate,” he said, pointing to past experiences, particularly the Obama-era nuclear agreement (JCPOA) that was later dismissed by President Trump. This, he argued, exemplifies the inconsistency in U.S. policy toward Iran.

 

He recalled historical episodes, such as Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh’s efforts to nationalize Iran’s oil industry in the 1950s, only to see the U.S. and the U.K. collaborate to overthrow him through Operation Ajax. Velayati highlighted this as part of a pattern of foreign interference that ultimately led to oil exploitation by Western interests.

 

Impact of U.S. Elections on Iran’s Policy

Finally, Velayati remarked on how U.S. presidential transitions affect Iran’s perspective. “What Biden whispers, Trump shouts,” he said, underscoring Iran’s distrust in either party’s approach. He concluded that Iran remains cautious, having accumulated a long history of unsatisfactory interactions with the U.S., regardless of political party.