Question: As a first question, I would like to ask you, given the current circumstances and this new responsibility you have assumed, what critical duty rests upon the Supreme National Security Council? Since the challenges are diverse, one could even prioritize them, and despite these challenges, are there intended structural, methodological, or approach-related changes to be implemented in this regard, or not?
A. Larijani: In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. I must say the most important duty this council has is to manage the challenges in such a way that the outcome is a tranquil environment for the nation's development, and so that the people can have a predictable life. Because challenges always exist; today it might be war or other issues, yesterday it was other matters, there are regional issues, and there are international issues as well. Ultimately, the finesse in the realm of diplomacy and the conditions of the resistance forces and military forces must be their amalgamation so that the national interests of the country are secured, and in reality, a path of development or balanced progress is provided for the country and the state. Naturally, since we are currently engaged in a war and there is a temporary ceasefire, therefore, this is an important subject that we must pay attention to, and we must create capacities so that the enemy does not entertain the desire for renewed action; furthermore, this issue also brings in its wake peripherals of the kind such as nuclear issues, regional matters, and other issues.
Question: What are the council's measures for this preparedness? Perhaps it would be better to put it this way: presumably these days, individuals who somehow have access to you, their first question is whether there will be war again or not — that is the common question of the day — and after whether there will be war or not, the second question is how prepared are we for it?
A. Larijani: Answering this question is partly related to us, and partly related to the enemy, because not all affairs are in our hands; yet, the most important issue is to see, through the measures that can be taken, how war can be repelled. My conception is that several factors can be effective in this matter.
The first issue is national cohesion, just as in the twelve-day war the issue of national cohesion was truly very effective. The fact that Iranians in those days possessed a high level of understanding and correctly analyzed the enemy and adversary, and, despite all the differing views that existed, they accepted that they must defend Iran and Iran's interests is a very great intelligence. Of course, this must be safeguarded, meaning that the government, the nation, and everyone must strive for this solidarity and cohesion to be preserved. That is one point. During one of the trips we had, one of the leaders of a country said the world understood this national cohesion of the Iranians! Hence, this is a national asset, and its preservation and safeguarding have various factors which I do not wish to take your time with now.
The second point is that one of the important factors for endurance is that the people enjoy a minimum in life. It is true that there is war, but nevertheless, the management of people's livelihoods must be such that they can endure. This is one of the subjects we are currently discussing, and I think the government and Mr. President himself are also very committed and attentive to this issue and consider it a part of justice. Therefore, a foundation of the people's needs must be properly met, which is one way in non-war conditions, and another way in war conditions. This, too, is the second point which in my opinion must be provided for.
The next point is the preservation and enhancement of military capabilities and equipment. After all, we possessed good capabilities, which caused the enemy, despite having started the war itself, to struggle to end it. Now, it is true that abroad they propagandize that they were very successful, but almost all important countries and nations understood that our enemy suffered a strategic defeat in this war, for which there are certainly various reasons. This issue is beneficial for Iran and at the same time can be tempting for the enemy, because an enemy that has not been strategically successful will naturally seek to somehow achieve success once again. How can they be disillusioned? The country's military and security capabilities, and some of the shortcomings that existed in our work, must be resolved. Therefore, a portion of our time will be spent on identifying where our shortcomings were, seeing them with precision and realism, and then resolving the shortcomings and strengthening our capabilities. So this is another part of the tasks.
Certainly, one part of the tasks is also international and regional interactions, and the balances that can be created, meaning more precise dialogues on the international stage — outside the usual conventions where formalities are abundant — must be a part of our work.
My genuine recommendation is that attention be paid within the country to this point: Our war has not yet concluded; both political currents and individuals who have a platform must be mindful that we are in a critical situation. Of course, Iran's deterrence capacity is also very high. I am not saying an active war currently exists, but we must know that a war has started and this war has currently only resulted in a ceasefire; therefore, we must be prepared and preserve our solidarity.
Ultimately, one of the important points in this war was the strategic guidance of the Leadership. From the very first day, His Eminence followed the issues with great precision, provided strategic counsel, appointed commanders, monitored the war, and spoke with the people. Therefore, in these conditions, this guide must be fully supported, for which the rational aspect is also very strong. Individuals may have differing opinions on a range of political subjects, but when we are in a major crisis, our support for the person who is the leader and is, in reality, steering the war must be strong. Hence, we must not create friction. I believe this is part of the crucial understanding of the exigencies of the time. I am not saying differing views do not exist. There may be many differing views in society, politicians may have differences, parties may have differences, but the issue is that one must not be inattentive to the conditions of the time and place and the situation in which the people find themselves, as these can sometimes create frictions that make the enemy eager to launch operations against us. Therefore, this dimension is also important in my view and must be attended to.
Question: Is it possible for the Supreme National Security Council to also engage with issues in this regard in some manner?
A. Larijani: The Supreme National Security Council has always had mechanisms in this field and has also passed resolutions; therefore, it is not necessary to have a new resolution now, as it existed before and I am aware that in past days they also did work in this direction. That is, the important thing is for this mechanism to carry out its activity — to have communication with experts, journalists, and writers and brief them. We used to hold these sessions in the past as well and would explain the situation to them. Of course, I think this intellectual maturity exists in most of these individuals as well. When the conditions are properly outlined for them, they make well-founded decisions.
Question: Dr. Larijani! Although the enemy suffered a strategic defeat in this war, we too had voids in the tactical and practical fields regarding military matters and some other issues. Since the system's program in this regard is concentrated within the Supreme National Security Council, perhaps the public opinion now desires, to the extent possible, to receive a report on what is happening to fill these security, military, defensive, and media voids before the next round of potential conflict — if it lies ahead.
A. Larijani: In the defense dimension, an important decision was made in the Supreme National Security Council, which was the establishment of the Defense Council. This Defense Council is an ancillary body of the Supreme National Security Council, and its duty is solely the issue of defense and resolving the shortcomings of the armed forces and strategizing in these matters, for which its mechanism has been prepared and they are engaged in work. One of its sessions has also been held and matters are being followed up in an orderly fashion. In this vein, the Armed Forces General Staff has undertaken certain duties and is pursuing them, the Ministry of Defense is active in supplying needs, and everyone is busy, especially the Commander of the IRGC and the Aerospace Commander. Everyone is striving to resolve the shortcomings we observed in this path, as much as possible. And particularly, the capacity of experts and talented, specialized youth is also being utilized well. Within the secretariat, because we have truly entered the era of modern warfare, we have established a Technology Deputy in the defense dimension which focuses on this subject and they are engaged in work. Therefore, we have initiated measures in this field and I personally am very hopeful, because many specialized forces from the universities have connected with this process.
Question: If possible, could you elaborate on this matter a bit more concretely and in greater detail?
A. Larijani: For example, suppose in the domain of air defense and radar systems we had some deficiencies. They are now focused on these matters and are working on them, or likewise, some issues related to these topics. Of course, it is not necessary for me to divulge all the intricate details now, just know that in general, this is the procedure of the work. Certainly, we also had many strengths in this war in the missile dimension and the like, which, well, broke the enemy's back. Therefore, these must continue to be strengthened, and work is being done in this area as well. So, the defense dimension is being followed up, and God willing, it will also be good, meaning its outlook, praise God, is positive.
Question: In this regard, has the subject of procuring new equipment also been discussed?
A. Larijani: Yes, that has been discussed as well. Ultimately, our reliance is more on domestic matters, but we also utilize assistance from others.
Another dimension is the resolution of shortcomings that have existed in the security sectors, and sessions are also being held in this regard. This is a shortcoming that absolutely must be resolved. Of course, it is not only an aspect of human resources. That is, for instance, when we say "infiltration," one should not imagine that human agents are necessarily involved. Yes, that also exists — I'm not saying it doesn't — but there are other factors as well.
Question: Incidentally, I wanted to mention that one of the ambiguities and challenges for our domestic public opinion, to which an appropriate response has not been given and which has also been exploited by enemy propaganda, is that a transparent report on the extent and depth of "infiltration" is not provided to our own people and our public opinion. I don't know if it is possible for the country's security official to speak more specifically on this subject or not; if it is possible, please elaborate on this a bit.
A. Larijani: Of course, it is not necessary to go into minute detail, as it could certainly be harmful, but these cases must definitely be followed up. The important thing is that attention has been paid to this issue and it is being pursued. However, the initial perception is that the entire issue is about those agents who are, for example, present on the street or elsewhere and give information to the enemy, whereas it is not like that. That is, when you look at the scene of infiltration, you realize that new technologies and the significant intersection of information can help foreign services far beyond this. Therefore, technological mastery over information can greatly assist in this field, and this aspect is the greater part of the issue. Thus, what others do is not just sending human resources to the other side; that belongs to the old method — which, of course, also exists, it's not that it doesn't — but more importantly, intelligence services can derive certain insights from the totality of information they obtain and its intersection, and make the best use of them for operations. Therefore, much more attention must be paid to this dimension of the matter.
Question: And certainly, part of our voids is also media narratives.
A. Larijani: Overall, I do not consider the state of Iranian media to be bad; meaning, many are working hard in this field, writing articles, and speaking on radio, television, and other platforms. Given that this war was an unforeseen and, to an extent, surprise and ungentlemanly war for everyone — meaning it was accompanied by deception — we must accept that our media sector also suffered an immediate shock at that time, but it came to its senses and, in reality, began to act.
However, the important issue now is to both increase our media capacities and make them more technical. I think our media behavior is a bit flat and this is not very effective. That is, the audience needs to receive short, precise, packaged information that they require. Of course, I am not saying it is always like this. They might also listen to an extensive and lengthy topic if they find it engaging, but generally, they prefer short segments.
Another significant part of it is the honesty of the message. Everyone accepts that due to security issues, one cannot say everything, but one must not say things that are untrue either. The people must definitely feel that the media are not lying, are not stating falsehoods. You might say we cannot discuss some matters right now. Well, say "We cannot discuss this now," and everyone will accept that. But if you state falsehoods, you lose credibility. This must be the guiding principle. Especially in war conditions, just as the people rely on the Leadership to advance the objectives, they must also rely on the media in terms of truthfulness, so that they can accept the exigencies of the time and adjust themselves accordingly.
Question: Dr. Larijani! Presumably, you have had and continue to have meetings with the Leader of the Revolution during this period. I want to ask you, in your first meeting and first session with His Eminence after assuming this new responsibility and post, what was and is His Eminence's most important request of you?
A. Larijani: His primary request was that, in general, we should make every effort to ensure the national interests of the country are properly safeguarded and that we achieve enduring security — which, of course, is a broad subject encompassing various domestic, regional, and international issues. His view is fundamentally that this should be pursued with steadfastness, endurance, and firmness. His conduct is also the same. Throughout the period of this war, I never witnessed the slightest hesitation in him regarding the path he is treading.
Question: Did you have communication with him during that period as well?
A. Larijani: Yes, I had communication, and his guidance reached us completely. We also had some sessions. We consistently sent our views to him, and the feedback also reached us and it was entirely evident. Now, after the war, our communications are even more frequent.
He treads his path with great assurance, and this conduct of his is very similar to that of the Imam [Khomeini]. When the Imam was in Paris, the late Martyr Motahhari had gone once to visit him and spent a few days in his presence. When he returned, I and this same Mr. Ali Motahhari went together to the airport to pick him up. On the way, we asked him how he found the Imam. He said that he found him to be a believer in the path, a believer in the people, a believer in God, and one who relies on God. He later included this point in a book [The Future of the Islamic Revolution of Iran] as well, stating that he had four beliefs: belief in the goal, belief in the path, belief in the nation, and belief in God. In these current affairs, I have witnessed such a state in His Eminence Ayatollah Khamenei. That is, his steps are taken with complete assurance, and well, this is a characteristic of leaders who traverse the divine path and are goal-oriented.
Question: Well, let's move to another atmosphere. As you yourself made a passing reference to, we were in the midst of negotiations when the enemy practically bombed the negotiating table, and therefore, certainly our perspective and approach to negotiations in the current conditions is different from before June 13 [the date of the attack]. In your opinion, can diplomacy still function under these circumstances, and if so, under what conditions?
A. Larijani: My recommendation has always been that Iran should never abandon diplomacy, because diplomacy itself is a tool. His Eminence the Leader also stated once that you should always keep the flag of negotiation raised. This is completely correct. In reality, diplomacy is one part of the government's work, and it makes no sense to abandon it. What is important is when and how we use it. If the enemy turns the diplomatic scene into a scene of theater and display, nothing will come of this diplomacy. Or if their intention is to use diplomacy to justify another action, well it is obvious that diplomacy per se was not their focus, and in reality, they did not intend to use it. But if diplomacy is for the purpose that we gain no benefit from war and now want to make peace, then this is the place for diplomacy, and this is real diplomacy. I do not see the current conditions this way. That is, I feel the diplomacy they are engaged in is a diplomacy for creating pretexts. But at the same time, we must not say we are cutting off diplomacy.
As for what the conditions for negotiation should be, for instance, and when it bears fruit: Negotiation bears fruit when the opposing side understands that war has no utility and, for example, wants to resolve issues through the path of negotiation. But if they want to use negotiation as a pretext for another operation, well this is not a proper negotiation. Therefore, our condition in this field is to engage in real negotiation. If you are seeking war, go and do your work; whenever you regret it, come for negotiation. But if you have truly reached the conclusion that you cannot subdue this resilient and resistant nation through war — all that nonsense they talk about having to apply pressure until Iran surrenders, to which the Leadership also responded, and in this war they also realized that “Iranians are not a people who surrender” — this is the condition for engaging in real negotiation.
Question: Dr. Larijani! What will the Islamic Republic’s outlook be regarding the Resistance groups and the Axis of Resistance after the twelve-day war? You made a trip to Iraq and also a trip to Lebanon. Right now, heavy pressure is being exerted on Hezbollah in Lebanon, insisting that it lays down its arms —something the Israelis could not achieve through direct military engagement! On the other hand, within the international media sphere, there is an analysis that the groups the Islamic Republic supported as the Axis of Resistance are being weakened.
A. Larijani: Well, if they have been weakened, why do they [the enemies] insist on it so much and apply pressure? If they have been weakened, then so be it. Pressure is usually applied where something is strong. When it is weak, it’s just weak. In my opinion, this is one of those strange arguments. If we go back to the media, say, four or five years ago and before these events, the discussion of weakening wasn’t present then, right? But look at what they used to say about the Resistance and Iran’s relationship with it: They said Iran is making a mistake, these groups are nothing, and they are all a cost for Iran! Their rhetoric predominantly was that these are not important, Iran is pointlessly expending itself on them, and that they are not a significant force at all! Now they say the Axis of Resistance has been weakened, but back then, when in their view it wasn’t weak, they said the same thing with different rhetoric. Now they also say they are weak. Well, if they are weak, leave them alone, let them be. Why do you scheme so much against them?
In my opinion, they [the enemy] have caused a great deal of trouble for themselves and for the people of the region in these past two years. They killed people, wounded people, created hunger for people. These are the crimes of a regime that has no red lines for itself, does anything, and the Western world has accepted this savagery of theirs.
Then, the question is: You who claim to have destroyed Hamas, why are you now afraid to take Gaza? You killed and martyred people, you starved people, but you could not destroy Hamas. Why isn’t it being destroyed? It’s in their own hands. That is, when you kill and eliminate people, these people have families, they have youth; you push them into a position where they must confront you. When did Hezbollah come into existence? Hezbollah came into existence when Israel came and outright took Beirut. When it took Beirut, well, in principle, which country’s people are prepared to accept the dominion and occupation of another country? Therefore, a number of youth said we must defend ourselves, and this became the core of Hezbollah. Now they say Iran created Hezbollah! No, they themselves created Hezbollah through their own actions. Yes, we helped. We don’t lie, we say we helped, and we still help, but the essence of Hezbollah was created by the Lebanese nation themselves, and it became an asset for them; meaning, a small country was able to resist against Israel.
It's the same with Hamas. When you came and took a country, and then said you [Palestinians] have no standing, you must give your lands to others, well, the people will stand against you. The same situation arose in Iraq. When the Americans came and occupied Iraq, Resistance movements emerged, because you occupied and oppressed the people, and with that foolish behavior their soldiers had. Why did the Resistance emerge in Yemen? The Houthis have always existed and had disputes with the government, but when they started bombing Yemen, well, they said then we must resist, and the Resistance movement took shape.
Therefore, Resistance is created by their own behavior, and the more pressure they apply, the deeper the Resistance becomes. They say they have, for example, struck blows. Yes, they struck blows, that’s true. They struck blows to Hezbollah, but the question is: Did Hezbollah rebuild itself or not? They had so many young, dedicated forces that they began to rebuild themselves. This Mr. Brzezinski, who was once the US National Security Advisor, has a book — he even cites some poems by artists there and references them — in which he says we are facing a phenomenon in the Middle East, and that is the political awareness of the youth and their hatred toward America. Then he gives an example, saying a Senegalese poet wrote a poem like this. This is a reality. When the Americans apply pressure and say their theory is “peace through force,” what does “peace through force” mean? What is its meaning? Translate that on the ground.
Question: It means surrender.
A. Larijani: Either surrender or war. Which free person would accept this surrender? And then that Netanyahu, who is even more foolish than him [Trump], repeats it and says I hold the same view! Now he wants to insert himself into that scene. Well, it yields that result, and it also yields this result that when Netanyahu says, as a small regime, he wants to create peace through force, he is telling the countries of the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, or Kuwait, that all of you must either surrender to me or go to war! Well, this puts everyone on edge, and therefore the current condition of the region is such that everyone has a defensive stance toward Israel. Of course, they may have differences of opinion with us as well — I’m not saying they think like us — but they are opposed to Israel’s behavior and understand that Iran is a barrier against it. Well, that is one point. Therefore, in my opinion, the Resistance is both alive and moving.
Question: Is the policy of the Islamic Republic after the twelve-day war the same previous policy of supporting and strengthening the Resistance movement?
A. Larijani: Look! There is no doubt that decisions must always be made proportionate to the time, but the Islamic Republic will always support the Resistance because it considers it an authentic movement and an asset. Have they [the enemies] given up on Israel? Has America given up on Israel now? It still supports Israel. If Iran does not support the existing capacities — those for whom we say we support the interests of Islam and are sympathetic to Iran — it would be a form of political foolishness. Iran must utilize its own capacities. When the enemy uses all its capacities, big and small, why shouldn’t we use our capacities?
I have seen that sometimes they say the Resistance hasn’t done anything for us! In reality, they want to work on your mind and imply to you that these groups are, for example, a burden on you and are costly for you. So abandon them; peace can be made. Just recently, I was speaking with one of these world leaders who is currently also a member of the Security Council. I said, for what purpose did you establish these international regulations? When they attack us and you, who are members of the Security Council, do nothing, then what are these international regulations for? He said these regulations are nonsense, because the international arena means power! That’s how it is. If you do not safeguard your powers, you will be harmed. It’s a very bad thing. The international arena is like this. It’s like a jungle, but it is a reality that exists. Now, whether you want to accept it or not, if you don’t accept it, you will be harmed more.
Therefore, you must strengthen your elements of power. Domestically, your people are important. You must have the people, have their cohesion, meet their needs, be a friend to the people, not speak to them authoritatively, and be able to understand their feelings. In the region, you also have capabilities. Be united with your capabilities in the region. To think that, for example, Hezbollah or the Resistance forces are a burden on us is a strategic mistake. In my opinion, they need our help just as we must make use of their help, because creating isolation is not in the interest of Iran’s national security either.
Question: During your trip to Lebanon, you also met with Sheikh Naim Qassem. Could you speak a bit less diplomatically and more broadly about that trip and the meetings you had, and what your assessment is of the revival and reorganization of Hezbollah?
A. Larijani: I have spoken on this matter before as well. I truly found the forces of Hezbollah and its leader to be very determined in their path. Now, too, the Hezbollah leadership cadre and their youth are all determined. At the reception ceremony or at the memorial site of Martyr Nasrallah where we spoke to them, you saw that generation — which was, of course, just a glimpse of it; no one had invited them, rather they had come themselves. This is their spirit; they feel they are being wronged, and therefore they have pledged their lives to the defense of Lebanon. Now, a group comes and says you must go and surrender! Surrender to what? Surrender to whom? [So,] they are upset.
Our position has always been that they should resolve their issues themselves through a national dialogue, and we still hold to this principle. Of course, we have never imposed anything on the Resistance forces. Now they say these groups are connected to Iran. Yes, they are connected, because they are our brothers, not in the sense that they are our subordinates. Our method is fundamentally not like that, and we believe they themselves possess a maturity and can make decisions. The difference between Iran’s behavior and that of others lies precisely in this point. Their strategy is that you either surrender to us or go to war, but our view is that you must respect their intellectual growth. We say not only must we be strong, but the region must also be independent and strong. The government of Lebanon must be strong; the government of Iraq must be strong; the government of Saudi Arabia must be strong. We do not say these should be subordinate and we should be dominant. We are not seeking domination; we accept a fraternal behavior and wise cooperation, and we believe in independent and powerful governments in the region.
We always support the Resistance, and the strategy of the Islamic Republic is to support the Resistance.
Question: If you agree, let’s move to the issue of nuclear energy. You have extensive prior experience regarding the nuclear dossier and dealing with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). What is your assessment of the Agency’s performance in these recent events and during this war, and please elaborate on what program the Islamic Republic has for dealing with this matter in various aspects, including interaction with the Agency and even legal pursuits?
A. Larijani: To the best of my knowledge, since the time of Mr. ElBaradei and his successor generation up to this current gentleman [Rafael Grossi], the Agency has never been in such a destructive state as it is today! That is, a modicum of reason used to govern them. It’s true they operate under Western domination, but they also observed international norms to some extent. This individual seems to have given a blank check to the Zionist enemy and America. He was an instigator in this war issue. The safeguards regulations state that the Agency must defend countries that are members of the NPT, must immediately convene a Board of Governors meeting and take the result to the Security Council. It is shameful that he stood by and watched and didn’t even condemn! Does such a person deserve to be the Director-General of the Agency? When Mr. ElBaradei was there, he acted very wisely. After all, international pressure is always on them, but with a certain tact, he somewhat preserved the dignity of a professional center. Now I’m not saying one hundred percent, but he observed it to a degree so that at least its appearance was such that it generally showed they were conducting expert assessments. This person has completely let go and surrendered. The war is the ultimate act. They waged war on us, bombed our nuclear sites, and the Agency didn’t even issue a statement condemning it! It is truly disgraceful.
In my opinion, first they must do something about this Agency itself — what is its utility? Now countries are truly asking what use the Agency is. We are members of the NPT; what benefit is there for us to work with the Agency? I am not saying we should withdraw from the NPT. I am saying this is a logical question for our people and for all countries.
Question: Is withdrawal from the NPT one of the options for the Islamic Republic?
A. Larijani: This assumption always exists. Of course, I am not saying anyone is doing this now, because this itself must be done with strategy, and we must see if it has utility. We are not pursuing a bomb. If a country is pursuing a bomb, well, it should not accept the NPT. When it is not pursuing a bomb, it should accept the NPT, and there is no reason not to. But the reality is that the NPT has had no utility for us.
Look! Whenever you act with power in the face of these matters, your work progresses — the international arena is like that — but if you think that, for example, in the diplomatic arena, a problem is solved by being conciliatory, no, such a thing does not exist. If you have power, your work progresses. Therefore, Iran must pursue power.
Question: What is the translation of this statement into our current nuclear policy?
A. Larijani: Its translation into our nuclear policy is that you never remove negotiation from the table, but you do not surrender in negotiation either. Rather, you present rational solutions. I am not saying there should be no flexibility, but flexibility should be exercised where their intention is to solve the problem. For instance, His Eminence [the Leader] once also spoke of “heroic flexibility.” This is for when the other side also wants to do this, but if the other side says you must surrender, here one must not surrender, one must stand firm.
Question: Dr. Larijani! In the coming weeks, we are facing the issue of the snapback mechanism, discussions of which started several months ago. In the snapback mechanism affair, the Europeans play the main role and are employing it as a tool of threat against Iran. What is your assessment of this tool and the behavior of the Europeans in this regard?
A. Larijani: The behavior of the Europeans is clear — what they are doing requires no assessment and is more obvious than the sun. They are carrying out a part of America’s operation, but there is disagreement on this matter. Many countries, like Russia and China, have even issued statements and believe that this snapback mechanism was established for when one of the parties is not adhering to the JCPOA provisions. Who has not adhered? They bombed our facilities. So, why are you employing the snapback mechanism against us? From the perspective of observing international law, the scene is utterly tragic. There is a poem that says, “The arrow of your eyelashes, from behind the glasses / struck my brother’s heart, and killed me!” Meaning one person did the deed, but they are punishing another. The international arena is truly a strange thing, and such sorrowful events occur within it. Therefore, there is disagreement.
Another point of disagreement is that if you want to use the snapback mechanism, you cannot immediately go to the Security Council. You must first submit your request, there is a panel of experts, then a ministerial panel, then these must be evaluated, then it goes to the Security Council. They went straight to the Security Council!
The next point is that, well, America has withdrawn. Now how many remain? Six remain: Iran, Russia, China, and three European countries. Well, that makes three against three. How do you intend to decide? If there were seven countries, a majority would make sense, but now it’s three against three. That is, if they want to act by the rules, it’s not that simple.
The logical path was to resolve the issue through negotiation, but they want to resolve it through pressure. Pressure also comes in two forms: One is the American method, which was bombing, and the other is their method, which is waving this [snapback] over our heads, saying either we do this or else! But that is what is in the text. Hence, there is disagreement on that.
Question: Dr. Larijani! You also have a history regarding the matter of strategic cooperation and agreement with China. In the current conditions, how is our relationship with China and Russia, and how is it progressing? Now some discussions are also raised — though I don’t want to judge now — that they, for instance, did not appear as they should have in this war. I would like your own assessment of what situation we are in regarding relations with these two countries and in what direction we are moving.
A. Larijani: Overall, our relations with these two countries are good, and we have very good political interactions with them, very good trade interactions, and we also have military cooperation and security cooperation. Countries work with us based on their specific strategies, and we do the same. That is, in my opinion, one should not expect every country to work with us exactly as we want. Everyone has their own considerations for their cooperation process and does so within a certain framework.
Well, when Western countries don’t work with us, what should we do? Those who say we shouldn’t work with these [China/Russia], do they believe we should stand alone? Well, when the West doesn’t work with us, we work with China, and we work with other countries. Now, because they [the West] acted so high and mighty in their relations with us, we went and established strategic relations with these [China/Russia], and in fairness, they have cooperated with us. After all, during this period of sanctions, we worked with these very countries and our neighboring countries. In the world of politics, there are as many solutions as there are countries. It is not such that the Westerners feel if they, for example, threaten Iran, the Iranians will lose their minds and say, “We beg you; we surrender, please!” Well, Iran will go and find another way.
And I think Iran did the right thing by utilizing neighbors, utilizing other countries, and practically managed to somewhat resolve the sanctions problem. I am not saying all dimensions of the sanctions were eliminated, as it naturally has effects on our economy as well, but nevertheless, one must not sit idle — they pressure us and we do nothing. Therefore, the decisions the country has taken seem correct to me. Now, it’s possible that one country has worked with us less, and another country has worked with us more.
Question: A perception existed in the year leading up to the war, it was raised again toward the end of the war, and now that we are somewhat distanced from the war, whispers of it are returning regarding how coordinated and compatible diplomacy and the battlefield are, and whether they are pushing a single project forward or if each is pulling the rope toward itself. I would like to know Mr. Larijani’s opinion on this matter.
A. Larijani: These two concepts are not separate at all; rather, they are all elements of national power.
Question: In the past year, the perception was that, for instance, diplomacy desired one thing, while the battlefield desired something else regarding the approach and manner of confronting Israel.
A. Larijani: This is exactly what I want to say. These are not two separate affairs to say that diplomacy per se wants certain things and the battlefield wants others. Countries that pursue their national power, in reality, always view all of these together and even see the economy within them as well. Well, naturally, they balance these. They say, for example, we take this step here because it is necessary for our national power — diplomacy, you do this; the battlefield, you do this; the economy, do this; culture, do this. Therefore, the main action or dynamic is movement toward national interests and national power, and its manifestation in the battlefield, its manifestation in diplomacy, its manifestation in the economy, and its manifestation in culture and society are defined accordingly. A successful country is one that, when it defines its main dynamic in the realm of national power and intends to take the correct step, correctly presents its translation into these arenas and defines its steps in a timely manner.
Question: For us, these have been coordinated?
A. Larijani: They have always been coordinated, and they are coordinated now as well. We have no problem in this regard, and they move in lockstep with each other. Especially since the main duty of the Supreme National Security Council is precisely these — to see if a matter is necessary for national security, what diplomacy should do, what the battlefield should do, what the economic domain should do. In the constitution, the Supreme National Security Council is the place where the domains of economy, defense, and diplomacy must be viewed together. Hence, the composition of the Supreme National Security Council members includes all elements of the military, economy, foreign, and domestic policy.
Question: Dr. Larijani! What is your assessment of the recent agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the United States? Could this be threatening for us? What are our potential measures regarding this issue?
A. Larijani: Overall, this falls under a larger design that is not only about Iran; it falls under the extensive utilization of Central Asia and the Caucasus, regarding which the US, NATO, and the like certainly also have a devious outlook. It is also a form of pressure on Russia, and pressure on us as well. However, the question is whether this action can create geopolitical suffocation for Iran or not. This depends on what relationship we have with this issue. To the extent that the Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia contacted me and explained — and they contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and contacted the President and explained — I am not saying their action was precise or not, they could have acted more precisely, but their point is that they conducted a commercial deal and want to provide a number of different routes to smooth this path, and they by no means intend to cut off the North-South route. Of course, this must be documented. These verbal assurances over the phone do not provide sufficient guarantee. But if this is documented and an agreement is reached, it cannot create geopolitical suffocation for us. That is one thing, and this is another. But if it becomes an obstacle, it can. So it depends on how this phenomenon is handled, and this is precisely the discussion currently ongoing between us and them.
Question: So, this event unfolding on the ground is not, in and of itself, considered an inherent threat to us?
A. Larijani: Yes, in and of itself, it may not be a threat now, provided that action is taken [to document it]. Of course, it always requires some vigilance as well. I’m not saying there is none.
Question: Within the analytical framework of the Islamic Republic, how do you currently define an instance of geopolitical suffocation in that region that would lead us to say if this happens, we are opposed to it?
A. Larijani: Geopolitical suffocation in this part is such that, at this juncture, your route to Armenia is cut off. If your route is cut off and you have no access, then suffocation in this context is correct. But the explanations Armenia is providing to Iran do not indicate this. If that suffocation were to occur, we must definitely counter it, but so far, their explanations indicate that this subject is not on the table. Of course, this needs to be made much more precise, and I think the President’s trip there will clarify this issue to a great extent.
Question: The relationship we have with one of our neighboring countries and the nature of our interactions, given the rumors about its cooperation with the Israelis in the military aggression against our country, is somewhat questionable for the public opinion. If possible, please provide an explanation on this matter.
A. Larijani: If it had cooperated with Israel, that would certainly not have been something we expected.
Question: So, has the Islamic Republic now reached the certainty that it cooperated with the Israelis during the twelve-day war?
A. Larijani: We have had no evidence in this regard so far. Look! We must speak based on documentation. Some make claims, but they must provide us with precise references. We still have no reference. The government of Azerbaijan itself explicitly states that no such thing occurred, and we also still have no evidence to place on the table. Furthermore, please note that the country of Azerbaijan is a Muslim neighboring nation and is very close to us in terms of cultural ties and is our friend. Now, it may have differences of opinion with us in some areas, just as there are countries in our southern regions that have these relations. Of course, in our friendships with countries, we certainly pay attention to this factor as well. Friendship is also a matter of degree; you can be friends with a country in many areas, and in many areas, for various reasons, you can establish a certain order. Even major countries like Russia and China, with whom we have relations, have ties with Israel, but in this matter, we are pursuing our own interests. We must accept that in today’s world, this plurality exists, and the perception we have of the Zionist regime is not shared by many countries. Of course, some do share this perception — for example, Iraq and some other countries — and think like us.
Question: My question was not about their perspective; it was about them being the origin of anti-security actions against us.
A. Larijani: This is always potentially possible, but it has not been the case now. That is, the explanations provided by the government of Azerbaijan have not indicated that they took action against us. At the very least, we currently have no strong evidence in the Security Council on this matter, and we also believe that the government of Azerbaijan, which is a neighboring, Muslim, and friendly government, would not do this. Based on our investigations so far, we have no reference in this regard. If one day we find something, then we must act differently, but for now, we have no proof and cannot act on baseless claims.
Question: Dr. Larijani, regarding the previous discussion, it seems the snapback mechanism will be executed, and they will trigger it. In that case, what will Iran’s response be?
A. Larijani: In this regard, internal reviews are currently underway, and to the best of my knowledge, some countries are also making efforts for negotiations to prevent this from happening. Russia and China also have a different position and are opposed.
Question: If they propose an extension, will Iran accept it?
A. Larijani: There is disagreement on this. Our view is not for that. Some countries have made this proposal, but Iran does not subscribe to it. It believes this would become a new arrangement where periodically they come and say, “well, now six months have passed,” and next time it becomes a year. We had an agreement that it was supposed to be concluded within ten years. It is not accepted that, so to speak, they go back on their word and add to it again. Iran truly does not subscribe to this. Of course, some internally have said it might be good to accept, for example, these six months, but overall, we do not accept this.
Question: So, the Security Council has not yet made a decision on this?
A. Larijani: No, there are pathways for this issue in the Security Council that must be followed. As I mentioned, there is disagreement regarding the manner of using the snapback mechanism, and major countries also have this disagreement. If it goes to the Security Council, that itself is a place for debate. There they can decide whether to activate it or not.
Question: Well, if this happens, what is the Islamic Republic’s strategy for this issue? It seems this is the worst possible scenario!
A. Larijani: Well, we will strategize then as well. You are considering the worst-case scenario, but we still have time until then.
Question: In conclusion, if you think there is a point that needs to be added, please state it yourself.
A. Larijani: My genuine belief is that in the current conditions, the focus of all of us must be on addressing the needs of the people. This is the most important issue that is painful for us right now. In my opinion, solutions also exist. Determination must be mustered. The fact that people in the country, for instance, face problems in meeting their basic needs is more agonizing than anything else and must be resolved. Now, there are also issues like problems with electricity and gas, etc., which are solvable. Focus must be applied. We must not allow our factories to lie dormant. When factories lie dormant, it means your national wealth declines. This should not be happening in Iran now. Currently, the government is also working in these dialogues with countries to be able to resolve these challenges and imbalances. Perhaps this point [addressing the needs of the people] is the focal point on which we all must concentrate our efforts. Of course, the greater burden of work lies on the government and the Majlis [Iranian parliament]. We also handle the national security aspect of it, but we are concerned because this undermines the people’s endurance.
(The views expressed in this interview are interviewee’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Khamenei.ir.)
Comment