Imam Khamenei stated on September 23, 2025, that, "The reason we say negotiations aren’t to our benefit and have no advantage for us is because the US side has previously specified the outcome of the negotiations in advance. It has declared that it will only accept negotiations, it wants to enter negotiations, where the outcome will be an end to nuclear activities and enrichment in Iran. This means we would sit at the negotiating table with the US, only for the result of our talks to be precisely what they’ve already decreed must be done. This isn’t negotiations; it’s dictating the outcome. It’s imposition."
On this occasion, KHAMENEI.IR has conducted an interview with Dr. Kamal Kharrazi (Head of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations), examining the principles governing the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic by reviewing past experiences, and explaining the lessons and insights from the 12-Day War.
The following is the full text of the interview:
Interviewer: The Leader of the Islamic Revolution has stated the three principles of "Dignity," "Wisdom," and "Expediency" as fundamental principles in any negotiation. Please share your perspective and analysis regarding these three principles and the viewpoint of Imam Khamenei in this regard.
Kamal Kharrazi: In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. You know that one of the components of power is a country's defense capability. Another component is a country's strong diplomacy. Of course, the country's economic situation and the people's satisfaction and support are also very important components for a country to be able to fully defend its rights. Therefore, diplomacy is a necessity, and throughout history, diplomacy has been used to resolve a country's issues and problems. Even during the time of the revered Prophet of Islam, we see that diplomacy was pursued by dispatching a group of Muslims to Abyssinia and through letters written by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to the leaders of other countries. Therefore, what is important is the principles upon which diplomacy is based and the Leader of the Islamic Revolution has stated the three principles of "Dignity," "Wisdom," and "Expediency” in this regard.
If in our diplomacy we strive to convince the other side based on logic and sound reasoning, then in reality, the principle of "Wisdom" has been observed. When we avoid doing anything that tarnishes the country's dignity or makes the nation feel humiliated, the principle of "Dignity" has been observed. At the same time, he has also mentioned "Expediency"; because in dialogues with other countries, it may naturally be necessary to show some flexibility to reach a result, and that too based on a "win-win" agreement; meaning both sides, while agreeing, must observe the principle of "equality" to reach an outcome. We observed this in recent events as well, before the war; because firstly, accepting negotiations indirectly was itself indicative of "Wisdom."
Interviewer: Before the Zionist regime attacked Iran, we had five rounds of indirect negotiations with the Americans, and the sixth round was scheduled for Sunday, two days after the attack. In your opinion, what achievement did this acceptance and going to the table for indirect negotiations with the Americans have for Iran? In fact, these several rounds of negotiations largely neutralized the American tactic of "portraying Iran as the culprit" for refusing to negotiate. What is your analysis in this regard?
Kamal Kharrazi: This was precisely why the Leader of the Islamic Revolution agreed to indirect negotiations, because from the beginning there were doubts about whether the Americans truly wanted serious negotiations based on the principles governing political negotiation.
Interviewer: In any case, Trump had sent a letter, and it seems a process was followed and consultations were held. Please explain how the system reached the conclusion to ultimately start indirect negotiations?
Kamal Kharrazi: Well, you see, when a negotiation is set to begin, the principles of that negotiation must be decided somewhere. These are decided in the Supreme National Security Council and then presented to the Leader for approval. If he approves those principles, they become a resolution of the Supreme National Security Council. He agreed to indirect negotiations because he was not confident that these negotiations would lead anywhere or that these negotiations would be accompanied by dignity; and thus, this very matter indicated the wisdom with which he accepted the negotiations, but within the framework of indirect negotiations.
Well, if Iran had not accepted the negotiations and the Americans had resorted to military operations, the question would have been raised: “Why didn't you negotiate to prevent it from turning into a war?” But we agreed to hold negotiations and we negotiated sincerely for five rounds, and they were even somewhat reaching a result. But then, the Americans came and attacked us. Throughout these negotiations, we always kept the dignity of the Islamic Republic in mind, we did not make any agreement contrary to the dignity of the Islamic Republic, and we always emphasized "Iran's right to enrichment"; but at the same time, some flexibility was also shown in the negotiations to be able to reach a result. Therefore, the experience of those three principles was completely observable in these nuclear talks.
Interviewer: The Leader of the Islamic Revolution stated during the height of the war that we will not submit to an imposed peace; meaning we will accept neither an imposed war nor an imposed peace. From this perspective, if we wish to examine the past scene, what difference do you see between an imposed negotiation and an honorable negotiation? And how do you evaluate the experience we had during those twelve days?
Kamal Kharrazi: Well, in political discourse, negotiation has principles, and a negotiation is honorable only when it is based on those principles. If the other side wants to resort to force or use other tools to impose the results of the negotiation on the other party, well, then that is neither an honorable negotiation nor one compatible with the principles governing diplomacy.
For example, the principles governing diplomacy include the principle of equality, the principle of respect for the sovereignty of the other party, the principle of transparency and accountability, and the principle of mutual flexibility; meaning both sides must show flexibility to arrive at a win-win outcome.
Or, for instance, the principle of the sustainability of the negotiation's result; well, some negotiations take place but ultimately do not last, an example of which we clearly see now in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians; they negotiate, they achieve a result, but then they renege on it. We see the same pattern in Lebanon as well.
Therefore, various principles in diplomacy are put forth as the principles of a logical and honorable negotiation. Well, one must see whether these principles are being respected or not in the negotiations we intend to conduct with the American or European side. We have observed that, in practice, this has not been the case. For instance, Mr. Trump launched a military attack in the midst of the negotiations, and this is contrary to the principles of negotiation. The Europeans also failed to fulfill their commitments, and while they themselves had reached the conclusion that Iran must accept zero enrichment, they still claimed that the JCPOA must be used and implemented the snap-back mechanism. These actions are contrary to the principles raised in diplomatic discourse.
Interviewer: In your opinion, what impact did the 12-Day War have on Iran's nuclear path, and in such circumstances, is it even possible to speak of an honorable negotiation with the West?
Kamal Kharrazi: Firstly, given the outcome we achieved from the recent negotiations, we saw in the nuclear arena that they do not believe in a logical negotiation and want to impose restrictions on Iran that go beyond the nuclear issue. Well, naturally, the missile issue and the issue of resistance are not topics that Iran wants to enter into negotiations about. Therefore, there is no choice but to refuse to submit to such negotiations, even while we articulate our logic to public opinion and express our readiness for a negotiation based on principles. Of course, our negotiators have always truly strived not to flee the negotiation field. In the recent trip by the President and the Foreign Minister to New York, great efforts were made for a proper negotiation to finally take place and reach a conclusion, even in the final moments. However, the opposing parties did not accept. This demonstrates that our logic is strong, their logic is not, and they seek to achieve their goals by resorting to force.
Interviewer: Taking an overall look at the diplomatic process regarding the nuclear file – which perhaps has lasted for more than two decades – how and to what extent has the Islamic Republic been able to utilize international and regional capacities to manage this file? This is especially relevant given that different administrations have overseen this file during various periods.
Kamal Kharrazi: As I mentioned, the Islamic Republic has never shunned diplomacy and negotiation. During President Khatami's administration, nuclear negotiations with the Europeans started and the talks were progressing, however, they exhibited excessive demands. When they met and negotiated with Mr. Rouhani in Sa’dabad, they said, “You need to suspend enrichment so we can reach a mutually agreeable outcome.” Well, we instituted the suspension, but then they said, “We must obtain an objective guarantee that you are not pursuing nuclear weapons.” We responded by saying, “We too require a solid guarantee that you will remove the sanctions.”
In practice, however, they were not prepared to remove the sanctions and only wanted this suspension to turn into a permanent cessation. Therefore, in the final days of Mr. Khatami's presidency, the suspension was broken, as he realized that continuing this process would lead nowhere and that they were simply trying to impose a halt to enrichment upon Iran.
Interviewer: Imam Khamenei also said that in the same administration where enrichment had been halted, enrichment must be restarted.
Kamal Kharrazi: As I mentioned, within Mr. Khatami's administration itself, everyone reached the conclusion that continuing this was truly leading nowhere and was simply resulting in the squandering of the Islamic Republic's rights; therefore, they broke the suspension, started the UCF (Uranium Conversion Facility) in Isfahan, and thus a new phase began, because the dignity and honor of the Islamic Republic required that we not submit to their coercion or political games.
In later periods, because there was a feeling that readiness existed for a real negotiation, the JCPOA negotiations were conducted during Mr. Rouhani’s administration, and results were achieved. However, practice, we saw that the Americans did not cooperate from the beginning and later, during Trump's term, they withdrew from the negotiations. The Europeans did not fulfill their commitments either.
These show that although we should not flee from negotiation and should be at the negotiation table, we must also be careful not to allow anything to be imposed upon us, and if they try to impose anything, we must stand against it. In our recent interactions with the Europeans, the same process occurred; we were ready to negotiate, but they sought to impose their will on us. They set three conditions, stipulating that if those three conditions were met, they would delay the snap-back mechanism by six months.; even in this regard, we showed some flexibility, but they were not prepared to accept these points. If negotiation is based on logical principles and the dignity of the Islamic Republic is observed, we are ready to negotiate; even now we are ready to negotiate, provided that the governing principles of negotiation are observed.
Interviewer: Dr. [Kharrazi]! You have encountered Western diplomats extensively over these decades. Given your experience and personal knowledge, tell us, what is really going on in their minds that when their own intelligence agencies in their official reports admit that the Islamic Republic does not intend to build nuclear weapons, they still repeat these accusations in diplomatic processes and insist on them?
Kamal Kharrazi: There is no doubt that we possess nuclear capability. However, our policy has always been transparent, based on the fatwa issued by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution that the production and use of weapons of mass destruction is haram [prohibited]. They imagine that this policy is not real and that Iran might one day want to pursue nuclear weapons. In fact, they have not understood our culture either; because when the Leader of the Islamic Revolution issues a fatwa, that fatwa is binding and must be implemented by all. We have tried in various ways to show them that the decision of the Islamic Republic is not to pursue nuclear weapons; therefore, we said we would have maximum cooperation with the IAEA and even practically implemented the Additional Protocols (93+2), which allow the IAEA’s representative to conduct rapid inspections without prior notice. So inspection tools are available, and if one day Iran decides to pursue nuclear weapons production, the inspectors will come and be fully informed. Even now, when they themselves say their information indicates that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, this is based on those very inspections and the information they obtain. We, of course, have fundamental problems with the US and the West that are not solely the nuclear issue; these problems have existed since the beginning of the Revolution, and therefore, these issues are used as tools of pressure against the Islamic Republic so that they can achieve their goals and solve their own problems.
Interviewer: Some Western media and even some individuals inside the country raise the question of whether uranium enrichment is really worth it to the extent that the Islamic Republic of Iran insists on it; they say its cost and the pressure of sanctions outweigh its benefits and overall, it doesn't add up. What is your response to this view?
Kamal Kharrazi: Look! The policy of self-reliance has been one of the main policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran; meaning the country should not rely on others to manage its own affairs. For example, in the field of missiles and military equipment and weapons, this very policy of self-reliance has enabled the Islamic Republic today to have the capability to produce its own material, utilize it, and defend itself; now if Iran were reliant on other countries in this field, it would naturally face problems. The same holds true in the field of nuclear energy and technology. While it is true that we are an oil-producing country, but oil will eventually run out one day. Therefore, we must develop our ability to provide energy through other methods, one of which is nuclear energy. To build nuclear power plants, it is necessary to acquire the technical capability for it.
We are currently pursuing this path so that we can construct smaller power plants ourselves; because when other countries build a power plant in a country, they also supply its fuel themselves. So if we want to be independent, we must produce the fuel ourselves; otherwise, we become dependent on others and this dependence will turn into a tool of pressure. Considering the rational policy of the Islamic Republic to achieve twenty thousand megawatts of nuclear electricity in the future – which is of course a time-consuming process – it is necessary to think about securing the fuel for it from now. Therefore, uranium enrichment is an "absolute right" for our country and is not something that can be abandoned or simply relied upon to be supplied by others; this is in the national interest of the country.
Interviewer: Dr. [Kharrazi], I would like to ask you a few questions about the 12-Day War. To what extent did you personally anticipate the occurrence of such an attack beforehand?
Kamal Kharrazi: In any event, there was a feeling that the Israelis would eventually attack us at some point. Of course, during the negotiations, this feeling was not present during the negotiations, but they nevertheless pre-empted us and carried out such an attack. Of course, they made a mistake, because they saw that we immediately responded firmly and decisively, to the extent that they were forced to request a ceasefire. In the world of politics and national defense, such events are predictable. What is important is our preparedness for any event that may occur. Fortunately, thanks to the policy of self-reliance and the serious determination of the country's combatants in defense, this preparedness is always maintained.
Interviewer: Dr. [Kharrazi], you also have a long history during the 8-Year Sacred Defense War.
Kamal Kharrazi: Yes, I was the head of the War Propagation Headquarters at the time.
Interviewer: You were personally present in the ceasefire negotiations between Iran and Iraq and in the negotiations with the Iraqi government at that time. We want to know, from both a diplomatic and a military/warfare perspective, what similarities and differences do you believe existed between the 8-Year War and the 12-Day War?
Kamal Kharrazi: The 12-Day War and the 8-Year War shared many similarities while also exhibiting significant differences. In terms of similarities, in both wars, we relied on ourselves and supplied the necessary weaponry using available resources. In the 8-Year War, of course, there were many weapons in Iran, but we needed to produce and use them ourselves. The motivation, the power to defend the country, and the preparedness of the combatants of Islam who were present on the field with high morale were evident in both the 8-Year War and the 12-Day War. Also, popular support was a determining factor. In the 8-Year War, it was this popular support that enabled us to carry on the war, and people were present both on the front lines and behind the scenes. In the 12-Day War as well, national cohesion and popular support were very determining. These were the common threads between the two wars.
But in terms of differences, the paradigm governing wars has changed. During the era of the 8-Year War, wars were mainly industrial and reliant on ground-based human forces. The enemy was present on the front, and our forces were on the opposite front. Volunteers were mobilized and fought the enemy face-to-face. The main tools of war were from the military industry: artillery, tanks, and heavy weapons. Therefore, in the past, the industrial paradigm governed wars, whereas today this is no longer the case.
Today, the paradigm of wars is informational and a war of technology. Intelligence plays a very important role and its acquisition relies on new technologies. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is used in wars to identify, decide, and then act. Today, in fact, AI essentially detects, decides, and then the action is executed in place of a human. Therefore, the paradigm of wars has changed from an industrial state to informational and cognitive warfare reliant on Artificial Intelligence, which is a very major transformation.
Another difference was that in this war we relied on our own weapons, but the Israelis relied on foreign weaponry. Israel was not alone. Western countries helped it, and their airplanes and radars were present in the field. For example, the US sent its THAAD radar systems there to track our missiles; meaning there was practically the physical presence of other countries on the scene, but we were entirely self-reliant and no one helped us.
In terms of intelligence as well, they were dependent on others. The Israelis possess their own intelligence systems – such as the "Gospel" system for identifying locations or the "Lavender" system for collecting data on individuals. In addition to these, they were utilizing systems from NATO and Western countries and combining and analyzing this data with the help of AI to reach a conclusion and act upon it. This, too, represents a new transformation in warfare. Of course, we are also moving in the same direction to benefit as much as possible from the informational and cognitive warfare paradigm and to be able to confront the enemies. Therefore, both many similarities and significant differences can be observed between the 12-Day War and the 8-Year War.
Interviewer: In your opinion, what was the main strength of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution’s management during the recent 12-Day War?
Kamal Kharrazi: You saw that when they attacked and martyred some of our high-ranking military commanders, he, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, immediately introduced their successors and he personally appeared on the scene to explain the matters of the war. In fact, his three television messages established calmness among the people and demonstrated that everything was under control. What was their goal? Their goal was to collapse our defense system by eliminating our military commanders, but with the immediate appointment of successors, that goal was not achieved. The social effects of this war mitigated through the Leader's dialogue with the people, and calm was restored to the populace. Therefore, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, he fulfilled his duty exceptionally well in this war.
Interviewer: Despite the extensive support from the US, some Western and NATO countries for the Zionist regime, and even while the regime constantly spoke of its military superiority, what factor ultimately caused it to accept a ceasefire after 12 days?
Kamal Kharrazi: Well, significant pressure was exerted on Israel. Our missile attacks were effective and Israel faced many challenges within the occupied territories. You see, Israel controls a small territory and it is very different from the Islamic Republic which has a vast landscape. Therefore, the damage inflicted on that small territory can be relatively greater. Domestically and also in terms of war costs, you know that the costs were not substantial for us because we produce our own equipment. However, the Israelis had to procure many of the weapons and ammunition they consumed from the US and Europe, and naturally they had to pay money, and this exerted immense pressure on its economy. It was projected that, as a result of this 12-Day War, their direct cost of war amounted to about $2.4bn, and that, of course, excludes the indirect costs. The price of each of the THAAD missiles that the Americans gave them is $12mn. Well, you do the math – when we launched all those missiles toward Israel, even if only one of these THAAD missiles was used to intercept each of our missiles, the cost of that alone is massive. Therefore, these pressures – both economic pressure and psychological pressure within the [occupied] territories itself – were effective.
Furthermore, the Americans also did not want the war to continue and spread into the region. They did not want to become further involved because their interests did not require it. Thus, they requested a ceasefire. We had also said from the beginning that if they ceased their attacks, we would not continue; therefore, we also stopped the war.
Interviewer: If Iran were to generally draw a few key lessons from this 12-Day War, what do you think those lessons would be?
Kamal Kharrazi: One is to persistently maintain self-reliance. Second, to master the new paradigm of warfare, which is informational and cognitive warfare, so that we can effectively respond to our enemies. Third, to maintain the reliance on the people and the national cohesion that was formed in society; in such a way that the people, as the main support base of the country, support the actions of the Islamic Republic. When the people are present, you can defend better and more strongly against enemies. All the efforts of foreigners are directed at damaging our national unity and to discourage the people from supporting the system. But if we maintain our reliance on the people and our own capabilities, and if we master the new paradigms of modern warfare, we can very well defend our identity, honor, and sovereignty.
Interviewer: Today, the Israelis are truly facing an unprecedented situation in the sphere of public opinion, both at the regional and the global level. What is your analysis of this situation, and what effect will these conditions have on the future and fate of Palestine and the Zionist regime?
Kamal Kharrazi: Yes, the Israelis had never faced such a volume of hatred. Truly, today the entire world despises Israel, even within the US itself. According to statistics recently published by the Gallup Institute, only 32% of the American population support Israel's operations in Gaza and the US support for Israel, which is a very low figure. Of course, a distinction exists between Democrats and Republicans, but overall, only 32 percent support it.
In European countries, too, we also see daily demonstrations against the Zionist regime, and the people are genuinely supporting Palestine. In the history of Palestine, there has never been such support for the struggles of the Palestinian people; this stems from the high volume of crimes committed by the Israeli regime against the Palestinians. It is enough to look at the daily situation in Gaza; it is truly catastrophic. Therefore, Israel faces significant challenges. Of course, this regime relies on the major powers – it relies on Europe and the United States. America, for its part, also showed that it is fundamentally not committed to international tools and organizations. It ridicules them. As we saw, it mocked the International Criminal Court (ICC) and even withdrew from UNESCO.
Interviewer: It also imposed sanctions on them.
Kamal Kharrazi: Yes, they did! And this shows that Mr. Trump operates in a new paradigm and wants to unilaterally impose his power on the world. Well, it is by relying on these that they commit such oppression. But we hope that with the public support that we see today in public opinion, this war will finally stop and, God willing, something can be done so that the Palestinians attain their rights.
Interviewer: From your perspective, what is the main danger posed by the existence of the Zionist regime to the region and to the world?
Kamal Kharrazi: The point I wish to emphasize is the goal of the Israelis in the region and at the international level. The Israelis, based on the myths of the Torah, claim a right for themselves; one is that they must possess a vast territory, i.e., the "Greater Israel" plan. They claim that the land "from the Nile to the Euphrates" must be under their control. Mr. Ben-Gurion – who was the first prime minister of Israel – had said that Greater Israel must be realized from the Nile to the Euphrates. Mr. Moshe Dayan – who was their politician and army commander – said, after they captured the Golan Heights, that, “Our first generation established Israel; we today were able to expand the territory of Israel; and future generations will realize the policy from the Nile to the Euphrates.” All these indicate a long-term program that the Israelis have for the region and the world. The Israelis have a twenty-four-article protocol that the Freemasons drafted for them, and in it, their long-term policies are completely evident.
The Zionists have a claim to global governance and want to one day dominate the world; on this path, they believe in "sacred violence," much like Daesh (ISIS). Just as Daesh considered any action permissible to achieve its goals, the Israelis have the same approach. Extremist groups among them – like the "Gush Emunim" group – do exactly this: they attack Palestinian lands, usurp their homes and lands, and carry out massacres; this is the same belief in "sacred violence" that is implemented in practice.
Therefore, we must be vigilant against the future plans of Israel for the region and even the world. Although they are a small minority, they want to dominate the region and the world via their reliance on major powers. Hence, we must be prepared for resistance starting from today.
Interviewer: Thank you very much, Dr. Kharrazi. If you have any concluding thoughts for the people of Iran to end today's conversation, we would be glad to hear them.
Kamal Kharrazi: I hope that God will help the Iranian nation to remain resistant in the face of foreign coercion and to strive so that, God willing, we may have a prosperous and dignified Iran.