Araghchi: U.S. Not Ready for Negotiation
Tehran - BORNA - Seyyed Abbas Araghchi stated that "unfortunately, there is no precedent for the bombing of a peaceful nuclear facility." Consequently, he emphasized, "there is no protocol or guideline for the inspection of such a facility."
In an interview with Japan's Kyodo News Agency, parts of which had been previously published, he also noted: "Unfortunately, after the agreement in Cairo, the three European countries and the U.S. went for the snapback mechanism in the Security Council, which was illegal, and we do not think they have the right to activate this mechanism."
Not Convinced U.S. is Ready for Serious Talks
In another part of the interview, Araghchi affirmed: "We have concluded that the Americans are not ready for mutually beneficial negotiation based on equality and mutual respect. As soon as we reach the conclusion that they are ready for such a negotiation, we can resume talks. The point is that negotiation is different from dictation. For now, we are not convinced that they are ready for a serious and real negotiation; they want to dictate, and I am not someone who listens to the dictation of others."
Iran Ready for Negotiation If U.S. Changes Approach
The Iranian Foreign Minister also declared: "If the Americans change their approach and are ready for a fair and balanced negotiation—that is, mutually beneficial negotiations—we are also ready. The reality is that we do not have a good experience negotiating with the U.S."
Iran Determined to Continue Peaceful Nuclear Program
He further stated: "For the future, Iran is absolutely determined to continue its peaceful nuclear program. We are still determined, and we have the technology. Our nuclear and enrichment technology was achieved by our own scientists and is not imported. We have paid a very heavy price for it: sanctions, war, more than a thousand martyrs, and scientists who have been assassinated. The blood of our people has been shed for this technology, so we cannot abandon it. Now, this issue is tied to Iran's dignity and national pride; it is not something that is for sale."
Inspections Cannot Resume Before Security Concerns Are Resolved
Araghchi said that "inspections are the duty of the Agency, and we are in close contact with them," but emphasized: "There are many security and safety concerns, and before these concerns are resolved, inspections cannot be resumed."
Araghchi’s Full Interview with Kyodo News Agency Is as Follows:
Interviewer: Can we talk about the relationship between Iran and Japan, as you have experience in Japan? Japan now has a new government. How do you assess the prospects for strengthening Iran-Japan relations in nuclear policy and engagement with the U.S.?
Araghchi: Iran-Japan relations have always been very good and friendly. These relations date back many years and have always been based on mutual interests and mutual respect. I must say that we have no problems bilaterally. The problems arise from outside our bilateral relations. It is a fact that Japan is an ally of the United States, but at the same time, it is also a friend of Iran. Our relationship has always been friendly, and this gives us an opportunity to cooperate with Japan more than with many Western countries. This is what we have witnessed over the past few decades. Japan has a very good reputation in Iran; it is a respected country. Our automotive industry has always benefited from Japanese technology, and other Japanese technologies and innovations are also well-known and accepted in Iran. We have been a crude oil supplier to Japan, which is not possible now due to sanctions. After the 2015 nuclear agreement, Japan was the first country to enter and resume its economic relations with Iran. The reason for that was the strong foundations of our bilateral relations. And I am sure that once sanctions are lifted again, Iran-Japan economic relations can quickly return to normal.
Interviewer: In the aftermath of the 12-day war, is there a prospect for resuming Iran-Japan cooperation on nuclear safety, as Japan has extensive knowledge in this field?
Araghchi: The reality is that, as you mentioned, during the 12-day war, our nuclear facilities were bombed, destroyed, and seriously damaged. This is clearly a major violation of international law, and perhaps the biggest violation, because a peaceful nuclear facility under IAEA safeguards has been bombed. This has created serious hazards and challenges: the risk of radiation, unexploded ordnance in the facilities, and as you know, the threats continue. Now we face both security threats and safety concerns. Unfortunately, there is no precedent for the bombing of a peaceful nuclear facility. Therefore, there is no protocol or guideline for the inspection of such a facility. This was my question to the IAEA Director-General: Is there a method or protocol for inspecting such a facility? They said no, because there is no precedent. This is the first time a peaceful, safeguarded nuclear facility has been bombed. Therefore, we cannot resume inspections unless we agree on a methodology for inspecting the bombed facility. We entered into negotiations with the Agency to reach this agreement, and a cooperation framework in Cairo was achieved to resolve this issue.
It is important that the Agency accepted the need for a new framework for cooperation. However, unfortunately, after the agreement in Cairo, the three European countries and the U.S. went for the snapback mechanism in the Security Council, which was illegal, and we do not think they have the right to activate this mechanism. From our perspective, and also that of the two permanent members of the Security Council—Russia and China—and over 120 member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, the snapback mechanism has not been activated, and the previous Security Council resolutions and sanctions have not been reinstated. Nevertheless, I told the three European countries and the U.S. that if you pursue the snapback, the Iran-Agency cooperation framework, meaning the Cairo agreement, will no longer be valid, and we must revisit it. And unfortunately, that is exactly what happened. Now we are in contact with Mr. Grossi, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to resume this cooperation.
Your question about safety concerns is valid. Here we come to the issue of potential cooperation with Japan. Japan has experience with nuclear bombs and their consequences on environmental safety and public health, and it also has experience with the Fukushima power plant, which was destroyed by the tsunami. I was the ambassador in Tokyo at the time and visited that area. Therefore, I have no doubt that Japan has good knowledge about improving the safety of nuclear facilities, and this knowledge can be shared with Iran. For the future, Iran is absolutely determined to continue its peaceful nuclear program. As I have said in numerous interviews, the facilities and machinery were destroyed, but the technology was not destroyed, nor was our will eliminated. We are still determined, and we have the technology. We have many scientists and technicians, and according to international law, we have the right to peaceful use of nuclear technology. Therefore, I think cooperation with Japan in this area is achievable, and I am sure it would be very beneficial.
Interviewer: So, what role do you think the Agency will play in future Iranian nuclear inspections?
Araghchi: Inspections are one issue, and safety concerns are another. Inspections are the duty of the Agency, and we are in close contact with them. As I said, there are many security and safety concerns, and before these concerns are resolved, inspections cannot be resumed. But when our relationship with the Agency returns to normal, cooperation with Japan can be beneficial in the technical aspects of these safety challenges.
Interviewer: What roles are there for Japan in nuclear inspections?
Araghchi: Inspection is a matter that the Agency decides, and we cannot interfere in that. But we have very good experience cooperating with Japanese inspectors. When the late Japanese Director-General Amano was the head of the Agency, we had very good cooperation with him. The 2015 nuclear agreement was reached when he was the Director-General, and he played a key and helpful role in achieving it. Cooperation with Japanese inspectors and officials in the Agency and elsewhere has been very beneficial and can continue in the future.
Interviewer: Is there a possibility of resuming talks with the U.S.?
Araghchi: That depends on the U.S. If they change their approach and are ready for a fair and balanced negotiation—that is, mutually beneficial negotiations—we are also ready. The reality is that we do not have a good experience negotiating with the U.S.; just look at what happened with the 2015 nuclear agreement, when the U.S. withdrew from the deal without any cause. Also, look at the negotiations this year, 2025, when we were negotiating, and the Israelis attacked us with U.S. support, and the U.S. also joined the attack. And look at the negotiations a few months ago in New York regarding the snapback issue. We have concluded that the Americans are not ready for mutually beneficial negotiation based on equality and mutual respect. As soon as we reach the conclusion that they are ready for such a negotiation, we can resume talks. The point is that negotiation is different from dictation. For now, we are not convinced that they are ready for a serious and real negotiation; they want to dictate, and I am not someone who listens to the dictation of others.
Interviewer: What is the main point of contention?
Araghchi: The main point is that the U.S. must recognize Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology, including enrichment. This has been and continues to be our right under international law. We are a committed member of the NPT and, like Japan, we have the right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. Japan is also a committed member of the NPT and benefits from its right. We only demand our right and want to use it, and this will be done under the full supervision of the Agency. In the 2015 nuclear agreement, we even accepted measures beyond the NPT and the Additional Protocol to build more confidence in the peaceful nature of our program and gave more monitoring capabilities to the Agency, but still the U.S. withdrew. Therefore, we are confident in the peaceful nature of our nuclear program and have no problem sharing this confidence with others. This is what we did in the nuclear agreement and are ready to do again: building confidence about our nuclear program to guarantee its peaceful nature in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. As soon as they accept this logic—that is, confidence-building regarding Iran's peaceful nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions—we can resume negotiations, and I believe we will reach a result quickly.
Interviewer: From Iran's perspective, what is the reasonable and acceptable framework for new negotiations?
Araghchi: The acceptable framework is one that recognizes Iran's rights to the peaceful use of nuclear technology, including enrichment, and we are ready to build confidence for that. We can even accept monitoring mechanisms beyond the NPT and accept time-bound restrictions for confidence-building. Just like we did in the nuclear agreement; for example, in the JCPOA, we accepted uranium enrichment up to only $3.67\%$ and for a period of 15 years, not forever. Therefore, nothing can be accepted forever. The only thing we are ready to accept permanently is Iran's commitment to never build a nuclear weapon. But for the peaceful use of nuclear technology, we may accept time-bound restrictions for building confidence, such as limits on the enrichment level and the type of machinery. But these restrictions are only for a specific period, not forever, because we cannot decide for future generations. The only thing we can decide and are certain about is that Iran will never pursue nuclear weapons; this is a permanent commitment. As I said, our fundamental policy is a permanent commitment that Iran will never pursue nuclear weapons. But if they want some aspects of our nuclear program to be limited for confidence-building, we can do that, but not forever, only for a specific time period and as long as it is necessary for confidence-building.
Interviewer: The suspension of IAEA inspections has created doubt in the international community about Iran's nuclear intentions. How does Iran plan to address these concerns and restore confidence in its nuclear program?
Araghchi: I am surprised by your question. It is the United States, the Europeans, and others who should give us assurances that we can benefit from our right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology without being bombed and attacked. We are the ones who have been attacked and have done nothing wrong. Our facilities were under IAEA supervision, and there has been no diversion towards nuclear weapons. Therefore, this time, the responsibility for building confidence lies with them, not the other way around. We were using our rights, the facilities were under the Agency's supervision, and we were bombed without any reason or justification. There is no report that Iran's nuclear program has diverted toward non-peaceful objectives, and the IAEA Director-General confirmed a few weeks ago that there are no reports of such intentions. Therefore, if they want us to return to diplomacy and cooperation with the Agency, they are the ones who must gain our trust. The United States must guarantee that it will not attack us again while we are negotiating and cooperating with the Agency.
Interviewer: This is the last question. Economic sanctions continue to exert significant pressure on the Iranian people, yet Iran remains committed to advancing its nuclear program. What is the strategic reason for continuing this approach?
Araghchi: Our nuclear and enrichment technology was achieved by our own scientists and is not imported. We have paid a very heavy price for it: sanctions, war, more than a thousand martyrs, and scientists who have been assassinated. The blood of our people has been shed for this technology, so we cannot abandon it. Now, this issue is tied to Iran's dignity and national pride; it is not something that is for sale. Sanctions, yes, are costly and exert pressure and create economic problems, but the dignity of a nation is something else, and we do not sell our dignity and pride for something less valuable.
End Article