Abbas Araqchi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 14th government, was hosted by Khabar Online News Agency for a Nowruz conversation with Mohammad Mohajeri on one of the last days of Esfand 1403.
Mohammad Mohajeri: ” Abbas Araqchi, the Foreign Minister of the Pezeshkian government ,” who is one of the busiest members of the government these days, is busy reviewing, consulting, and preparing a response to Donald Trump’s letter addressed to the leaders of the revolution . The day he hosted Khabar Online News Agency in his office and this conversation took place, the letter had been delivered to Tehran by the Emir’s advisor, but its exact content was not yet known. Accordingly, it was natural that our first question would be related to this issue.
An analysis of Trump’s other statements and actions in recent weeks was ultimately accompanied by a sarcastic joke from the Minister, who said, “Don’t you have any other questions besides Trump?!”
Araqchi, as the second person in the JCPOA negotiationteam in the Rouhani government, continues to defend that method and model, but he also emphasizes that reviving the JCPOA in its current form is not in our best interest, but it can be the basis for negotiations.
The possible model of negotiations between Iran and the West, the JCPOA and the possibility of its revival in the current circumstances, the side effects of Araqchi’s trip to Afghanistan, and changes and developments in the region were other topics of this hour-long conversation.
The Foreign Minister also spoke about the nature of relations between Iran and Russia, Iran’s tactics and strategy against the United States, and so on.
Read the details of Khabar Online News Agency’s Nowruz conversation with Abbas Araqchi, Foreign Minister of the 14th government;
* In a situation where we have had severe crises since Trump came to power and relations between Iran and the United States have been turbulent, can we say that when Trump is willing to write a letter to Iran, it means that all roads are not closed?
Sending letters and correspondence is part of diplomacy. But at the same time, it can be part of pressure and threats. Without making any judgment about the received letter, I will answer you that the letter is often considered as a part of diplomacy. But at the same time, it can be part of other programs. But the reality is that it can never be said that the path of diplomacy is over. Because the alternative to diplomacy is war. Therefore, all countries use the path of diplomacy as much as possible. Because sometimes war is inevitable. But it is a costly and risky path to achieve goals, and everyone tries to choose diplomacy, which is a less risky and less costly path.
We are ready for war, but we do not seek war.
We have always avoided war. We are prepared for war and are not afraid of it. But we do not seek war, and this is clear. The policies of the Islamic Republic, especially in recent years, have shown that we are not seeking war. We are not afraid and are prepared for any situation. But we are not heading for war and we avoid it as much as possible. Because war has its costs, risks, and losses. We once experienced a war that was imposed on us.
Therefore, the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is definitely focused on diplomacy and avoiding war, except where war is inevitable, which has its own conditions.
The fact that we say no to negotiations with the US is due to history, experience, and precedent, not stubbornness. As an expert, negotiator, and diplomat, I say that under these conditions, it is no longer possible to enter into negotiations with the US. Unless a number of things change.
*You say that writing a letter is part of diplomacy, although it can involve pressure. Since he came to power and in recent days, Trump has made various threats against Europe, the United States, Canada, Mexico, and other countries in the world. But he did not write a letter to any of them. Can it be said that Trump’s behavior with Iran is different from his behavior with other countries?
You are right. But the reason he did not write to them was because there are diplomatic channels between them and he has his own calls, telephone calls, and meetings with Europeans, Latin America, and other countries. Their diplomatic channels with Russia were very limited, which they recently reopened in a way. There was a telephone conversation between the leaders of the two sides, as well as a meeting in Riyadh and subsequent meetings. So writing a letter to Iran is partly because there is no diplomatic channel between us.
The official channel between Iran and the United States has always been Switzerland, but…
*This time, an Emirati official brought the letter. Previously, our communication channels were Oman, Qatar, and some Arab countries.
Why the UAE was chosen is another matter. But the official channel between Iran and the US has always been Switzerland, and all official messages between Iran and the US have been exchanged through the Swiss channel. Sometimes they have had some points and told the Swiss and passed them on to us. Sometimes it was in the form of a note, sometimes in an informal letter, and sometimes in an official letter. Sometimes, exceptionally, other channels such as Oman have been used, which at several points helped establish communication between the two sides.
The fact that the UAE brought Trump’s letter to Iran is cause for concern
The fact that this time the Americans preferred to give their president’s letter to the Emirates to bring to Iran is somewhat puzzling. But I don’t see anything special about it. What was important was the letter that had to be conveyed, and they chose the messenger in this way.
*The Supreme Leader, at least in the last two meetings he has had with country officials and students, has stated that he will not negotiate with the United States as an important principle. Do you consider this to be the regime’s strategy or is it a regime tactic?
I think it is clear from their statements that they see no logical reason for this. They see it as unintelligent that in a situation where there is maximum pressure, no sane and intelligent person would enter into direct negotiations. We have tried negotiations with the US many times in the past. Even direct negotiations, the example of which was the JCPOA, and the negotiations were completely direct, continuous and long, and we held frequent meetings with the American delegation, both in the 5+1 format and bilaterally.
Our tactic and solution for now is indirect negotiations with the US.
After the JCPOA and when the US withdrew from the JCPOA, there were negotiations, but they took an indirect form. The negotiations to revive the JCPOA, which I myself conducted in the spring of 1400, were indirect. We were negotiating with the 4+1, that is, the 5+1 without the US, and they were negotiating with the US and then returning. The European Union played a mediating role there. During the period of Shahid Raisi, both these negotiations continued with the 4+1 and a Muscat process was formed between us and the Americans and through the mediation of Oman in Muscat, which were indirect negotiations.
In my opinion, the JCPOA in its current form and text cannot be revived. It is not in our interest either. Because our nuclear situation has advanced significantly and we can no longer return to the conditions of the JCPOA. The sanctions of the other side are the same. But the JCPOA can still be a basis and a model for negotiations.
So, to say that we are not negotiating strategically is not the case. As we have negotiated many times and have been doing so until recently. Even now that we are negotiating with three European countries, it is actually a kind of indirect negotiation about our nuclear program. We are negotiating with three European countries to have the same old formula of the JCPOA and to build trust about the nuclear program and for them to lift the sanctions.
Sanctions are not in the hands of the Americans, they are in the hands of the Europeans. The Europeans are supposed to fight the Americans on this issue. So negotiations have always been ongoing and their form has been a matter of debate. I would like to say that the form of negotiations is always relevant in diplomatic relations. Whether the two sides negotiate directly or indirectly. So for now, our tactic and strategy is to negotiate indirectly.
*Was there a specific reason why Trump addressed his letter to the Leader of the Revolution?
This is unprecedented. Mr. Obama also wrote a letter to the leader. Their interpretation is that Trump is the first person in his country and is corresponding with the first person in our country, and this has been the case before.
Trump’s style is different from others and has abandoned conventional forms of diplomacy.
*Why didn’t the US government start this type of interaction and diplomacy from lower levels, at the level of its State Department? Usually, the rule is that they start from lower levels first and resolve issues at higher levels.
Diplomacy is not limited to one way or method. Different ways can be tried. Mr. Trump has shown that his style is different from others and has abandoned many of the conventional formats of diplomacy and behaves in his own style. As soon as he writes a letter and calls Mr. Putin, while normally, if there was to be a reconstruction of relations between the United States and Russia, it would have to be formed from the bottom up. But this is his style.
In addition, in diplomacy, we have another concept called diplomacy of leaders, which often works the other way around. Instead of being solved from the bottom up, it starts at the top level and those who make the final decision do not wait for the lower levels. They do what they need to say and clarify the task with each other at the very first stage, and then the lower levels act on the menus they have reached.
We have nothing to do with Trump’s expectations, we act according to our own interests.
*When Trump writes a letter, he probably expects to receive a written response. Will Iran do the same?
We have nothing to do with their expectations. We have our own interests to do. What is right will be done.
*I don’t mean the positions themselves, but the way and means in which they were used.
It is not that we are subordinates, that whoever uses any method on us, we use the same method. Of course, this is the usual procedure as you say. But I want to say that as an independent country with sovereignty like any other country, we are not limited to necessarily moving within the framework determined by another person or country. But there is a custom that is practiced.
We have used diplomacy to its utmost to lift sanctions.
*Let’s assume that no negotiations with the US take place and the sanctions remain as they are now. Does this mean that diplomacy in countering sanctions – especially US sanctions, which I believe are followed by European sanctions – will be shut down and non-diplomatic methods will have to be used to counter sanctions?
First, diplomacy never stops. But what methods to use in a particular issue and when is naturally debatable. We have used diplomacy to its utmost to lift sanctions. We entered the negotiations on the JCPOA in good faith and negotiated in good faith for more than two years. Ultimately, an agreement was reached that was the product of diplomacy, and the whole world celebrated this as an achievement of diplomacy and that diplomacy can solve complex problems.
After the agreement, we adhered to all our commitments in good faith. Who betrayed diplomacy here? It was America that abandoned all of this and went back to another path. This has created some distrust. Both in diplomacy as a whole, which for a while, in the opinion of some, negotiation was essentially a nullity, which is wrong, and in negotiations with America, which I think is right. Also, whether sanctions can be lifted through diplomacy in principle? This question of yours is completely relevant. That is why our policy, which the leadership also insists on, is that we have two paths to confront sanctions. The first path is to neutralize the sanctions, and the second path is in the hands of others.
Neutralizing sanctions and negotiating to lift sanctions are two missions we must accomplish.
*Is the first path also the second path?
Not necessarily – the first path is that you sort of confront the sanctions and adapt your economy to the sanctions until the sanctions get frustrated with the effects of the sanctions and reach a point where the sanctions are not getting them the results they want. That was the point that Obama reached. They saw that the sanctions, no matter how long they continue, will not make Iran give up on its nuclear program. So they turned to negotiations and promised to lift the sanctions.
While trust is built in the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. This was a reasonable point and we agreed and entered into negotiations. We reached a conclusion. The next government came and messed up the whole thing, and that’s another discussion.
Neutralizing sanctions means making them ineffective and bypassing them is in our hands and we must do it. Lifting sanctions is through negotiations and in the hands of others. We must do this too and it is a mission. But the priority with the first mission is that you can neutralize the sanctions that he is using as a tool against you to achieve results.
But the second mission is also in place. Once, His Excellency used the expression that if we can lift the sanctions through negotiations or any other means, we will not delay for an hour. We know the necessity and importance of lifting the sanctions. But we have gone this route once and tried it and we have seen the results. Therefore, the country’s priority in his opinion is that the government organizes the country’s economy in such a way that despite the sanctions, it can not only continue to exist, but also grow and progress. But that second mission is always in place.
We have no legal problem with Iran’s private sector’s business relationship with the US.
*Not negotiating with the Americans doesn’t mean we have no business relationship with them through the private sector?
Not in our opinion. They have their own laws and the initial sanctions they imposed prohibited all Americans from working with Iranians. We do not have such a mission. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. For example, if some economic relations have specific cultural or special consequences, we may have a point of view. But we do not have a legal problem. Also, they say in the JCPOA that one of its disadvantages was that it did not open the way for Americans to work with Iran. This was their own problem.
There has been a principle between us and Russia, and it was emphasized, and it was emphasized during this trip, that neither of us will surprise the other. Certainly, on issues related to each other and issues of mutual interest and concern, including in the region, if we are talking and consulting with others.
It was the US itself that lifted the secondary sanctions in the JCPOA. The primary sanctions say that Americans have no right to work with Iran. The secondary sanctions say that no one else has the right to cooperate with Iran. Otherwise, they will be subject to US sanctions. In the JCPOA negotiations, they said that they would only lift the secondary ones. The secondary ones were important to us too. Because we wanted the world to work with us. They said we would keep the primary ones, and we said keep them. They made a few exceptions to the primary sanctions, including the purchase of aircraft and one or two other things. Immediately after the JCPOA, we entered into negotiations to purchase aircraft from Boeing from the US and Airbus from Europe. The contract was also drawn up and closed.
We have no prohibition on doing business with the US, the prohibition is from the other side.
I think there were about 80 planes in the contract to be delivered. If the JCPOA had been in place, the planes would have started being delivered last year. We have no prohibition on doing business with the US. The prohibition is from that side.
Reviving the JCPOA in its current form is not in our interest, but it can be the basis for negotiations.
*How many times have you mentioned the JCPOA in your talks? Do you think the JCPOA can be revived in terms of form and content, and can the same method be used again to lift sanctions?
If I were to answer very precisely, I think the JCPOA in its current form and text cannot be revived. It is not in our best interest either. Because our nuclear situation has advanced significantly and we can no longer return to the terms of the JCPOA. The same goes for the sanctions on the other side.
They have imposed many new sanctions and the situation has changed. In addition, there is a government in power that has withdrawn from the JCPOA and is against it. Therefore, it is not realistic to say that the JCPOA will be revived. But the JCPOA can still be a basis and a model for negotiations.
Many of the discussions and agreements in the JCPOA can be reused, with more or less. In particular, the logic and formula of the JCPOA still remain in our view, and if other negotiations are to take place, they should be based on the same formula with everyone. This formula is confidence-building on the part of Iran regarding its nuclear program and the lifting of sanctions on the other side. Any negotiations we want to conduct regarding our nuclear program will follow the same formula.
Our nuclear program is completely peaceful and we trust it ourselves. We are willing to increase this trust for others. Like the JCPOA, we will have limitations on the amount of our stockpiles and the percentage of our enrichment for 5 or 10 years. We accepted this at the time because we were confident in the peacefulness of our nuclear program. But they wanted more trust and we gave it.
Also, more monitoring, such as having two cameras instead of one. What’s the point of having someone who has a clean bill of health? But in exchange for that, we lifted and canceled sanctions, which was the formula established in the JCPOA. They may say more or less that one of its parts was a little heavier. That’s another discussion. But this was the JCPOA formula. Even now, if an agreement is reached with anyone, it will be based on the same formula and logic.
If we go back to the conditions of the JCPOA at that time, we will definitely take the same path, but…
*If you go back to the JCPOA and that model continues, will you end it with an agreement this time or with a contract?
If we go back to the conditions of the JCPOA at that time, we will definitely take the same path. But it is natural that with the experiences we have now, we may make some other adjustments and changes. I sometimes say this to friends who are from the front and the war, that if we go back to the Jerusalem operation, will we definitely do the same thing again? I say we will definitely do it. But this time, considering the knowledge we have gained, we may not go down this road and go down that road or not go around this hill. It is natural.
Trump has shown that his style is different from others and has abandoned many of the conventional forms of diplomacy and behaves in his own style. He just writes letters and calls Mr. Putin, whereas normally, if there were to be a reconstruction of relations between the United States and Russia, it would have to be formed from the bottom up. But this is his style.
That is, if we go back to the JCPOA, it may be an agreement or a contract. A contract is something that needs to be approved by Congress. These depend on the circumstances of the time. At that time, we certainly wanted something to be approved by Congress. But at that time, the majority of Congress was in the hands of Republicans and opponents of the JCPOA. It would not approve such a thing. In addition, Congress’s approval is not a final guarantee. If what is meant is that this time we sign something that has a guarantee, I tell you that in international relations there is nothing that has a 100% guarantee.
What is the criterion for countries is national interests. If national interests require it, they will not adhere to any agreement. Unless there is a benefit for them in that agreement or a cost for them in withdrawing from it. In other words, the basis of international relations is the calculation of cost and benefit. It is the calculation of benefits. Not the calculation that we are in this agreement. Wherever countries feel that their interests lie in withdrawing from an agreement, contract, or treaty, they do so. Similarly, the Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States, which was drafted and agreed upon before the revolution, was a treaty that was approved by Congress. But Mr. Trump withdrew from that too. Whether Congress approved it or not and its form are not very important.
A foreign minister said Iran does not resemble a country under sanctions.
*In the discussion of neutralizing sanctions, one of the methods is to take this action through regional diplomacy and with neighbors and other countries. But the Americans are also putting pressure on them. Like the pressure that is especially on Iraq. Has the method of neutralization that you mentioned not become more difficult than before?
This has been a continuous process. We have always used methods and they have identified and dealt with these methods and we have resorted to other methods. Also, individuals and companies have been identified and sanctioned and we have changed them. This is a continuous process. It is not like you establish a system and it is constant in lifting sanctions. But the point is that we have used different methods and different and alternative ways regularly and we have been able to run the country. One of the foreign ministers had come to Tehran. He was telling me that when I entered Tehran, from the airport to Tehran I realized that there were no sanctions on Iran.
He expected what a miserable situation a country that is under sanctions and enters into it would face. But he said that Tehran or Iran is not like a country under sanctions. We have seen what happens to other countries under sanctions.
One of the principles we adhere to is that there should be no pressure on our partners and trading partners in the ways of circumventing sanctions. These methods are used, and an example of this is some countries with which our trade volume is very large and high. But it has not caused any problems for them.
*Most of the diplomacy is underwater and the society does not find information about it. But the society understands its output. If people say that Iranian diplomacy is stagnant and not active, as the Foreign Minister, what defense do you have against this claim? The fact that people see that sanctions are not being lifted and negotiations with the United States are not taking place. They consider these as factors in the stagnation of diplomacy.
These are not recessions. You might say they are not the right practices.
I have been and continue to be a defender of the JCPOA.
*You might say we don’t have a recession. You see that.
I will say this and it is so. But the signs that people see as indicating stagnation are not this. Because they may say that you are working with China and Russia and the region and to some extent with Europe, but this is not enough and you have to negotiate with the United States. This has the answer. There are logical reasons that {show} that currently no results will be achieved from negotiations with the United States. We also have experience. I was a negotiator of the JCPOA and I have been and am an advocate of the JCPOA.
But when we discuss it with my friends, I tell them what else we should have done in the JCPOA that we didn’t? To negotiate face-to-face, bilaterally, and at the ministerial level with the Americans, and to spend days and hours together in negotiation rooms, to be in different meetings. The last time in Vienna, the foreign ministers of the two countries were in a hotel for 18 days. To have our ministers walk together in the street. What else should we have done to show our good faith in negotiating with the United States? You saw the result.
Saying that negotiations with America are not the result of experience or stubbornness
The fact that we say no to negotiations with the US, or that the leadership insists, is due to history, experience, and precedent, not due to stubbornness. Based on expert opinion, as an expert and diplomatic negotiator, I say that under these conditions, it is no longer possible to enter into negotiations with the US. Unless a series of things change. Therefore, the issue of not negotiating with the US should not be seen as a sign of stagnation. Our policy is not in stagnation.
Our relations with the region have changed a lot from the past. While Israel and the Zionists had been trying for years to position Iran as the number one threat in the region and replace Israel, in the last two or three years it has been reversed. Even a month or two ago, one of the reputable American newspapers wrote an article that Iran used to be isolated and the countries in the region were in line to normalize relations with Israel. But now it has changed the other way around. Now Israel is politically isolated in the region and all the countries are seeking relations with Iran. You witnessed that in the recent crisis in the region, we were in special conditions and everything seemed to be going our way. We played our role in creating a political deterrent in the region against the Zionists and war, and we were successful… The same applies to other countries, with which we have a 25-year agreement with China. The previous government had a 20-year agreement with Russia. Our relations with most Asian countries in various places are growing. With Europe, despite all the disputes we have and have had in the past and the problems we have had, including the Ukraine debate and our aid to Russia and the debates over the claims that were made, it has greatly damaged our relationship with Europe. But our diplomacy with Europe is not stagnant. We have held four rounds of negotiations on our nuclear programs in the last few months. I believe our diplomacy is on the scene. Of course, it has limitations, and these limitations are based on calculations and expert opinions. But we are compensating in various ways and I think we have had an active foreign policy.
The people’s first expectation is that diplomacy can remove the danger and shadow of war from the country.
*Perhaps one of the reasons is that people expect something different to happen with a veteran diplomat.
Of course, everyone’s expectations are respected. But I think the first expectation of the people is that diplomacy can remove the danger and shadow of war from the country. Our biggest priority is security, and everyone understands this. I think the people know and understand what the country was in the past six months. We openly and directly entered into a military conflict with Israel and the Zionist regime. I don’t call it a war. But when you fire missiles and get hit by missiles, it is a military conflict.
The possibility of a full-scale, all-out war was a serious possibility, and diplomacy played its role. With the developments that later took place in Syria and elsewhere, and then in the United States, the arrival of a president with a completely different outlook, a president who had torn up the JCPOA and is now back, I think that if we consider the totality of the circumstances, the country’s diplomacy has done its job well in these difficult circumstances. I am not in a position to defend or praise. But if I look at it fairly, I see that we have spent six very difficult months in the country and we have been successful in achieving our goals.
We have not been bothered by the Democrats, but Trump has certain characteristics.
*Do you think Trump’s arrival was more disruptive to Iran’s foreign policy than when his Democratic rival came to power?
We have not been bothered by the Democrats. It does not make much difference. Of course, Mr. Trump has certain characteristics that have confused and worried everyone in the world, and everyone is now inflamed. You saw that the Europeans, Ukraine, Russia, and in the region are all the same. But as Martyr Soleimani said, at the heart of every threat is an opportunity. Although I do not deny the threats that currently exist or could exist against the country, and I do not underestimate that they have existed before and could be intensified in the new administration. But as a diplomat, I believe that at the heart of all these threats there are opportunities that we should be able to use.
I hope the US government will properly familiarize itself with the realities of the Islamic Republic.
*Trump has backed down on some of the tariff policies he imposed on some countries around the world when he faced strong reactions from them. Do you think that as time goes by, Trump will become more rational towards Iran, will face more realities, and will generally adjust his policies towards Iran and the world?
It seems obvious to me that every government, over time and as it becomes familiar with the realities, adjusts itself and readjusts its policies. Even in the case of Mr. Trump. Just as Mr. Trump’s early years were different from his last year. Just as his first term is different from this period and the words he speaks. I hope that the US government and every other government in the world will become properly acquainted with the realities of the Islamic Republic and understand these realities.
We are prepared for war and we are not afraid of it. But we do not seek war, and this is clear. The policies of the Islamic Republic, especially in recent years, have shown that we do not seek war.
Unfortunately, the narratives, images, and calculations that exist about us are very wrong. The reality of the Islamic Republic and the capabilities of the Islamic Republic are different from what they have presented to others or what the Zionists present to the world, and I am sure they are doing the same in America. Their attempt to possibly show America and the American government a weak image is a false reality that will be corrected in the minds of Mr. Trump and others over time. I hope they will adopt more reasonable policies. I tweeted two or three months ago that maximum pressure in the first round met maximum resistance from Iran. If they experience the same now, it will be the same. It is better to use maximum rationality instead of maximum pressure. What is required is to create a correct understanding of the realities.
*What is happening in Syria now, which is very regrettable, with the crimes being committed there, is it considered a threat to our national interests? Considering that Syria has always been our strategic depth.
I think the entire region is our strategic depth. Every country has its own importance. But what has happened in Syria, for us, the stability of Syria and the preservation of the unity and territorial integrity of Syria are of fundamental importance, not for us, but for the entire region. I think all of Syria’s neighbors and the region understand this. Also, in every statement that the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and some countries in the region come together in twos and threes and say, this is what we say, that they want stability and peace in Syria and that Syria should not become a place for terrorists. Everyone wants to preserve the territorial integrity of Syria and is deeply concerned about the continued occupation of that country’s territory by some, especially by the Zionists, and the new occupations that the Zionists have had, which is causing a lot of concern. Likewise, territorial unity.
In Syria, we are just watching, we have decided not to rush.
The biggest danger is the disintegration of Syria, and I think it is a danger for the entire region. I think it will only benefit Israel and the Zionist regime. I think there are hands at work that will push this direction from the Zionist side. We in Syria are just observers. We have decided not to rush. We are not even in a hurry to communicate with the new government. Our chosen policy is to wait and see and not interfere in what is happening.
If they ask us for help, we will help. But we have no interference. But we are following with concern. Especially the recent developments that unfortunately led to a significant gathering of people in Syria. Our message is that the Syrian government should do its utmost to restore peace and calm to the people with restraint and without casualties. That they should preserve the territorial unity of Syria and maintain stability in Syria. This is our policy and it continues now.
*You must have seen that domestic and foreign media have expressed concerns that any agreement between the US and Russia may occur and Iran will be the loser. Iran’s agreement with Russia on Ukraine and that the two may use Iran as a bargaining chip in agreements with themselves. How logical and realistic do you think this is?
In the world of international relations, anything is possible. That is why the foreign policy of every country must be to always be vigilant. That is why all countries carefully monitor what the consequences will be for their country when others cooperate. But with Russia, our relationship is at a level where the level of trust is higher than in the past. Mr. Lavrov’s recent visit to Tehran reflected this level of consultations between the two countries and the level of trust. After the contacts he had with the Americans regarding Ukraine and Syria, with Syria itself and the Americans, and it was also mentioned in the news that there were references to Iran, the Russian Foreign Minister immediately requested to come to Iran and he came and kept us fully informed.
There is one principle between Iran and Russia: we will not surprise either of the other.
There has been a principle between us and Russia, and it was emphasized, and it was emphasized during this trip, that neither of us will surprise the other. Certainly, on issues related to each other and issues of mutual interest and concern, including in the region, if we talk and consult with others, we will consult with each other before and after. This is a respected principle that exists between us, and we have acted on this principle so far.
What else should we have done in the JCPOA that we didn’t do? To negotiate face-to-face, bilaterally, and at the ministerial level with the Americans, and to spend days and hours together in negotiation rooms, to be in various meetings. The last time in Vienna, the foreign ministers of the two countries were in a hotel for 18 days. To have our ministers walk together in the street. What else should we have done to show our good faith in negotiating with the United States?
There have always been very good consultations between us and Russia, as well as with China. Now we are raising the level of it a bit. Tomorrow, the first trilateral meeting of Iran, China and Russia at the level of deputy foreign ministers will be held in Beijing, where Dr. Gharibabadi is there now, and it will start with the nuclear issue, which is a very hot topic right now. In the future, we will have these consultations closely with China and Russia.
*One of the important issues in foreign policy is the authority of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The issue of foreign policy is always coveted by various parts of the government within the country. Whether it is the parliament or something called the Strategic Council, of which you were once the secretary, or in some vice-presidential offices, they complement the policies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or may sometimes interfere. This incident is not related to this government and has happened in different governments. It seems that your relations with the parliament have perhaps been better than the relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in previous governments with previous parliaments. Overall, do you consider all of this to be the same? Or do the jokes sometimes bother you?
Diplomacy is the duty of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But it is not that there are no other capacities in the country. Capacities that can serve the country’s foreign policy. All countries use them and we use them too. The important thing is the coordination and coherence that exists in positions and work and that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the center of coordination, which is what exists now. Parliamentary diplomacy is a completely established diplomacy and is implemented in all countries. Our parliament has had a good entry into diplomacy and still has it. The capacity of parliamentary diplomacy is a good capacity and is used everywhere and we use it too.
We are not stingy in foreign policy, but if someone does not act in a coordinated foreign policy concert, we will deal with them.
Think tanks are a capacity. I also think the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations is a very strong capacity. I said it when I was inside it, and I say it again now that I am outside it. Mr. Kamal Kharrazi, as an experienced foreign minister in the past and now who is an advisor to the Supreme Leader, and the Strategic Council, are effective in think tank communications and in these matters, and they have had good trips.
Wherever they go and their capacities can be used, we will do so. Likewise, other ministries, each of which has international relations for its work. We coordinate all of this. Some of the vice presidential offices, internal institutions, and even our parties have capacities. For example, the Coalition Party, by the way, has strong international relations. It has exchanges with a number of similar foreign organizations – especially with the Communist Party of China – and has very extensive and long-standing relations with this party. We also encourage and help it to be done. In foreign policy, although authority, unified command, and coordination are necessary, we should not be stingy.
After all, there are even some of our characters who have personal and individual capacities and sometimes can go and carry out missions and be used. We are not stingy. We do not hinder. But if someone is not coordinated or wants to deviate from the path or does not act in a coordinated foreign policy concert, we will deal with them.
We have not yet recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan
*Some of your travels had some side effects. They were widely reflected in cyberspace. But one of the trips that received the most criticism was your trip to Afghanistan. They said that while no country in the world has recognized Afghanistan and the Taliban, why did Mr. Araqchi travel to Kabul?
First, we have not recognized and still do not recognize. Secondly, there have been other countries whose foreign ministers have visited. Including the foreign ministers of China and Qatar and the prime minister of Qatar. Several personalities from Central Asian countries have also visited. The reality is that between us and Afghanistan, there are a number of very serious issues that need to be addressed and discussed between the two sides.
The issue is drugs and Afghan refugees, which everyone inside the country has become sensitive about and is saying that it should be thought about. The issue is the security of our borders, which we have about 1,000 kilometers of common border, and its security is important to us, meter by meter. The issue is terrorism in Afghanistan and ISIS terrorist groups. The issue is the security of Shiites in particular, and of course, the peace and stability of Afghanistan. The issue is the Persian language, which we are sensitive about. The issue is trade, which under sanctions, our trade with Afghanistan, both officially and unofficially, is worth billions.
We have the issue of water and Iran’s rights, which must come to Sistan and Baluchestan. Each of them is a big and serious challenge, and each of them deals with Iran’s national interests. The reality is that there is now a power in Afghanistan that has established its sovereignty over the past three and a half years, and unlike the past, when every corner of Afghanistan was under the same control, this is not the case, and now sovereignty and security are established. We must address these issues and resolve them for our national interests.
As Secretary of State, I will go wherever necessary for the benefit of this country and its people.
As the Foreign Minister, I will go wherever necessary for the interests of this country and the people. There is no doubt about that. On the issue of water, the people of Sistan and Baluchestan and the members of parliament are all expecting it. If the Foreign Minister sits in his room, water will not flow to the country. If possible, he should go and talk, and everyone wants to be there. Everyone expects something to be done about the refugees. The Interior Minister’s duty is to gather them and make arrangements for their departure. The Foreign Minister also has a duty to reach understandings in this regard. Therefore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and diplomacy are not places for excitement, emotions, and atmosphere. What is the criterion is the national interests of the country, and we have a mission and we have been trained to consider the national interests of the country.
I promise not to slack off in my efforts in the new year.
*Happy New Year to you. May you have great success in 1404. How do you predict 1404 in the field of diplomacy?
I congratulate the people. The month of Nowruz coincides with the holy month of Ramadan, especially the nights of power in the first days of Nowruz, and I hope that God will bestow a better destiny on the people and that everyone’s prayers will be answered. I hope that 1404 will be a better year for the country.
The year 1403 was truly a difficult year. The events that occurred in this one year were as great as ten or twenty years for the country. I hope that the year 1404 will be a year of greater peace and progress for the country and a year of greater security, and that our problems in foreign policy and economic issues will be resolved. Apart from these wishes, what we promise is that we will not slacken in our efforts in the new year. The rest depends on divine destiny, which I hope will happen in these nights.