Nournew: For over two decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently demonstrated its recognition of negotiation as a strategic means for crisis resolution in its foreign policy. From the Saadabad negotiations under the reformist administration to the JCPOA agreement under the centrist government, Iran has remained open to talks with Western powers. Even after the recent 12-day war, the remarks of figures such as Masoud Pezeshkian, Ali Larijani, Mohammad Reza Aref, and most recently Abbas Araghchi, reflect Iran’s position: there is no objection to the principle of negotiation, but the content, scope, framework, and guarantees are subjects of discussion.
Iran’s fundamental stance: Negotiation, not Surrender
Araghchi, in a recent diplomatic meeting with ambassadors and chargé d'affaires in Tehran, stressed that Iran is and has always been ready to negotiate over its nuclear program. However, such talks must not serve as a facade for military aggression or the breach of international norms. As he warned, “Israel, with U.S. support, attacked Iran during the negotiations,” highlighting a clear violation of diplomatic integrity.
Contrary to Western media portrayals, Iran’s approach to negotiations is legitimate, logic-driven, and conditional: dialogue, yes—but not if it leads to deceit and attack. According to Araghchi, Iran has clear and rational conditions for returning to the negotiating table, which can be summarized as follows:
1. Guaranteeing the safety of talks and refraining from simultaneous military action
Iran insists that negotiations must not occur amidst military threats or operations. Conducting talks while bombs are being dropped nullifies their legitimacy. As Araghchi stated, “without a guarantee to cease attacks and destructive actions, no negotiation table holds legitimacy.”
2. Focusing exclusively on the nuclear issue and rejecting any expansion to other areas
Iran has clearly stated that the scope of talks must remain limited to nuclear issues and the lifting of sanctions. Discussions on missile, defense, or regional topics are strictly off the table. Especially after the recent war, Iran has proven that its defensive capabilities are not bargaining chips but national red lines.
3. Recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium
Araghchi reiterated: “Any agreement that does not recognize Iran’s right to enrichment will not be accepted.” This right is not only a matter of scientific sovereignty but also a product of years of sacrifice and struggle.
4. Conditional cooperation with the IAEA
Due to the damages caused by the recent Israeli attacks, Iran has declared that “any cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be based solely on national interests and case-by-case decisions by the Supreme National Security Council.” This decision sends a clear message to the IAEA to reestablish its neutrality.
Iran’s historical experience with diplomacy
Iran has already experienced a successful negotiation process through the JCPOA. Araghchi recalled that in 2015, through serious and logical dialogue, the international community was convinced that Iran’s nuclear program was peaceful. However, this achievement was undermined by the U.S. withdrawal from the deal and the reimposition of sanctions. Thus, Iran has learned from experience that the first condition for any new negotiation must be a guarantee of durable implementation. Without such a guarantee, returning to the table would mean repeating a costly mistake.
A key point in Araghchi’s remarks was the assertion that Iran’s nuclear program cannot be dismantled through military means. As he put it, “if the goal is to eliminate the program through bombing, that is pure delusion.” Technology cannot be bombed away. Iran reminded the world that “every war ends in negotiation”, but only when talks emerge from mutual respect, equal rights, and a commitment to avoiding repeated acts of aggression—not as symbolic gestures or tools of pressure.
In conclusion, Araghchi reaffirmed Iran’s adherence to its Islamic principles in rejecting nuclear weapons, and emphasized that “if the conditions and rational frameworks are respected, negotiations remain both possible and beneficial.” In other words, Iran neither rejects talks nor fears them. Rather, it seeks dialogue based on dignity, wisdom, and national interest—the same three pillars that have always guided Iranian foreign policy.
Resistance and diplomacy: Not mutually exclusive
The official stance of Iran—echoed by Araghchi, Pezeshkian, Aref, Larijani, and Ghalibaf—makes clear that resistance and negotiation are not in conflict. In fact, “rational negotiation is a continuation of the battlefield, expressed through political language.” If opposing parties recognize the principle of coexistence with an independent and resilient Iran, dialogue is possible. But if they see negotiation as a tool for imposition and weakening, Iran will rightfully withdraw.
After an overt war, the Islamic Republic now finds itself in a position where it can transform its defense strategy into one of dialogue through strength and reason. However, this will only be possible if the opposing side abandons the politics of sanctions and attacks, and speaks openly of mutual respect and genuine dialogue—not with bombs and deception.
NOURNEWS