Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi Interview

US messages via Witkoff and intermediaries are not negotiations:

Araghchi | Talk to Al Jazeera

https://youtu.be/fgFq_jZwUYQ

We want respectful and friendly relations.

I accept that in the future we will have difficult work ahead to rebuild trust.

Still, I am confident that with the goodwill on our side, the Islamic values prevalent in Arab countries, and the common goals we share for the security of the Persian Gulf region, we can rebuild that trust.

We live together in this region.

The security of this region must be ensured by ourselves.

The presence of American bases in this region has shown that they not only do not provide security but are actually against the security of the region.

Our friends in the Persian Gulf region should ask why American bases could not protect their security and instead became a source of insecurity for them.

If there were no American bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the other countries of the region, no one would attack them.

The presence of American bases in the region disrupts the security of the countries of the region.

In the future, we must reach a joint decision to live together in security.

Security requires a collective regional structure.

It cannot exist for one side and not for the other.

The same is true for prosperity, progress, and development.

It cannot exist for one side and not for the other.

If we want lasting peace in this region, we must move away from foreign forces and rely on ourselves.

We must establish security through security agreements and economic agreements amongst ourselves.

I hope, and I am confident, that in this way the region's security will be more sustainable.

Doctor Abbas Al-Aqshi, Foreign Minister of Iran, thank you for talking to Al-Jazeera. معالي الوزير، الآن الحديث عن.

Al Jazeera: Your Excellency, there is a U.S. perspective stating that the negotiations are ongoing and that Iran has accepted the American conditions. What is your assessment of this Iranian position? How do you view it?

You mentioned now the exchange of messages directly.

What do you mean by that?

Is there communication with American entities or not?

Or is it still the same exchange taking place through intermediaries?

The exchanges through intermediaries are ongoing. Mr. Witkoff, as before, continues to send messages, but this does not mean negotiation.

Rather, it means the exchange of messages that continues in conditions of peace and war.

IRAN: Negotiation in the literature of international relations has a specific meaning: two countries sitting face to face, negotiating.

Such a situation does not currently exist between the United States and us.

However, countries sometimes exchange messages through other countries.

This is not called negotiation, and this is what currently exists between Iran and the United States.

We receive messages from the American side, some are direct, and others come through our friends in the region.

Wherever necessary, we respond to them.

Therefore, there is currently no negotiation between us.

Claims made in this regard are not correct.

The exchange of messages, which sometimes includes warnings from our side or points from the other side, is ongoing, but it is not a negotiation.

There is talk within the U.S. administration that discussions are taking place with a certain party in Iran.

Is there indeed a party other than the known official channels that is negotiating with the United States?

And does this imply a division or fragmentation within Iran's political system at this moment?

None of this has any accuracy.

All messages are through the official channels of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is aware of them.

Security services usually have contacts.

Some are also conducted through those channels, but all take place within a specific framework established by the government and under the supervision of the SNSC.

There is a single management in charge of all of this.

There is absolutely no issue of multiple directions existing; everything is under the management of the Supreme National Security Council.

The U.S. President has stated that you have responded to the 15 American demands. What do you say to that?

We have not yet responded to the 15-point U.S. proposal. No response has been given.

At the same time, you mentioned that you presented five conditions to the mediators.

Has there truly been a response to these conditions?

How does the United States view them?

From our side, no condition or clause has been presented to the other side.

Those five conditions, or the 15-point framework mentioned, were based on media speculation.

There are speculations, and this is the media's work.

Nothing has been given to the American side from our side.

Where do the negotiations currently stand?

Can we generally speak of progress, or does the situation remain complex on both sides?

We have yet to make a decision.

We have many considerations regarding this matter.

Our conditions for ending the war are clear: we do not accept a ceasefire.

We are seeking an end to the war, not only in Iran but across the entire region.

We seek guarantees that such aggressions will not be repeated, as well as the payment of compensation for the extent of the damages inflicted on us and on the people of Iran.

At present, there is no ground for negotiation, and at present, there is no negotiation.

Our position is clear, and at present, there is no ground for negotiation.

How can we talk about progress in negotiations?

You have indicated that there is currently no common ground for negotiations.

What is the basis or foundation you seek to enter negotiations with the United States?

Naturally, when the highest leadership of the Islamic Republic concludes that the interests of the Iranian nation will be preserved, the necessary instructions will be issued to institutions including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Our goal is to secure the interests of the Iranian people and to preserve their rights.

This is the goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and at present, this goal is being pursued through defense against a foreign enemy, specifically the United States and the Zionist regime.

Whenever it becomes necessary for this defense to be carried out through another means, the necessary instructions will naturally be issued.

There are suggestions of concern or caution that another attack on Iran could occur during negotiations.

Is this fear of a potential U.S. attack? What is currently preventing you from engaging in negotiations?

Of course, the assault is currently ongoing, but your point is correct.

We have no good experience of negotiating with the United States.

In the past, we negotiated and reached an agreement, only for the United States to withdraw from it for no reason.

Twice more, this year and last year, we negotiated, and the result was their assault and attack.

There is no trust that negotiation with the United States can lead to results.

Trust is at zero.

Every time they present a proposal for negotiation, the first issue we must examine is how honest they are, and we see none.

There is no trust, and to build trust, major steps must be taken.

Whether the Islamic Republic decides to do so or not is another matter, but in response to any proposal, the issue is how much trust exists.

At present, no trust exists.

You spoke about guarantees, specifically that you seek assurances that a war against Iran will not be repeated.

Can mediating countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey serve as guarantors in these negotiations?

Are there serious efforts underway to bring Iranians and Americans together for negotiations to resolve this conflict and the war?

Another serious issue is what guarantees can be provided.

Naturally, the guarantee of one or two countries cannot be sufficient.

Even experience has shown us that a guarantee by the Security Council cannot be sufficient either.

Ideas and proposals have been put forward by our friends regarding how guarantees can be secured for a complete and lasting end to the war.

These ideas have been conveyed to us, and we are examining what could serve as a guarantee if, one day, the war were to end on Iran's terms.

What guarantees are you requesting independently of what intermediaries convey?

What are the specific guarantees Iran seeks to end the war and prevent its recurrence?

There are various ideas.

I do not want to go into these ideas because there is still no basis for negotiation for us to put forward a proposal on this matter, but if we ever become confident that there is intent and will to end the war, we will discuss these proposals as well.

The U.S. President has reportedly given a deadline until April 6th, stating that if Tehran does not respond in negotiations, a comprehensive attack will be launched targeting energy, oil, and vital infrastructure across Iran.

What do you say to that?

They have tested us many times.

We do not accept deadlines.

For us, securing the interests and rights of the Iranian people is what matters.

No one can set deadlines for us.

Artificial deadlines do nothing but make matters more difficult, and you have seen that these deadlines have been extended twice so far.

The President of the United States must change his approach.

You cannot speak to the people of Iran with the language of threats and deadlines.

Our people are a great people with a very rich culture.

One must speak to the people of Iran with respect; otherwise, they will receive exactly the response they are receiving now.

One of the key points of disagreement between the United States and Iran currently is the Strait of Hormuz.

How is Iran currently thinking about the strait?

Is Iran considering actual control over it and preventing all countries from passing through, or is there a different vision for dealing with it?

Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the reality is that it lies within the internal waters of Iran and Oman.

It is not in international waters.

It is the internal waters of Iran and Oman.

Naturally, the interests of Iran and Oman regarding transit through this strait must be preserved.

From our point of view, the strait is currently open and is closed only to those who are at war with Iran.

Naturally, during wartime, we cannot allow those who are at war with us to pass through our internal waters.

Ships from other countries do not pass through the strait due to regional insecurity and high insurance costs.

Some of them have entered into negotiations with us.

And for many of them, especially those from friendly countries, we have put arrangements in place so they can pass through the strait safely.

You have seen the news: some countries have passed through the strait after reaching an agreement with Iran, and Iran has provided the arrangements for their safe passage.

What arrangements will be considered after the war is a matter related to Iran and Oman.

Of course, in this regard, we will certainly consider the interests of our other friends, both in and outside the region.

From our perspective, the Strait of Hormuz can be a waterway of peace, enabling the calm passage of ships from all countries.

But naturally, ensuring the security of this region, ensuring the safety of ship passage, addressing environmental issues, navigation, traffic, and regulations all require order and arrangements that pertain to the coastal states of this strait, Iran and Oman.

There are serious American threats about taking control of certain islands and even conducting a ground landing operation, as reported in some U.S. media outlets, to control the area.

How does Iran view these threats, and is Iran prepared to respond militarily to such actions?

I have previously answered this question once and said that we are waiting.

I do not think they would dare to do such a thing.

Very heavy casualties would await them.

Of course, we do not seek this.

We did not start this war, but we defended ourselves forcefully.

You have seen the damage inflicted on them, to their facilities, equipment, radars, aircraft and strategic aircraft, and what happened to their AWACS.

In ground warfare, we are even better than this; we are fully prepared to confront any ground threat to our country, and we hope they do not make this mistake.

Many say Iran may expand the scope of its confrontation to include Bab al-Mandab and the Red Sea.

Is there any movement, at least diplomatically or within military circles in Iran, regarding this possibility?

We have said before that the issue of Bab al-Mandab concerns the countries of the region, and Yemen has its own policies in this regard.

Just as they previously took actions in support of the people of Gaza and the Palestinian people, if they now decide to take any action, that is up to them.

We are not asking anyone for anything.

We know very well how to defend ourselves, and we do not need anyone in this regard.

But if groups in Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen decide on their own to take actions in support of the people of Iran, that is up to them.

There are reports that Iran is demanding that any negotiation table with the United States to end the war should include all members of the Axis of Resistance.

What do you mean by that?

From our perspective, any end to the war in Iran must be comprehensive and complete across the entire region.

When we speak about ending the war, we mean ending the war in Iran, in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Yemen, across the whole region.

We want peace and the absence of war throughout the region, and I think the region agrees.

I hope the United States and the Zionist regime understand this as well.

The war must end under conditions in which the entire region is at peace, and there is a guarantee that it will not be repeated.

Would these groups, from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, be present at the negotiation table alongside Iran in talks with the United States?

For now, there will be no negotiations.

No decision has been made yet.

Whenever a decision is made, we will consider it then.

There is discussion that the United States estimate a war timeframe of four to six weeks.

What is Iran's own estimate or preparedness timeline for war?

We do not set any deadline for defending ourselves.

Wherever necessary, we will defend ourselves in whatever way is necessary.

We will defend ourselves, our people, and our country in whatever way is required.

It does not matter to us what policy our enemies adopt or what deadlines they set.

Of course, we recommend that before they suffer further damage, they should end this war and end it completely and permanently.

Meanwhile, statements from Iran suggest readiness for up to six months of war.

Is Iran truly prepared for such a duration, specifically given that the United States and Israel are talking about targeting Iran's missile and air defense systems?

For at least six months.

Wherever necessary, we will defend our country.

There are also American claims that Iranian missile and drone systems are currently being targeted, with accusations that Iran is using them against countries in the region.

What is your response?

Is Iran indeed targeting regional countries?

So where do these missiles that are being fired come from?

Where do these drones heading towards them come from?

Just two days ago, we destroyed this American AWACS aircraft worth about $600 million with a low-cost Iranian drone.

So where do these come from?

I think we should not pay much attention to the American propaganda campaign.

The world is aware.

It sees that our strikes are continuing consistently and that they have not been able to stop them.

They have also not been able to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

They even sought help from other countries but still couldn't do it.

Now they are even pleading for negotiations.

Therefore, I think we should not pay too much attention to our enemy's propaganda.

The reality on the ground is that we have maintained our defensive capabilities.

Our strikes against the enemy continue, and they continue strongly.

If negotiations between Iran and the United States were to take place, what issues would Iran prioritize at the negotiation table?

The American side speaks about the nuclear program, the missile program, and Iran's regional policies.

What are Iran's priorities in these negotiations?

There is still no plan for negotiations.

If one day we reach that point, we will determine the priorities.

There is concern among countries in the region.

They ask: If Iran is confronting the United States, why are these countries being targeted?

This includes Gulf states such as Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain.

There is a sense of grievance, as described in Arabic.

We have explained this many times.

We truly do not attack our friends in the Persian Gulf region.

We attack American facilities, American forces, and American targets that, unfortunately, are located in these countries.

There may be collateral damage, but our targets are only American objectives in these countries.

There is a reality that no one can deny: the United States is using the territory, airspace, and waters of these countries to attack Iran.

There is substantial evidence and documentation for this.

Even the Americans themselves have said it.

They have admitted where the guided missiles fired at Iran were launched from.

Are they fired from 2,000 kilometers away? No.

They are launched from within the region.

When their aircraft take off from their ships, where do they refuel?

They have no other way.

They refuel in the region through American aerial tankers stationed at their bases there.

Three American F-15s were in Kuwait, and according to them, they were mistakenly shot down.

Well, anyone can ask: What were they doing in Kuwait?

It was clear that they were using Kuwait's airspace to attack Iran.

The fact that the United States is using the airspace, territory, and waters of these countries against Iran is a reality.

We only target American objectives located in these countries, places that provide services to these forces, and where they gather.

American newspapers themselves have admitted that American soldiers hide in hotels and office buildings in Persian Gulf countries.

In reality, they are using the people of the Persian Gulf as human shields.

Why do they not see this reality? We did not start this war.

The United States started this war, and the Zionist regime started it, using their bases in these areas.

Our friends in the Persian Gulf region should complain about the United States and the Zionist regime and condemn them instead of complaining about us.

Why have they never condemned the aggression against Iran?

Instead, they condemn us for defending ourselves.

That is really not fair.

We want our friends in the region to live with dignity and pride.

We respect Arab sovereignty.

We do not insult them the way their American friends sometimes do.

The United States has made very insulting remarks about the leaders of the Persian Gulf countries, but we speak to them with respect.

Finally, how do you envision the future nature of Iran's relationship with the countries of the region?

Dr. Abbas Araqi, Foreign Minister of Iran. Thank you for talking to Al Jazeera.

446,430 views Apr 1, 2026 #abbasaraghchi #interview #iranwar

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi tells Talk to Al Jazeera that Iran is not negotiating with the United States, despite ongoing exchanges of messages, including direct communication from US envoy Steve Witkoff.

Araghchi says talks lack trust, adding that no response has been given to US proposals, and that there is no basis for negotiations.

Araghchi outlines Iran's conditions for ending the war, warns against threats and deadlines, and signals a readiness to continue defending the country as regional tensions escalate.

TRANSCRIPT