TEHRAN – A top Iranian diplomat says Washington’s recent military action against Iran is a direct result of a failed effort to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear enrichment programme entirely.
Iran and the United States participated in five rounds of indirect talks in April and June to create a deal that would limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the end of US sanctions. Just days before both parties traveled to Oman for sixth round debate, Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian soils, and with US support, American aircraft later joined the war directly to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites. Consultations were halted by Tehran when the war broke out and have remained in the frontier ever since.
In a detailed interview with Iranian media, Foreign Minister Abbas Araguchi explained that American negotiators influenced by Hardline Advisors had stuck to the concept of “zero enrichment” as the only way to prevent nuclear-armed Iran. This ultimatum, he said, is a major point of competition that Tehran could never accept.
“The core of their position was that Iran never had the ability to develop nuclear weapons,” Araguchi said. “They were persuaded that they essentially preserved the possibility even with limited enrichment activities, which led them to take a complete halt enrichment of unnegotiable demand.
Aragut repeated Iran’s official stance, and repeated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Revolution, which banned nuclear weapons. He emphasized that the country’s nuclear ambitions are strictly peaceful.
“Our policy is not to acquire nuclear weapons, and we’ve never done it,” he said. “What we are claiming is to protect our sovereignty over nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes and the scientific advances we have made ourselves.”
The diplomats revealed that several practical solutions were discussed during the indirect consultations mediated by Oman. These plans aim to find intermediate ground that allows for monitored enrichment while ensuring non-enhancement.
“An operational plan that balances the concerns of both parties is on the table and was seriously considered,” Araguchi pointed out. “However, the American delegation will consistently retreat when it returns to Washington, where political pressure groups have convinced them to hold a line of uncompromising zero enrichment.”
Despite the set-up that led to military conflicts, Araguchi defended the use of diplomacy as an important tool for diplomacy. He dismissed the simple view that negotiations with the West were inherently wrong while the war was noble.
“This is a false dichotomy. Both war and diplomacy are the means the state uses to pursue its goals,” he argued. “Diplomacy is often a low cost and risk path, but sometimes it fails. There is no good or bad in nature. Its value depends entirely on the context and the way it is adopted.”
Araguchi also praised the diplomatic outreach of Iran’s region, and, decisively, demonstrated its military power to ultimately deter the broader war. He suggested that diplomacy created an off-ramp from the conflict, but it was the state’s preparation and powerful reaction that persuaded them to eliminate the enemy. “The strength and authoritative response of the Islamic Republic ultimately discouraged the enemy from continuing their invasion,” he said.
Reports suggest that Iran and the United States may again engage in indirect talks in the future. But analysts say diplomacy cannot bear fruit if Americans are not seeking favorable outcomes for both sides.