Dr. Seyed Kamal Kharazi described Lebanon’s Hezbollah’s actions against the Zionist regime’s aggression in Gaza as “wise” and said: ‘The analysis of the Israelis that the situation is very dangerous at the border is true because they have experienced 33 days of war with Hezbollah and they know that since then Hezbollah has become much stronger. Therefore, certainly, they have the right to be very anxious and concerned.’

Dr. Kharazi raised the question of ‘what the Israelis have achieved so far?’ and continued that in this war, only global hatred towards Israel’s brutality in killing children, women, and elderly people has been formed. ‘As you know, most of the people who have been killed are children and women. What kind of strategy is this? This is out of anger. It is quite clear that they do not have a feasible war strategy. It’s just motivated by their anger. It’s not a way to fight. There should be some results out of this war. So far, it has been proven that there has been no result but killing, which has incited public opinion around the world against Israel.’ he said.

The President of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, on the issue that others say Iran is very close to building a nuclear weapon and only needs two weeks to build one, said, ‘We do not have such a policy to do that because it is against the Fatwa of the Leader of the Islamic Republic. We don’t need that because we are members of NPT and have signed CTBT; therefore, there’s no need to do that. But having this capability by itself has been a deterrent against others. Therefore, this is the case. If they come back to JCPOA, naturally, we will come back and remain committed to it.’

The full text of this comes as follows:

Q: Kamal Kharrazi, thank you for talking to Al Jazeera. The Qatari-mediated ceasefire lasted for seven days between Hamas and Israel, and now the fighting continues yet again in Gaza. What is Iran’s position on the current situation on the ground in Gaza?

A: Thank you very much. Basically, Iran has been supporting the ceasefire from the beginning. Now that Israel has come back to fighting, I believe that it’s a strategic mistake because not only do they have to fight Hamas and Palestinians in Gaza, as well as in the West Bank, but also, they have to fight politically with different countries who are supporting ceasefire, even Americans. And more than that, they have to fight with public opinion worldwide. So, it is a strategic mistake. We believe as soon as possible, they have to come back to the ceasefire and stop these brutalities and crimes.

Q: The supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on November 29 explicitly shattered the notion that Iran wants the expulsion of Jews in the future state of Palestine. He said, “Some are lying when they claim that Iran says all Jews or Zionists should be thrown into the sea. These are things stated by some Arabs in the past; we never said this. We don’t throw anyone into the sea.” Does this mean that Iran will support a two-state solution if the Palestinian people agree to it?

A: We certainly have our own views. Iran is not a neighbor to Israel. And therefore, I am glad that the leader of the Islamic Republic has clarified this issue. In terms of the two-state solution, naturally, we do not believe in that plan because, first of all, Israel itself does not accept that and does not support this plan. Second, it is not possible; it’s not feasible at all. Because only 20% of the Palestinian land is in the hands of Palestinians right now, and even in that 20%, there are a lot of settlers who have been occupying the Palestinian land. So, it’s not practical to talk about the two-state solution. We believe that the final solution would be establishing a one-state composed of Muslims, Christians, and Jews, decided by the original people who have been living in this land. And this, I believe, eventually would be the reasonable plan to come up with as a solution. We have seen in the case of South Africa, for example, that finally, they removed the apartheid regime and agreed on a democratic state. This has to be really thought about. I believe the one-state solution is getting more support these days around the world.

Q: Do you think it’s even with the two-state solution based on 1967 borders, if the Palestinian people accept this and they have said some of within their leadership that they would, would you then support it?

A: This is their own business, of course. We have our position, but we are not going to dictate our position to others. But basically, we believe that it cannot be possible. And this is not only the current government position. Even in 1947, before the establishment of Israel, that was the position of Iranians in the United Nations. At that time, the representative of Iran gave a speech and said that with a two-state solution, never fighting would end, and there would be bloodshed all over the years. And that has been correct. Therefore, eventually, there should be one state where Palestinians and others would live together.

Q: The Iranian Foreign minister said that Iran supports Palestinian resistance groups politically, ideologically, and with humanitarian aid. Can you confirm that your government doesn’t provide military or financial support to these groups?

A: No. We are ready to support them by all means.

Q: Including supplying the military needs?

A: Even that, if we could access that part of the world. But the road is dead-ended. I mean, there’s no way to reach them. It is only their capability and talent that they have been producing whatever they need. Now they have missiles. They have other armaments they need. These have all been developed by themselves. They know how to get arms and how to develop arms. But we will be ready to support them by all means.

Q: So, you would be willing to send military assistance, financial…

A: If it is possible, indeed, there is no limitation. But it is not possible right now.

Q: And do you think if that were the case, you could do that, and you did that? Do you think that would further complicate this conflict by supplying weapons to one side?

A: Basically, you have to think about this conflict’s roots. You know, a group of people have gone to the lands of Palestinians, have occupied that land. Now, Palestinians are to defend. This is the right of self-defense. And it’s like, for example, if you are living in your house, then somebody would come and kick you out. You have to defend yourself. So, it’s the question of self-defense. I believe Israelis do not have such a right because they are occupiers. They claim that whatever crimes they are committing is self-defense, but it’s not self-defense. They are occupiers. The right of self-defense is on the Palestinian’s side.

Q: The United States has sent messages to you since the start of the war, stressing that they don’t want a wider conflict with Iran in the Middle East. Do you believe it’s possible to avoid one at this stage, given Israel is continuing its military path in Gaza?

A: Everyone has to try to prevent the expansion of this war. Because it’s not in the interest of America or regional states, it’s not in the interest of Europeans. And therefore, we have always been against the expansion of this war. But war has its calculations. One mistake may push you to engagement. And that is something that has to be considered. Therefore, nobody can say what will happen in the future. We have to be ready, as well as other countries in the region, to defend ourselves. We’re prepared to defend by full means.

Q: Does that mean all your military capabilities and forces have been put on a certain level of alert since the start of the war in Gaza?

A: We have always been on alert, and therefore, we have to be ready, and there’s no choice. We have to defend ourselves.

Q: What is the red line for Iran in terms of getting involved militarily with either the US or Israel? What would be a possible scenario or trigger that would draw Iran into this conflict militarily?

A: If they aggress against us, naturally, we’ll have no choice but to defend ourselves. That’s why we have to be ready for everything. And we are prepared for that.

Q: What would constitute an act of aggression to Iran?

A: For us, any aggression against our territories naturally has to be responded to.

Q: Hassan Nasrallah’s much-anticipated speeches were all about defending the limited engagements of his group, but could Hezbollah change its tactics and engage in a full-blown war if Hamas can’t sustain its attacks in Gaza any longer?

A: Hezbollah has been doing very wisely. Of course, there was a danger of Israeli attacks against Lebanon. Basically, Hezbollah’s responsibility is to defend Lebanon, but also, you know, they can help other members of the Axis of Resistance. What Hezbollah has done so far at the border with Israel, you know, is that a large part of the Israeli army has been engaged in the north, and there have been a lot of refugees from northern cities of Israel to the south. And all of this has put lots of pressure on the Israeli government. And that has been a kind of support to Hamas by itself. But if Israelis would increase their attacks on Lebanon, naturally, that would be the responsibility of Hezbollah to defend fully against Israeli aggression.

Q: Senior Israeli military officials said that the situation on the Lebanon border is explosive, despite the current level of fighting and the resumption of the fighting now, and could escalate into a war for several days of heavy battles. What would be Iran’s response should Hezbollah engage in a full-out war with Israel?

A: If they aggress Lebanon, naturally, they engage in full war. But right now, there have been just borderline exchanges, I mean fighting. As I said, Hezbollah has been doing that wisely; therefore, it all depends on the future and the level of fighting.

Q: Do you think their response has been sufficient? Because there’s been some criticism both within Lebanon and other parts of the world that Hezbollah is not responding strongly enough to Israel alongside its borders so far? What is Iran’s position? Are you in agreement with their tactics until now, or do you think they could…

A: We have to say that we do not order others. But others decide themselves based on the conditions and situations they are in. This has been the situation of Hezbollah so far. But I believe it has been quite wisely. The analysis of the Israelis that the situation is very dangerous at the border is true because they have experienced 33 days of war with Hezbollah, and they know that since then, Hezbollah has become much stronger. Therefore, they have the right to be very anxious and concerned.

Q: Moving on to Syria and the occupied Golan Heights, Israel has launched multiple airstrikes since October 7th to destroy targets belonging to revolutionary guards and shut down main airports. So, Israel has been very much on the offensive in Syria. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards forces are active in Syria by the requests of the Assad government. What’s been your response?

A: These attacks have been against Syrian territories. Although in some cases maybe some damages have been incurred to the Iranian side, we have not left those attacks without response. There have been responses in the past, and there will be responses in the future. Some of the Axis of Resistance members have also responded to them, and therefore, any aggression has to be responded to.

Q: I want to talk about this Axis of Resistance. When did it come into play? When did Iran feel that it should exist? How did it form?

A: It has been formed to react to the intervention of foreigners, including Israelis, supporting Palestinians who are doing their best to liberate their land. Therefore, the Axis of Resistance has been developed as a matter of responsibility. So far, they are quite successful in putting pressure on Israelis and Americans as well as those who are supporting Israel. What Yemenis did, for example, in recent days was a new phenomenon. They now can control the sea, and therefore, all of these are in support of the Axis of Resistance, and somehow, it can be considered as a kind of reply and reaction to the atrocities of Israelis in Syria and elsewhere.

Q: Let’s talk about the Houthis you just mentioned. They’ve claimed responsibility for several attacks against Israeli-owned ships and the US naval fleet in the Red Sea. With them claiming to control the Red Sea and your naval fleets in the (Persian) Gulf, is there a broader strategy to retaliate against US naval forces in these waters?

A: You know, members of the Axis of Resistance decide by themselves, and by putting in energy, they work toward their destination. Yemenis these days are very powerful in terms of resisting aggression and supporting other members of the Axis of Resistance. What they did in the Red Sea and what they did in terms of launching missiles and drones was, in fact, in support of Hamas, and all of these have to be considered as the power of the Axis of Resistance.

Q: So, there are these, like you said, part of the groups that make up the Axis of Resistance. There must be some coordination between all these groups. They can’t independently work on their own. Sure, they make the decisions independently, but there must be some coordination between them. Where does Iran play a part in this Axis of Resistance?

A: You know that Iran has developed the strategy, and they are supporting it. This doesn’t mean that there would be coordination between Iran and the Axis of Resistance on every spot. But they are doing it by themselves; they are, I mean, manufacturing what they need in terms of armament. They are funded by themselves, but at the same time, whatever support Iran can provide if they request it, naturally, we don’t hesitate.

Q: Including military and financial support?

A: Yeah, if it is possible.

Q: The Iranian foreign minister, Hosein Amir-Abdollahian, has said that the situation in the Middle East is a powder keg that could explode at any moment. Israel stated that the aim is to get rid of Hamas completely. Can Iran accept a world without Hamas?

A: It is basically wishful thinking by Israelis to eradicate Hamas. It’s impossible to do that, and there have been many other cases around the world where underground movements could not be eradicated. Hamas is an ideology. Hams has the support of Palestinians, and so far, during this war, has shown that they have kept their capability; their organization has not been eradicated. They have been fighting with invaders to the extent that many Israeli soldiers have been killed, many armaments have been destroyed, and indeed, it’s not easy to eradicate them. It is wishful thinking to remove Hamas and eradicate their organization. It’s not possible.

Q: How long do you think then that this can continue? The stated aim you say of Israel is impossible. They will continue this bombardment until there’s nothing left in Gaza.

A: Yeah, but what have they arrived at? Just hate around the world against Israel’s atrocities, killing children, women, and the elderly. As you know, most of the people who have been killed are children and women. What kind of strategy is this? This is out of anger. It is pretty clear that they do not have a feasible war strategy. It’s just motivated by their anger. It’s not a way to fight. I mean, there should be some results out of this war. So far, it has been proven that there has been no result but killing, which has incited public opinion around the world against Israel.

Q: I want to end with Iran’s nuclear program. In the IAEA report and the latest accusations against Iran and non-compliance, Rafael Grossi, the head of the UN atomic watchdog, in his latest report to the board of governors, said that “Iran is not fulfilling its commitments and there is no progress ahead.” Why is your relationship with the nuclear watchdog so strained if you have nothing to hide regarding your nuclear program?

A: You know, the reason is that we signed JCPOA, and all the members were obliged to be committed to that, but unfortunately, Americans withdrew. With the American withdrawal, even Europeans followed the American order, and therefore, there was no choice for us but to limit our commitments based on the JCPOA text. Consequently, we decided to reduce our commitments and, in reality, increase the level of enrichment, which has been our right. What Mr. Grossi said that this level of enriched uranium of Iran is only possessed by nuclear weapon states is true.

Q: So why do you need it if you don’t want a nuclear weapon?

A: This is a reaction to the non-commitment of others. And it’s not illegal, but it is our legal right to do that. But at the same time, we do not have the strategy to develop nuclear weapons, although we can do it. Even they say that Iran needs only two weeks to build a nuclear weapon. However, it is a deterrent capability.

Q: You could build a nuclear weapon in two weeks? One or multiple?

A: You know, it is what the others say that Iran is very close to building nuclear weapons. It only takes two weeks to make a nuclear weapon. But we do not have such a policy to do that because it is against the Fatwa of the Leader of the Islamic Republic. We don’t need that because we are members of NPT and have signed CTBT; therefore, there’s no need to do that. But having this capability by itself has been a deterrent against others. Therefore, this is the case. If they come back to JCPOA, naturally, we will come back and remain committed to it.

Q: I don’t think there’s anyone left who believes JCPOA might be revived. There needs to be a new version of it. Is there any appetite within Iran’s leadership to start rebuilding what you had? A new version?

A: No. We insist on the current text. We are ready to return to the text that has already been signed, provided the other side is committed to that.

Q: But your level of nuclear activity has dramatically increased since the JCPOA was signed. So there have to be significant adjustments made to the agreement to reflect…

A: No, if we come back to the agreement, we will reduce the level of the enrichment. We will come back to the 3.67 enrichment.

Q: And the excess amount you will get rid of or get?

A: Yeah, whatever JCPOA dictates. We are ready to be committed to that entirely.

Q: So, there’s no new version, no updated version…

A: There’s no need for a new version. It is there; it has been signed, and only the others have to decide to come back to the current JCPOA.

Q: So, given your nuclear capabilities, I know it’s not part of your mandate, and it’s not what you are instructed to do; if you had to build a nuclear weapon, is it true that you would need two weeks?

A: This is something that those who are experts have to say. I’m not an expert on that. But that is what the other side, I mean those who have intelligence, those who know how to build a nuclear weapon, claim that Iran only needs two weeks.

Q: Are their claims valid?

A: That has to be clarified by those who are experts. By the way, I wanted to appreciate what Al Jazeera has done in covering the case of Gaza. How they have broadcasted different scenes has been strategic, in fact, to let others worldwide know what’s happening in Gaza.