The President of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations (SCFR), in an interview with the Khamenei.ir website, emphasized that the United States and Europe have consistently failed to adhere to genuine, rational, and honorable diplomacy toward Iran. He clarified: “The outcome of the recent nuclear negotiations has made it clear that the other side is not committed to a logical negotiation. Beyond the nuclear issue, they try to impose restrictions on Iran’s missile program and its support of resistance matters on which Iran is unwilling to negotiate.”

Dr. Kharrazi noted that the 12-day war bore both striking similarities and differences with the eight-year Sacred Defense, stating: “The paradigm of warfare has changed; wars have now become intelligence, technology, and cognitive-based. We, too, are advancing along this path to increasingly leverage intelligence and cognitive approaches in confronting our enemies.”

Dr. Kharrazi also highlighted the role of the Supreme Leader as Commander-in-Chief during the 12-day war, saying: “His swift appointment of the successors of the martyred commanders, along with his effective media presence, not only thwarted the enemy’s goal of collapsing Iran’s defense apparatus, but also reassured the public and restored calm. In the society”

The SCFR President identified the war’s fundamental lessons for the country as: “preserving and strengthening self-reliance,” “mastering the intelligence and cognitive paradigm of warfare,” and “preserving and reinforcing the national unity.”

What follows is the full text of this interview:

Question: In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Greetings and respects to you. Thank you for taking the time to speak with us. As our first question, His Eminence has repeatedly articulated three core principles for any negotiation: wisdom, dignity, and expediency. Please share your analysis of these three principles and His Eminence’s view regarding the necessity of diplomacy and logic to be based on those principles.

Answer: In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. One component of national power is a country’s defensive capability. Another is robust diplomacy. Economic strength and the people’s consent and support are also vital components of a nation’s comprehensive power to defend its rights. Therefore, diplomacy is indispensable, and throughout history, nations have employed diplomacy to resolve their issues and challenges. Even during the time of the Noble Prophet of Islam (PBUH), diplomacy was practiced through the dispatch of a group of Muslims to Abyssinia (today’s Ethiopia) and the Prophet’s (PBUH) letters to the leaders of other nations.

What matters is the foundational principles upon which diplomacy should be conducted. His Eminence the Supreme Leader has articulated three principles in this regard: wisdom, dignity, and expediency. If, in diplomacy, we endeavor to convince the other side through sound logic and compelling arguments, we uphold the principle of wisdom. When our actions ensure that the nation’s dignity remains unblemished and the people are not subjected to humiliation, the principle of dignity is observed. At the same time, His Eminence has also emphasized expediency as a principle, so that in negotiations with other countries, flexibility may be exercised when necessary to achieve a favorable outcome. Expediency means that if the nation’s interests so require, both parties should demonstrate flexibility based on a win-win logic to attain a desirable result.

For example, before the 12-day war, Iran’s acceptance of indirect nuclear negotiation with the United States and refraining from direct talks reflected the adherence to the principle of wisdom.

Question: I have a precise question on this matter, and with your permission, I will raise it before proceeding further. Before the Zionist regime attacked Iran, five rounds of indirect talks with the Americans had already taken place, and a sixth round was scheduled for Monday, two days after the attack. In your view, what did Iran gain by agreeing to and participating in these indirect negotiations with the United States? It seems to me that successive U.S. administrations employ of tactic of portraying Iran as the guilty party—attempting to depict the other side as unwilling to negotiate or engage—while using their vast media apparatus to blame Iran for the situation. From this perspective, I believe these negotiation rounds largely neutralized the Americans’ domestic political game aimed at influencing public opinion. Dr. Kharrazi, I would appreciate your view on this.

Answer: Indeed. Precisely for this reason, the Leadership consented to indirect negotiations, as there was doubt from the outset about whether the Americans genuinely intended to engage in serious talks, grounded in the established principles of political negotiation.

Question: Dr. Kharrazi, if possible, please describe the process that led to this consent. Trump sent a letter, and it appears a certain course was followed. After all, His Eminence typically consults extensively in such matters, and the system ultimately concluded that indirect talks should commence. Please elaborate on this process.

Answer: When initiating negotiations, the first step is to determine its procedures. These matters are first deliberated and decided upon in the Supreme National Security Council and then presented to His Eminence. If approved by him, the decision becomes an official resolution of the Supreme National Security Council. His Eminence consented to indirect negotiations because he was not assured that the talks would yield results while simultaneously preserving the nation’s dignity. Thus, agreeing to indirect negotiations reflected the wisdom exercised in this diplomatic engagement.

Had Iran rejected negotiations and the Americans resorted to military action, the question would have arisen: “Why didn’t you negotiate to prevent war?” Iran accepted negotiations, conducted five rounds in good faith, and appeared close to achieving an outcome—but the Americans launched their attack nonetheless.

Throughout the negotiations, the dignity of the Islamic Republic remained paramount, and no agreement was reached on any issue that would compromise that dignity. For instance, Iran consistently emphasized its right to enrichment, while simultaneously demonstrating flexibility in negotiations to achieve a result. Therefore, adherence to those three principles in the nuclear talks was entirely evident.

Question: If we examine this more closely, what, in your view, distinguishes coercive negotiation from honorable negotiation? During the war, His Eminence stated that Iran would not accept an imposed peace, just as it rejects imposed war, rejecting both equally. From this perspective, if we review the recent events, what is the difference between coercive and honorable negotiation, and what lessons does our experience in these 12 days offer?

Answer: In political discourse, negotiation has established principles. A negotiation is honorable when it adheres to these principles. If the other side resorts to force or other instruments to impose the outcome of negotiations upon its counterpart, the negotiation is neither honorable nor consistent with the diplomatic norms.

Among these principles are equality, respect for the sovereignty of the other party, transparency and accountability, mutual flexibility based on win-win logic to achieve a sustainable outcome, and the durability of negotiated results. Some negotiation outcomes are not durable. We currently observe this in talks between the Israeli regime and the Palestinians: agreements are reached, but Israel subsequently disregards them. A similar pattern is evident in Lebanon.

Thus, numerous principles constitute the foundation of honorable and rational diplomacy. One must assess whether these principles were respected in negotiations with the Americans or Europeans. In practice, they were not. For example, Trump launched a military strike during ongoing negotiations—contrary to all negotiation norms and principles.

Another example is the Europeans, who failed to fulfill their commitments and, contrary to the JCPOA, demanded that Iran accept zero enrichment while simultaneously invoking the JCPOA to activate the snapback mechanism. Such actions violate diplomatic principles.

Question: In your view, how does the 12-day war and its aftermath steer Iran’s nuclear file from the perspective of the Islamic Republic? Can one still speak of an honorable negotiation with the West under such circumstances?

Answer: First, it must be stated that the outcome of the recent nuclear negotiations has made it clear that the other side does not recognize the premise of a logical negotiation. They seek to impose restrictions beyond the nuclear issue—specifically on Iran’s missile program and support of resistance, on which Iran is unwilling to negotiate.

Therefore, Iran has no choice but to articulate its logic to global public opinion, remain prepared for principled negotiations, and refuse to engage in diplomacy that violates its foundational principles. Iranian negotiators have always sought to avoid abandoning the negotiating table. Even during the recent presence of the President and the Foreign Minister in New York, extensive efforts were made up to the final moments to reach an agreement, but the other side refused. This demonstrates that Iran’s logic is sound, but the other side does not adhere to logic and instead seeks to achieve its goals through force.

Question: Looking broadly at Iran’s nuclear diplomacy over the past two decades, how has the Islamic Republic leveraged international and regional capacities to manage this file? Different administrations have applied various management approaches. To what extent has the Islamic Republic utilized these capacities?

Answer: The Islamic Republic of Iran has never turned its back on diplomacy and negotiation. During Mr. Khatami’s presidency, nuclear talks with Europeans began in the 1380s [2001–2005]. Negotiations progressed, but the other side made excessive demands. During a meeting with the Iranian chief negotiator, Mr. Rouhani, then Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, at Sa’dabad, the other side requested that Iran suspend enrichment so both parties could reach a mutually satisfactory outcome.

Iran accepted the suspension, but the other side then demanded concrete guarantees that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons. We responded that we, too, require firm assurances that sanctions would be lifted. However, in practice, they were unwilling to lift sanctions and merely sought to convert the suspension of enrichment into a permanent halt.

Ultimately, in the final days of Khatami’s administration, the suspension was terminated, as it became evident that continuing this path would lead nowhere and that the other side intended solely to impose a permanent cessation of enrichment on Iran. Thus, all concluded that persisting would only forfeit the Islamic Republic’s rights.

Consequently, the suspension was ended, and with the launch of the Isfahan UCF project, a new phase of Iran’s nuclear program began—because the dignity of the Islamic Republic demanded that it not yield to coercion or the other side’s political games. Of course, during Mr. Rouhani’s administration, negotiations on the JCPOA proceeded due to the other side’s readiness and yielded specific results. However, in practice, we saw that the Americans never cooperated in good faith and withdrew from the agreement during Trump’s first term as president. The Europeans also failed to fulfill their commitments. This experience demonstrates that while the Islamic Republic must not abandon negotiation, it must remain vigilant against imposition and stand firm against it.

The exact process unfolded in recent dealings with the Europeans. Iran was ready to negotiate, but the other side sought to impose its will. They set three conditions: if accepted, the snapback mechanism would be delayed by six months. We even showed flexibility on this matter, but the other side was unwilling to accept. Therefore, if negotiations are based on logical principles and preserve the dignity of the Islamic Republic of Iran, we remain ready to negotiate even now.

Question: Dr. Kharrazi, you have encountered many Western diplomats. Based on your personal experience and knowledge, tell us what is really going on in their heads that when their own intelligence agencies admit in their official reports that the Islamic Republic has no intention of building nuclear weapons, they still pursue these accusations in diplomatic processes and insist on them?

Answer: There is no doubt that we have nuclear capability, but our policy has always been transparent. It is based on a fatwa issued by the Supreme Leader, which declares the production and use of weapons of mass destruction as forbidden (haram). They believe this fatwa is not a binding or genuine commitment and suspect that Iran may one day pursue nuclear weapons.

In fact, they do not understand our culture: when the Supreme Leader issues a fatwa, it is binding and enforceable. We have repeatedly attempted, through various means, to demonstrate that the Islamic Republic’s decision not to pursue nuclear weapons is genuine. For this reason, we have extended maximum cooperation to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Indeed, we implemented the Additional Protocol 93+2 in practice. Under this protocol, IAEA inspectors may conduct technical inspections without prior notice at the earliest possible time. Thus, verification mechanisms exist that would immediately expose any future Iranian move toward nuclear weapons production. Even today, when Western agencies state their intelligence indicates Iran has no intention of building nuclear weapons, this assessment is based on the inspections and information they have gathered.

We have fundamental disagreements with the United States and its Western allies that extend far beyond the nuclear file. These tensions have existed since the inception of the Islamic Revolution. Consequently, these issues are exploited as instruments of pressure to achieve their objectives against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Question: Western media—and even some domestic groups—suggest that uranium enrichment is not worth its costs, arguing that Iran should not insist on it if it entails enduring sanctions and pressures. They claim the cost-benefit ratio is unfavorable. As a diplomat with years of experience in these negotiations, how do you respond to this view?

Answer: Self-reliance has been and remains a foundational policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This policy means not relying on others to manage the country’s affairs. We see its embodiment in the defense sector: it is precisely this policy of self-sufficiency that has enabled the Islamic Republic to produce its military equipment and defend itself independently.

Indeed, had Iran been dependent on others, it would have faced severe difficulties. The same logic applies to nuclear energy. Although Iran possesses oil resources, oil is ultimately finite. Therefore, the country must develop alternative energy capabilities, including nuclear energy.

To build nuclear power plants, we must possess the technological capability to construct them and supply their fuel. We are currently pursuing this policy by constructing small nuclear reactors. When foreign countries build reactors, they typically assume responsibility for their fuel supply as well as dependency that can become a tool of pressure. But if we develop our own reactors, we must also produce their fuel needed to avoid such dependency.

Given the Islamic Republic’s policy of generating approximately 20,000 megawatts of nuclear electricity in the future-though this will take time-it is natural and logical to prepare for domestic nuclear fuel production. Thus, enrichment is an inherent right for our country, not something we can easily relinquish to rely solely on others. This is in the nation’s interest.

Question: I have a few questions regarding the war. Where were you at the moment the war began?

Answer: I was at home.

Question: What was your first thought? Did you anticipate this?

Answer: There was an expectation that the Zionists would eventually attack us. However, there was no sense that such an attack would occur during ongoing negotiations. Nevertheless, they acted preemptively and launched the assault. Their calculation was mistaken, as they immediately received a strong and decisive response-ultimately compelling them to request a ceasefire.

Thus, in the realms of politics and defense, such events are foreseeable. What matters is that we prepare ourselves for any contingency. Fortunately, thanks to the policy of self-reliance and the firm resolve of the nation’s defenders, this readiness exists in our country.

Question: Dr. Kharrazi, you also have extensive experience from the eight-year Sacred Defense.

Answer: Yes, I was in charge of the War Information Headquarters.

Question: Now, from both military and diplomatic perspectives, including the Iran-Iraq ceasefire negotiations, I would like your analysis of the similarities and differences between the eight-year war and the 12-day war.

Answer: The 12-day war bore both striking similarities and differences with the eight-year Sacred Defense. In terms of similarities, in both conflicts, we relied on ourselves and produced some of the equipment we needed domestically. Although many weapons were available in Iran during the Sacred Defense, we still had to produce our needed armament, which we did and utilized.

Additionally, the motivation to defend the homeland and the high morale of combatants ready to enter the battlefield were evident in both wars. Popular support played a crucial role during the eight-year Sacred Defense, with the people present both on the frontlines and behind the scenes. In the 12-day war as well, public support and national unity were highly decisive. These constitute the main similarities between the two conflicts.

Regarding differences, the dominant paradigm of warfare has changed. During the eight-year Sacred Defense, war was based on an industrial paradigm and relied heavily on ground manpower. Enemy and Iranian forces were deployed along frontlines, and mass mobilization occurred. The people engaged directly in combat, and warfare depended on industrial military assets such as artillery, tanks, and other equipment.

This is no longer the case. Today, the paradigm of warfare has shifted to intelligence, technology, and cognitive dimensions. Information plays a critical role, and intelligence gathering relies on advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence for recognition and decision-making.

Now, artificial intelligence often replaces humans in recognition and decision-making processes. Thus, the dominant model of warfare has evolved from industries to intelligence, technology, and cognition by means of artificial intelligence, a profound transformation.

Another point: in the 12-day war, we relied on domestically produced weapons, whereas the Israeli regime depended on foreign assets and support. That is, Israel did not fight alone; Western countries directly participated in this war through their physical presence at military bases and by deploying their equipment in the region-including radars and missile defense systems such as Patriot, THAAD, and aircraft. We, however, did not rely on foreign assistance.

From an intelligence perspective, the Israeli regime, in addition to its own specialized systems—such as “Gaspel” for site identification and “Lavender” for personal data collection—also utilized NATO and other Western intelligence systems for information gathering.

They then employed artificial intelligence to cross-check and analyze the collected data to conduct operations. This represents a transformation in the conduct of warfare. We, too, are moving along this path to increasingly leverage intelligence and cognitive warfare to counter our enemies.

Consequently, significant similarities and differences are observed between the 12-day war and the eight-year Sacred Defense, as well as between Iran and Israel.

Question: Please elaborate on His Eminence’s role in coordinating the battlefield and diplomacy during the 12-day war.

Answer: I must emphasize that His Eminence fulfilled this role exceptionally well. When the enemy attacked and martyred our senior military commanders, His role as Commander-in-Chief became clearly evident. He immediately appointed the successors of the martyred commanders and personally appeared in three televised programs to explain the war’s affairs. This action restored calm among the public and the society.

The enemy’s goal was to collapse our defense apparatus by martyring our military leaders. Due to the immediate appointment of their successors, this objective was not achieved. His Eminence, through his presence and communication with the people, mitigated the war’s social impact and restored tranquility in the society. Thus, as Commander-in-Chief, he performed his duties admirably during this war.

Question: In your view, what factors led the Zionist regime to accept a ceasefire after 12 days—especially given its claims of military superiority, backing from the U.S. and certain Western countries, and its frequent boasts?

Answer: Significant pressure was exerted on the Israeli regime, and our missile strikes proved highly effective. Israel faced multiple challenges. Its internal constraints and the small size of its occupied territory-compared to the vast territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran-made it more vulnerable.

Thus, both internally and in terms of war costs, the situation became difficult for them. For us, costs were lower due to domestic production. However, the Israeli regime had to procure ammunition and arms from the U.S. and Europe, making the conflict costly and imposing considerable economic pressure.

Beyond indirect war costs, estimates indicate the direct cost of this war for Israel was approximately $2.4 billion. Each THAAD missile provided by the Americans costs $12 million. Consider how many missiles we launched toward the Zionist regime; if they used one THAAD missile to intercept each, the expense alone would have been enormous.

Therefore, economic and psychological pressures mounted on the Israeli regime. Moreover, the Americans were unwilling to prolong or regionalize the war, as it did not serve their interests. Consequently, they called for a ceasefire. We had declared from the outset that if they halted their attacks, we would cease ours, which we ultimately did.

Question: From various perspectives, if Iran is to draw lessons from this war, what would the main headings of these lessons be?

Answer: First, Iran must continue to uphold its self-reliance. Second, it must fully master the new paradigm of intelligence and cognitive-based warfare to respond effectively to adversaries. Third, reliance on the people and the national unity witnessed in society must be preserved, ensuring the public remains the primary pillar of national defense and supporter of the Islamic Republic’s actions.

When the people are present on the scene, the nation can defend itself more powerfully. Foreign powers constantly seek to weaken this national unity and dissuade the public from supporting the system. But if we rely on our own capabilities and the people, and fully master the new technologies serving modern warfare, we can effectively defend our identity, honor, and sovereignty.

Question: The Israeli regime currently faces unprecedented isolation in regional and global public opinion. How do you analyze this situation and its implications for the future of Palestine and the Zionist regime?

Answer: Indeed. The Israeli regime has never faced such widespread hatred. Today, the entire world despises it. Even in the U.S., according to a recent Gallup poll, only 32% of the public supports the Israeli regime’s operations in Gaza. Although support varies between Democrats and Republicans, overall public backing stands at a mere 32%—a very low rate.

In European countries, we witness massive daily demonstrations against the Israeli regime, with people genuinely and vigorously supporting Palestine. Never in Palestinian history has such support for the Palestinian struggle been observed. This is due to the scale of crimes the Israeli regime commits daily against Palestinians, as we witness in Gaza.

These are serious challenges facing the Israeli regime. But on whom does it rely? It depends on the major powers in Europe and America. The U.S., in turn, has shown it disregards international organizations, mocking them, as seen when it ridiculed the International Criminal Court (ICC) and withdrew from UNESCO.

This demonstrates that Trump operates according to a new model, seeking to impose his power unilaterally worldwide. The Zionists, too, rely on Western powers to perpetrate such injustices. Nevertheless, we hope that the broad public support now evident in global opinion will eventually halt this war, and-God willing, enable the Palestinians to reclaim their rights.

Question: In your view, what is the main threat of the Zionist regime for the region and the world?

Answer: We need to examine what objectives Zionists are pursuing regionally and globally. Based on Torah myths, Zionists claim the right to a vast territory “from the Nile to the Euphrates”-known as “Greater Israel.”

David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, stated that Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates must be realized. Moshe Dayan, former Israeli army chief, upon occupying the Golan Heights, said: “Our first generation established the State of Israel; today, we have expanded the land of Israel; and future generations will realize the policy of ‘from the Nile to the Euphrates.’”

These statements reveal a long-term plan that Zionists harbor for this region and the world. Zionists possess a 24-article protocol drafted by Freemasons that clearly outlines their long-term policies.

They claim the right of global governance and believe they must dominate the world. In pursuing this goal, they subscribe to the concept of “sacred violence,” believing that they must undertake any necessary action to achieve their objective.

Zionists, exactly like ISIS, believe in “sacred violence.” Extremist groups among them actively carry out such actions. For example, radical groups like “Gush  Emunim” attack Palestinians, seize their lands and homes, and commit massacres, based on their belief in sacred violence.

Therefore, all must remain vigilant against the Zionists’ plans for the region and the world. As a small minority and race, they seek, by relying on major powers, to dominate the region and the world. We must prepare ourselves to resist them.

May God, by His grace, assist the Iranian nation to remain steadfast, stand firm against foreign coercion, and strive for a prosperous and dignified Iran.