Takht-Ravanchi: Flexibility Possible on Enrichment Level, But Zero Is Not Acceptable

In an interview with Japan’s Kyodo News on Saturday (August 8), parts of which had been previously published, Majid Takht-Ravanchi emphasized that Iran prefers to negotiate with the United States, but Washington must provide assurances that it will not attack Iran again during the negotiation process, and must also accept a win–win formula.

He further stated: “Zero enrichment is not on the table. We cannot, under any circumstances, accept zero enrichment.”

The Political Deputy of the Foreign Minister, noting that “we have a clear and transparent position on the snapback mechanism,” stressed: “In our view, the three European countries cannot trigger the snapback mechanism because they have violated their commitments under the JCPOA.”

The full text of the interview is as follows:

Question: What are the existing obstacles to resuming nuclear talks with the United States?

Answer: We were in the middle of nuclear talks with the United States when we were first attacked by Israel, and then by the United States itself. We believe that the Americans were aware of the attack from the beginning, collaborated with the Israelis in carrying it out, and then directly attacked us themselves. As far as Iran is concerned, we have no problem with negotiations and have always supported dialogue. We have maintained this stance, but emphasized that after the attack, the United States must explain to us the reason for its action against Iran. If we are to have genuine talks, we need transparency. In fact, the U.S. carried out a form of deception operation, pretending to want negotiations while deciding to use the military option. Therefore, the main question is why the United States took such a decision, and they must explain this to us. This is the first point.

The second point is that the United States must clarify whether it seeks a win–win dialogue or intends to impose its will. If it chooses the latter, in our view, there is no need for talks, because the basis of negotiations is give-and-take. If you enter negotiations with a party, you do not expect them to enter the room and dictate their will to you, as you will certainly not accept it, and if you had been told this in advance, you might not have started the talks at all. This is another important matter. We want to ensure that we reach a mutual understanding.

We seek win–win conditions where all parties are satisfied with the outcome, but this must also be accepted by the Americans. That is why we have not yet begun talks. At the same time, Iran prefers to negotiate, but they must provide guarantees that they will not attack us again during the negotiation process and must accept the win–win formula.

Question: The Tehran Times has reported that talks might begin early this month. Is that true?

Answer: We cannot set a definite date for the start of negotiations. Messages are being exchanged between Iran and the United States through intermediaries. Some parties are indicating that they want to help Iran and the U.S. Generally, we are ready to start talks, as I mentioned earlier. The topics have been identified in advance, but no specific time has been set for the next round of Iran–U.S. negotiations.

Question: So Iran has no problem resuming negotiations?

Answer: As I explained, we are ready for dialogue, but only if the other party also has the willingness and interest to participate in honest talks, and not to enter the negotiation room seeking to dictate its demands.

Question: The U.S. has rejected Iran’s request for compensation over the attack on nuclear facilities. Is continuation of talks with the U.S. still possible?

Answer: First, we must understand the fact that we were attacked without any reason. As I have said, they must explain why they decided to resort to force against us. Second, we suffered as a result of these attacks. Our people suffered. Our scientists and commanders were martyred. Due to military attacks by Israel and the U.S., damages were inflicted on Iran. Do not forget that nuclear facilities are considered protected under international law. They attacked safe locations that should never have been targeted. They damaged our facilities, and these damages were serious. We have the right to request compensation, but it is important to note that Mr. Araghchi did not speak of compensation as a precondition for negotiations, and this is very important. Matters related to compensation will be discussed during negotiations, and we believe we have the legal right to request compensation because this illegal attack was in violation of international law and against all rules of international relations. Therefore, as I said, all rights exist for us to request compensation, but this is not a precondition for resuming talks.

Question: If talks with the U.S. were to resume, would Iran be willing to make concessions?

Answer: We believe there is no need for us to make concessions. In fact, we were the victims in the attack, and they were the perpetrators. Those who carried out the attack are at fault. However, we have a clear position on the nuclear issue. We believe we can accept certain limitations in our nuclear program, and in return sanctions must be lifted. This is a good and fair agreement that could be signed between the parties. It can be a win–win situation whereby Iran accepts certain specific limitations on its nuclear program for a defined period of time, and in return sanctions are lifted. But the important point here is enrichment in Iran. Enrichment is essential and cannot be disregarded under any circumstances. It is a key element of our program, but we can be flexible regarding capacity and enrichment levels. Zero enrichment is not on the table. We cannot, under any circumstances, accept zero enrichment, because we must be self-reliant. There is a history behind our nuclear program. In the past, we were deprived of nuclear material for peaceful purposes, which is why we pursued enrichment. Enrichment is a necessity for Iran because we cannot rely solely on promises, which have so far proven hollow, and in practice they cannot give us any guarantee that Iran will have nuclear material for peaceful purposes. That is why we insist on enrichment within Iranian territory.

Question: If Israel and the U.S. were determined to attack Iran again should the nuclear program resume, what would be your assessment?

Answer: This would show that they have no respect for human rights. The United States is a permanent member of the Security Council. When a permanent member of the Security Council, which is also a member of the NPT, attacks protected nuclear facilities, it means they are only fueling tensions worldwide. Nevertheless, the recent attacks against us reinforced the fact that we have the ability to defend ourselves and can rely on our people. We do not seek to escalate tensions, but at the same time we have the right to defend ourselves. This is exactly what we did, and we will do it again should there be another attack against Iran. In my view, before deciding to attack Iran again, they must reassess.

Question: If the other party does not change its position when nuclear talks resume, what will happen?

Answer: As I have said, if they insist on zero enrichment, there will be no deal. This is crystal clear. We believe this has always been clear to them. We have said this in private talks and in public positions: if they insist on zero enrichment, there will be no deal. But if they want a deal, they must understand the realities on the ground. Iran has the ability to enrich for peaceful purposes, and we can assure everyone that our nuclear program will remain peaceful. We assure everyone that Iran will never seek nuclear weapons and is ready to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other countries to demonstrate that our nuclear program is peaceful and will never be weaponized.

Question: You mentioned limiting enrichment. To what extent would this be? Can you provide details?

Answer: This matter must be discussed at the negotiating table, and I cannot explain Iran’s position on limitations in an interview. We are ready to start serious negotiations. Regarding the limitations we can accept in our nuclear program, the other side must also be ready to participate in lifting sanctions. This is a give-and-take process. We can commit to showing that we are serious and willing to engage genuinely, but we must also be sure that the other side is likewise committed to genuine engagement and real negotiations.

Question: Do you think Iran and Japan can cooperate on safety issues?

Answer: We have good relations with Japan, and it has always been so, although we have differences on certain issues. For example, we were not pleased with Japan’s position on the recent attacks against Iran. Initially their position was good, but later they changed it. Their stance in alignment with the G7, in our view, was neither good nor fair. Nevertheless, we have always had good relations with Japan, and we cooperate on various matters. We are also ready to engage with Japan on nuclear safety and other issues.

Question: Can Japan mediate nuclear talks between Iran and the United States?

Answer: It is a fact that Iran has good relations with Japan, and that Japan also has good relations with the United States. However, the issue of Japan mediating negotiations between Iran and the United States has so far not been raised in our discussions with Japan.

Question: Have you requested Japan to mediate?

Answer: No, we have not so far requested our Japanese friends to mediate, but we have close relations with them both in Iran and in Tokyo. Our ambassador in Japan maintains continuous contact with Japanese officials, and likewise the Japanese ambassador in Iran. We have had multiple meetings with the Japanese ambassador in Tehran, and he is informed about the current situation and the negotiations. Therefore, we have close contact with the Japanese side, but we have not yet requested our Japanese friends to mediate between Iran and the United States.

Question: Regarding talks with the three European countries, they intend to trigger the snapback mechanism, but Iran says these three countries do not have that right. Can you explain the main dispute?

Answer: You know, we have a clear and transparent position on the snapback mechanism. In our view, the three European countries cannot trigger the snapback mechanism because they have violated their commitments under the JCPOA. In a letter from Dr. Araghchi, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, he clearly explained the lack of standing of the three European countries to trigger the snapback mechanism, and cited examples of their failure to fulfill obligations under the JCPOA and Resolution 2231 over the past few years. Particularly during Israel’s aggression against Iran, they supported zero enrichment, which is entirely inconsistent with the JCPOA and Resolution 2231. For these reasons, we believe they are in no position to trigger the snapback mechanism. In a recent meeting in Istanbul, we also told them that they lack the political and moral authority to do so. This is our position, and we believe they should not move toward the snapback mechanism. For this reason, we are in contact with other members of the international community, including members of the Security Council, on this matter.

Question: Some media say the three European countries have sought to discuss missile issues. Is this true?

Answer: We have sometimes seen that some of them have wanted to discuss missile issues, and we have made it clear—both explicitly and in face-to-face talks—that we cannot compromise on our missile capability. Missile issues have no place in talks between Iran and the United States, nor in talks between Iran and the three European countries. Therefore, we do not accept any reference to our missile capabilities in the course of nuclear talks.

Question: Is it true that the three European countries have set the end of August as a deadline to reach an agreement?

Answer: This is a deadline they have set for themselves, and we do not recognize it. When we concluded our meetings with them in Istanbul, both sides agreed that if needed, they would meet again. No specific time was set for the next meeting—whether in August or September. The deadline they have announced for themselves is not something Iran considers relevant.

Question: So there is no plan to meet with the three European countries this month?

Answer: No plan has been set. But if there is a meeting and both sides conclude that another meeting would be beneficial, then we will consider it.

Question: Is granting access for IAEA technical teams to visit Iranian facilities among the conditions of the three European countries? Could this go beyond safeguard measures and the JCPOA?

Answer: We will receive the Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Tehran. During the negotiation process, the possibility of reaching an agreement between Iran and the IAEA on how to cooperate in the future will be discussed. As you know, Iran’s nuclear facilities are protected, yet they were attacked by Israel and the United States. This is the first time in history that protected facilities have been attacked. We must negotiate with the IAEA on setting specific conditions for cooperation between Iran and the Agency in the future. Since our nuclear facilities have been attacked, visits to these sites are not simple. The upcoming meeting next week will not be for inspections, but for establishing specific conditions for future cooperation. All necessary measures for the safety and protection of inspectors and their companions must be taken, because the targeted sites were not ordinary buildings but dangerous locations where unexploded ordnance might still exist. There may also still be radioactive material present. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss with IAEA representatives the precautionary measures required for a safe and protected visit in the future.