Baghaei: Iran Ready to Negotiate with Europe; Confidence-Building Must Be Mutual

According to Rokna, quoting the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Esmaeil Baghaei described European countries’ threats to trigger the snapback mechanism as illegal and harmful in an interview with Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung.

He stressed that Iran is prepared to continue negotiations with Europe, but confidence-building must be reciprocal.

Baghaei also criticized the German Chancellor’s position regarding Israel’s attacks on Iran, describing it as offensive.

The full text of the interview with Esmaeil Baghaei, conducted on August 17, is as follows:

Reporter: What do you anticipate will happen over the next two weeks? Will there be further negotiations with European countries, or is the snapback scenario more likely?

Baghaei: Certainly, we do not consider the snapback to be legal or rational. After more than ten years of the JCPOA, the relevant resolution [2231] should expire. This is our position. In our view, there is no reason for Iran’s nuclear program to remain on the UN Security Council’s agenda. Our nuclear program has always been and will remain peaceful, although it has suffered serious damage from Israeli and U.S. attacks on our facilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s reports confirm that Iran’s nuclear program shows no deviation from peaceful purposes. If this is the case, why should Iran remain on the Security Council’s agenda? Therefore, in October, Resolution 2231 should expire. However, European countries party to the JCPOA are threatening to reimpose sanctions resolutions. This would effectively be a return to the pre-2006 situation, which for Iran signifies a wrong path. We have spent years negotiating with Europe to implement the JCPOA, aiming to resolve concerns about the nature of our nuclear program and to secure the lifting of sanctions. Now, European countries are telling us that all our efforts over the past ten years are invalid, despite our utmost efforts to fulfill our JCPOA commitments. Although in 2019 we had to reduce our commitments because, after waiting a year for Europe to compensate for the U.S. withdrawal, we had to balance our obligations with our rights under the JCPOA. When the Trump administration exited the JCPOA, Europeans asked us not to retaliate and to wait, promising to compensate. They failed, and we were compelled to take proportionate action, as it cannot be expected that a country party to an agreement fulfill obligations without benefiting from its rights. This is exactly what happened under the JCPOA, and we had to revise our implementation approach. Moreover, this action is consistent with the text and spirit of the JCPOA, which allows any party harmed by the other’s breach to suspend commitments partially or entirely. Now, after ten years, European countries are threatening to reinstate all Security Council resolutions. I consider this step highly harmful. It will exclude Europe from any constructive negotiation process. European countries, from Javier Solana, then Catherine Ashton, followed by Mogherini, and now Josep Borrell, have historically played a constructive role as a bridge between Iran and the U.S. That is why we reached the JCPOA in 2015. This was not only Iran’s achievement but also theirs. Nevertheless, we are dissatisfied with European reactions to Israeli and U.S. attacks on Iran, and we expected them to condemn these attacks, as they constituted an unjustifiable and aggressive violation of Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Moreover, it dealt a blow to the NPT and was a clear violation of Resolution 2231, which supports the JCPOA and explicitly recognizes Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy. Therefore, if European countries wish to appear as credible negotiation partners, they must reconsider their conduct.

Reporter: I understand. As you mentioned, the JCPOA remains in force until October. Currently, Europeans believe they still hold this “card” and are asking Iran for confidence-building measures to leverage it. Do you think this issue can be resolved within the next two weeks, or is an extension of the deadline more likely? What is your expectation?

Baghaei: You are referring to confidence-building. Confidence must be mutual. It cannot be one-sided. Iran’s trust has been severely damaged. We were in negotiations with the U.S. when Israel attacked Iran. Therefore, Iran has the right to request other parties prove their reliability, and European countries can play a key role in this process. After the onset of this “war,” we ceased direct contact with the U.S., but we maintained communication with Europe even at the peak of the conflict. Dr. Araqchi went to Geneva and met with the three European JCPOA members and the EU foreign policy chief. Two weeks ago, we met in Istanbul and confirmed our readiness to continue negotiations. This readiness remains. We are prepared to engage with European countries to find the best solution, but we do not consider threatening the snapback mechanism as constructive or useful.

Reporter: Europeans have openly suggested extending the deadline. Do you think this scenario is feasible?

Baghaei: Iran is not the decision-maker in this matter; the Security Council must decide. Any action requires approval or at least no objection from the five permanent members. Since Iran is not a member of the Security Council, if they wish to act, the decision rests with them. From Iran’s perspective, neither scenario—extension nor rollback—is legal, rational, or ethical. There is no reason for Iran’s nuclear program to remain under Security Council oversight, particularly since we are not negotiating under normal conditions. For example, if discussions had occurred on June 12, the situation would have been different. Now, our nuclear program has been subject to unlawful Israeli and U.S. attacks. Therefore, the stance of the three European JCPOA members is genuinely confusing. Nevertheless, these dialogues at least help mutual understanding of each other’s positions. As I said, we have declared our readiness. Naturally, the political deputy of the Foreign Ministry, Dr. Taqt-Ravanchi, is responsible for the timing and venue of meetings.

Reporter: Are you authorized to accept the risk of reinstated sanctions lifted in 2015, imposing further economic burdens on the Iranian people?

Baghaei: Obviously, no country, government, or honorable individual willingly accepts pressure and sanctions, but this is not our choice. Others have imposed these resolutions and sanctions on Iran. It is unfair, illegal, and unjust. They use the nuclear issue as a pretext for pressure. Consider Israel: it assassinated our military commanders and university professors, killing over a thousand civilians. The nuclear issue has merely been a pretext. Since 1984, Israelis have claimed Iran was building nuclear weapons, aided by Germany. Over four decades, nothing of the sort occurred, yet they continue to intimidate the world with imaginary Iranian nuclear weapons. We do not welcome further pressure or sanctions but will not yield to their illegal demands. Iran will under no circumstances forgo its legal and legitimate rights.

Reporter: Considering Europeans persuaded the U.S. to abandon the “zero percent enrichment” demand, are you willing to return to a level like 4 percent enrichment? Would such an agreement be worth negotiating?

Baghaei: This is precisely what angers us about European JCPOA members. The U.S. left the JCPOA and no longer abides by its commitments. They proposed zero enrichment while in earlier rounds, 3.67 percent was accepted. They constantly moved the goalposts. Europeans knew the JCPOA granted Iran enrichment rights. We need no approval, as this right is recognized for all states under Article 4 of the NPT. The JCPOA reaffirmed this right, setting a 3.67 percent ceiling, which could have been a solid negotiation basis. Unfortunately, two days before the sixth negotiation round, the U.S. attacked Iran while discussions were promising. Europeans can play a constructive role, but currently, they focus on threatening Iran with snapback rather than helping resolve the issue. Iran will under no circumstances forgo its legal and legitimate rights.

Reporter: There is a perception that Iran is weakened and Western countries feel empowered to play the “hardline” role in negotiations. What is your view?

Baghaei: This is an illusion. They made the same mistake about four years ago. During the Biden administration, we had almost finalized everything. I was part of the negotiating team and can confirm 99 percent of the text was ready. Then domestic unrest in Iran occurred, and some Europeans thought they could apply more pressure. They were wrong. If they think they can force Iran to yield through pressure, they are mistaken. Iran will under no circumstances forgo its legal and legitimate rights.

Reporter: Do you expect to engage in talks with the U.S. government again soon?

Baghaei: We fear no dialogue with any party. The issue is that we were attacked during an ongoing diplomatic process, which was costly for us. How can we be assured this will not happen again? Diplomatic processes and negotiations must aim to solve problems and find solutions. The U.S. appears to have exploited diplomacy to prepare for war, severely damaging the already minimal trust. No trust exists between Iran and the U.S., and naturally, we had no reason to trust the U.S. from the beginning. Nevertheless, as representatives of independent governments, we must establish a minimum basis for discussion. The same applies to this interview; we do not know each other, but from the first interaction, we respect behavioral rules to communicate. You ask questions, I respond respectfully. Yet the “minimum basis” between Iran and the U.S. has been damaged. Explaining to our public how to resume talks while they hold us accountable is difficult. Positively, no one can accuse Iran of obstinacy. Iran has acted responsibly and responded positively to invitations for negotiations, whereas the U.S. betrayed diplomacy by allowing Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Reporter: The Chancellor of Germany made certain statements during the conflict. How has this affected Iran-Germany relations?

Baghaei: I cannot understand why the Chancellor made that statement. I am certain the German public does not agree. I do not believe people committed to “never again war” would support their Chancellor justifying Israeli atrocities against Iran. The German statement, in Iran’s perception, reduced Germany’s role to an “Israeli apologist.” Silence would have been preferable, as these comments damage Germany’s image while justifying Israel’s aggressive actions. Over a thousand people were killed. Does this imply these crimes were committed by Israel on Germany’s behalf? At minimum, the statement was deeply offensive, insulting, and anger-inducing. For the younger generation, unfamiliar with the Iran-Iraq war, this recalls Germany’s historical role in supplying chemical weapons to Saddam. Therefore, the Chancellor’s comments were “salt on the wound,” insulting Iranians and damaging Germany’s standing.

Reporter: Does this mean Germany may no longer participate in negotiations if the JCPOA expires or talks fail?

Baghaei: I truly do not know what will happen. If faced with a snapback, the scenario will be entirely different. Everything is possible. As I said, it would effectively return to the pre-2006 situation. Conditions will be completely different, and anything could happen.