ترجمه مطبوعاتی

Nov 20th 2025

Abbas Araghchi Interview with Adam Roberts and Nick Pelham

On November 19th, in Tehran, The Economist interviewed Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister. This is a transcript of the conversation.

The Economist: Could we begin by asking about Donald Trump? He has suggested that there is a deal to be done between the United States and Iran. So why not reach out and seek an opportunity to do a deal with Donald Trump?

آیا می‌توانیم با پرسشی درباره دونالد ترامپ شروع کنیم؟ او گفته است که امکان انجام یک توافق میان ایالات متحده و ایران وجود دارد. پس چرا برای استفاده از این فرصت و انجام یک توافق با دونالد ترامپ اقدام نمی‌کنید؟

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi: We did it several times, and unfortunately we don’t have any good experience of negotiating with the United States, especially with the current administration. You all remember that in 2015 we negotiated a very important deal, which was called JCPOA, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. After more than two years of negotiations, we finally concluded a deal which was celebrated by the whole world as an achievement of diplomacy.

خب، ما چندین بار این کار را انجام داده‌ایم. متأسفانه هیچ تجربه خوبی از مذاکره با ایالات متحده، به‌ویژه با دولت فعلی، نداریم. همه شما به یاد دارید که در سال 2015 ما یک توافق بسیار مهم به نام برجام (برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک) را مذاکره کردیم. پس از بیش از دو سال مذاکره، سرانجام به توافقی رسیدیم که در سراسر جهان به‌عنوان دستاوردی برای دیپلماسی جشن گرفته شد.

Iran started to implement its commitments in the deal in a perfect way, and there are reports after reports by the IAEA which confirms Iran’s full compliance to the deal. And then, unfortunately, the United States, during the first term of Trump’s administration, decided to withdraw without any reason, without any justification. And that became a very, very bad experience for us.

ایران اجرای تعهدات خود را به بهترین شکل آغاز کرد و گزارش‌های متعدد آژانس بین‌المللی انرژی اتمی پایبندی کامل ایران به توافق را تأیید کردند. اما متأسفانه ایالات متحده در دوره اول دولت ترامپ بدون هیچ دلیل و توجیهی از توافق خارج شد.این برای ما تجربه‌ای بسیار بد بود. سپس امسال، در سال 2025، دوباره وارد مذاکره شدیم.پنج دور مذاکره با دولت آمریکا داشتیم و بسیار به توافق نزدیک شده بودیم. قصد ندارم وارد جزئیات شوم.اما اگر لازم باشد، روزی آن‌ها را توضیح خواهم داد.

Then, this year, in 2025, again we engaged in negotiations. And I had five rounds of negotiation with Steve Witkoff. And we were very close to have a deal, a good compromise. I don’t have any intention to go into the details of that. But if necessary, I will do that someday. So we had five rounds of talks, and we set the sixth round for 15 June this year. But two days before that, Israelis attacked us. And in fact, they attacked the negotiation table. And it was with the support of the United States. No doubt about that.

سپس، امسال، در سال ۲۰۲۵، دوباره درگیر مذاکره شدیم. و من پنج دور مذاکره با استیو ویتکاف داشتم. و ما خیلی به رسیدن به یک توافق، یک مصالحه خوب، نزدیک بودیم. من قصد ندارم وارد جزئیات آن شوم. اما اگر لازم باشد، روزی این کار را خواهم کرد. بنابراین ما پنج دور مذاکره داشتیم و دور ششم را برای ۱۵ ژوئن امسال تعیین کردیم. اما دو روز قبل از آن، اسرائیلی‌ها به ما حمله کردند. و در واقع، آنها به میز مذاکره حمله کردند. و این با حمایت ایالات متحده بود. شکی در این مورد نیست.

The Economist: Are you sure?

Mr Araghchi: Yeah, of course, President Trump admitted himself just a few days ago. And it was President Trump who issued tweets in the middle of that war asking Iran for unconditional surrender. He asked people in Tehran to evacuate. So he was obviously leading those attacks. And then just a few days ago he admitted that everything was their plan and their scenario. Then in New York we had again engaged in talks to prevent snapback. We failed for the way that Americans negotiated. So we don’t have any single good positive experience negotiating with the United States.

مطمئن هستید؟

بله. همانطور که خود ترامپ چند روز پیش به آن اعتراف کرد. ترامپ در میانه همان درگیری‌ها توییت‌هایی منتشر کرد و خواستار «تسلیم بی‌قید و شرط» ایران شد. او به مردم تهران گفت: «تهران را تخلیه کنید.» بنابراین آشکارا هدایت آن حملات را بر عهده داشت. و چند روز پیش هم اعتراف کرد که همه چیز از قبل برنامه‌ریزی و هماهنگ شده بود. سپس، در نیویورک دوباره وارد مذاکراتی شدیم تا از فعال شدن مکانیسم اسنپ بک جلوگیری کنیم. ما با این نحوه مذاکره ایالات متحده روبه‌رو شدیم. بنابراین ما حتی یک تجربه مثبت و قابل اتکا از مذاکره با آمریکا نداریم.

The Economist: But in this instance, Donald Trump has personally put his name on the line. He said that he wants to be the president who negotiates a deal with Iran. Why not take him at face value now after this latest offer and say come to Tehran, let’s do a deal?

اما در این مورد، دونالد ترامپ شخصاً پا پیش گذاشته است. او گفته که می‌خواهد همان رئیس‌جمهوری باشد که توافق با ایران را انجام می‌دهد. چرا اکنون، پس از حمله اخیر، حرف او را جدی نمی گیرید و نمی گویید «به تهران بیا، بیایید توافق کنیم»؟

Mr Araghchi: First of all, as I said, we don’t have a good experience of talking with his administration. Secondly, yes, we are in favour of a deal, but a fair and balanced deal. The problem is when Americans, the current administration, talk about a deal in fact they want to dictate what they want. And this is what we experienced as recently as two months ago in New York. We are ready for negotiation, but not for dictation. We are really to go for a deal, but for a fair and balanced deal, not a one-sided deal. This is the problem. The moment we come to the conclusion that the US has changed this approach, and instead of dictating, is ready for a real negotiation, and is ready, as I said, for a fair and balanced deal, a win-win deal, as we call it, then we can consider.

اول از همه، من می‌گویم که هیچ تجربه خوبی از گفت‌وگو با دولت او نداریم. ثانیاً، بله، ما موافق یک توافق هستیم، اما یک توافق منصفانه و متوازن. مشکل این است که وقتی آمریکایی‌ها از یک توافق صحبت می‌کنند، در واقع می‌خواهند خواسته‌های خود را دیکته کنند و این همان چیزی است که همین دو ماه پیش در نیویورک تجربه کردیم.

ما آماده مذاکره هستیم، اما نه برای دیکته شدن. ما آماده توافق هستیم، اما برای توافقی منصفانه و متوازن، نه یک توافق یک‌طرفه. مشکل همین است. در لحظه‌ای که به این نتیجه برسیم که آمریکا رویکرد خود را تغییر داده و به‌جای دیکته کردن، آماده یک مذاکره واقعی و یک توافق منصفانه و متوازن است، ما هم آماده خواهیم بود. آنگاه می‌توانیم آن را بررسی کنیم.

The Economist: I know you don’t want to go into the details of what has been negotiated with Steve Witcoff, but the basic disagreement is whether you do any enrichment of uranium. Is your position still we must?

می‌دانم نمی‌خواهید وارد جزئیات مذاکراتتان با استیو ویتکاف شوید، اما اختلاف اصلی این است که آیا ایران غنی‌سازی اورانیوم انجام دهد یا نه. آیا موضع شما همچنان همان است؟

Mr Araghchi: Well yes, you know, at that time, the US wanted zero enrichment, and I made it clear for Steve Witkoff that this is impossible. The enrichment has been very costly for us for more than 20 years. We were sanctioned because of that. And this is a very valuable achievement of our own scientists. We haven’t imported enrichment and its facilities and its machines. We have created them. We have achieved it by ourselves. And we were sanctioned because of that for more than 20 years. And our scientists were assassinated so there is the blood of our scientists over that even before this war. And now we have had a very extensive war for 12 days. More than a thousand Iranians were killed because of that. So there is no way to give up enrichment in Iran. This is a fact.

می‌دانید، در آن زمان آمریکا خواهان «غنی‌سازی صفر» بود. من برای استیو ویتکاک روشن کردم که این غیرممکن است. غنی‌سازی بیش از 20 سال برای ما بسیار پرهزینه بوده است. ما به همین دلیل تحریم شدیم. غنی سازی دستاورد بسیار ارزشمند دانشمندان خودمان است. ما تأسیسات مهم غنی‌سازی و توسعه‌های مرتبط را داریم. ما آن‌ها را خودمان ساخته‌ایم. خودمان آن‌ها را به دست آورده‌ایم. و به‌خاطر همین موضوع بیش از 20 سال تحریم شدیم. دانشمندان ما ترور شدند. بنابراین، این موضوع با خون دانشمندان ما گره خورده است، حتی قبل از این جنگ. اکنون 12 روز جنگ بسیار گسترده داشته‌ایم. بیش از هزار ایرانی در نتیجه آن کشته شده‌اند. پس هیچ راهی برای کنار گذاشتن غنی‌سازی وجود ندارد. این یک واقعیت است.

During the negotiation, Steve Witkoff insisted on zero enrichment, and I said, look, zero enrichment is impossible, but zero weapon is possible. If you want us to go for zero nuclear weapons, we have a deal. You want zero enrichment? We don’t have a deal. And then we tried to be creative and find a compromise solution, and at least three times we came to a good creative solution which could make both sides happy. But unfortunately he couldn’t deliver it in Washington.

در مذاکرات استیو ویتکاک بر صفر شدن غنی‌سازی اصرار داشت. من گفتم: ببینید، غنی‌سازی صفر، غیرممکن است. اما سلاح هسته‌ای صفر ممکن و در دسترس است. اگر می‌خواهید به سمت سلاح صفر برویم، توافق داریم. اگر غنی‌سازی صفر می‌خواهید، توافق نداریم. سپس تلاش کردیم خلاق باشیم و یک راه‌حل مصالحه پیدا کنیم. حداقل سه بار به یک راه‌حل خوب و خلاقانه رسیدیم، که می‌توانست هر دو طرف را راضی کند. اما متأسفانه آن‌ها نتوانستند آن را نهایی کنند. ( او نتوانست آن را در واشنگتن ارائه دهد)

The Economist: Is Iran currently enriching uranium in practice? Or are you at the stage of zero enrichment?

شما گفته‌اید که اسرائیل به میز مذاکره حمله کرد. آیا این بدان معناست که شما هنوز به دستیابی به توافق با دولت ترامپ پس از پایان یافتن پرونده در شورای امنیت سازمان ملل متحد امیدوار هستید؟

Mr Araghchi: We are not enriching because our facilities have been attacked so there are many risks. So it is now stopped.

ما غنی‌سازی نمی‌کنیم چون تأسیسات ما مورد حمله قرار گرفته و خطرات زیادی وجود دارد. بنابراین اکنون متوقف شده است. (ببینید، یکی از راه‌حل‌هایی که احتمال داشت در دور ششم مورد توافق قرار گیرد این بود که اگر به توافقی با آمریکا دست پیدا کنیم، دیگر نیازی به ارجاع موضوع به شورای امنیت نخواهد بود. اما در همان لحظه‌ای که آن‌ها میز مذاکره را بر هم زدند، یعنی اسرائیلی‌ها و حامیانشان در ایالات متحده. آن ها فضایی بسیار ناخوشایند ایجاد کردند که اجازه نداد بتوانیم به توافق برسیم یا مذاکرات را ادامه دهیم. بله، ما طرفدار دیپلماسی هستیم. اما دیپلماسی نیازمند یک فضای مناسب،یک فضای سیاسی درست و قابل اعتماد است. بنابراین این آمریکا و اسرائیل بودند که آن فضا را تخریب کردند. تا زمانی که آن فضای مناسب ایجاد نشود، ما نمی‌توانیم گفت‌وگو کنیم، نمی‌توانیم مذاکره کنیم.)

The Economist: The IAEA is consistently asked for access to all of Iran’s existing nuclear sites. You so far have said no. Can you envisage a time when you open all your sites to nuclear inspectors?

Mr Araghchi: As a matter of fact, we have to accept, and the IAEA has already accepted that the situation has changed on the ground. We asked the Agency whether there is any protocol, any regulation to inspect an attacked nuclear facility and there is no protocol like that because there is no precedent. No safeguarded peaceful nuclear facility has been attacked so far so there is no precedent on how to inspect them after the attack. Obviously there are security risks; there are safety risks; there is unexploded material, rockets and things like that; there is the risk of radiation; there are still threats by the US that if anybody approached those facilities they would attack.

So, we need a modality: how to inspect those facilities. And we tried to achieve that modality when I went to Cairo, and Rafael Grossi also came to Cairo, and we made a Cairo agreement. In the Cairo agreement, we divided Iran’s nuclear facilities into two categories. Those who have been attacked, those who have not been attacked. For the un-attacked facilities, there is business as usual and they have been able to visit and inspect. Of course, we have a new law in our parliament, adopted by our parliament which makes a new way to do inspection, but it doesn’t make it impossible. So for un-attacked facilities, business as usual, they have inspected, and Rafael Grossi mentioned that in his latest report in Vienna.

For attacked facilities, we need to negotiate, and Raphael has accepted that we need to negotiate how to inspect those facilities. But unfortunately right after the Cairo Argument, the E3 and the US decided to go to the UN Security Council and activate the snapback, and now the Board of Governors are introducing a new draft resolution against Iran. So it is E3 and the US who are making this job difficult and impossible. Otherwise, we would be ready to co-operate with the agency.

The Economist: Can I ask about a third possible category: there was a suspicion that some of the enriched uranium was removed from the sites before the attacks?

Mr Araghchi: No. That did not happen.

The Economist: You can say that categorically?

Mr Araghchi: No. All of our enriched material are under the rubble. They have not been recovered yet and we don’t have any intention to recover them before we come to that modality with the Agency.

The Economist: How prepared are you if there were a follow-on Israeli attack on Iran?

Mr Araghchi: We are even more prepared than the previous war.

The Economist: Can you elaborate: In what way are you prepared?

Mr Araghchi: Our missiles are in a better position, quantity-wise and quality-wise. We have learned many lessons during the 12-day war. We understood our weak points and our points of strength, and the Israelis’ weak points. We have worked on all of them and we are fully prepared even better than the previous time. It doesn’t mean that we want war. As you know, the best way to prevent a war is to be prepared for that. And we are fully prepared and I don’t think they would dare to repeat the same mistake and the same failed experience.

The Economist: Are your people prepared? It was striking in the last war that Iranians unlike Israelis didn’t have shelters to go to. There were very few warnings. Your skies were exposed. What are the assurances you can give your own population that this time they are protected?

Mr Araghchi: As I said, we have learned our lessons.

The Economist: Can I ask you whether the actions of the United States and Israel, and you mentioned Europe, are pushing Iran to have a closer relationship with Russia and China? Are you turning eastwards because of what’s been happening?

Mr Araghchi: Well that has been an important factor. Our policy has always been to have balanced relations with both East and West. We want to be a truly independent country, not relying on any other country whether in the West or East. But we have to acknowledge that it was the Western countries who actually made us understand that China and Russia are better friends than them.

The Economist: One signal that you could send about your readiness to look at new possibilities in the region would be over the latest UN Security Council resolution on Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza. Is this a resolution that Iran accepts or does it take the position of Hamas that it is unacceptable?

Mr Araghchi: Our position is clear. Obviously we welcome any decision, any move which can stop the genocide in Gaza, which can stop the killing of Palestinians in Gaza, which can open the way for humanitarian assistance, which can help peace in that region and the reconstruction of the damaged places. But at the same time we have our own concerns, and these are real concerns. We think that the rights for self-determination of Palestinians have been actually undermined by this resolution and has been seriously ignored. The right of Palestinians for statehood and having their own state is very weak in the language of that resolution. It has made Palestinians somehow under the guardianship of a group of other countries. Even the role of the Security Council and the United Nations is weakened and undermined, and many other points. So we have our own concerns, but at the same time we don’t object to anything which can actually stop the suffering of Palestinians.

The Economist: One of the points in that plan is that all sides should accept to live at peace with the other and to have a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is that a position that Iran can endorse?

Mr Araghchi: Actually it is up to the Palestinians themselves to accept this resolution or not. We just express our opinion.

The Economist: Can I ask you about your relationships in the region and how they are changing? It seems that you have a rapprochement with Saudi Arabia in the last couple of years, and also your ability to shape the region has been reduced because of the impact on Hizbullah and Hamas and others. What is the future of Iran within this region? Are you changing the nature of your power here?

Mr Araghchi: Iran is a major player in this region, no doubt about that. Iran is a big country with certain capabilities and we have tried to establish a very good neighbourly policy with all of the countries in the region—in the Persian Gulf area and in the Middle East, except Israelis that we don’t recognise. And I think we have been quite successful in our approach to the countries of the region. We have been able to rebuild confidence, especially with Saudi Arabia, and also with others—with Egypt, with Jordan, with each and every country. I have travelled to all of them in the past 12 months, even to Bahrain, with whom we don’t have relations, to Egypt, I think three, four times. And we have tried to build confidence and to make sure that they don’t misunderstand the real threat of the region. I think Netanyahu has made so many crimes. He is responsible for genocide, killings and everything but he has done something positive at the same time. He made crystal clear for each and every country in the region that the real threat is Israel and not Iran. And this is the real lesson that every country in the region learned after they attacked us and Qatar. In the past two years Israel has attacked seven countries in this region and has killed more than 70,000 people in Gaza and elsewhere. So it’s now obvious for everyone in the region who is the real threat.

The Economist: Is Israel the hegemon in the region?

Mr Araghchi: Obviously it’s trying to be the hegemon in the region. But I don’t think that the region can digest that.

The Economist: We were comparing Africa and the Middle East. It seems that people in Africa can accept the colonial carve-up of the continent. They’ve come to terms with borders, they’ve found some way of living in peace within each other’s borders. But the Middle East seems incapable of moving on. Can you imagine an age where the countries of the Middle East can live at peace with each other, Israel included?

Mr Araghchi: Let’s put Israel aside because I don’t think it belongs to this region. But I think the countries of this region can live in peace. There are many commonalities amongst all of them. But the only problem is the foreign interference, especially in the security of this region. And we believe that the moments that foreign forces have left this region, we would be in a better position to work with each other and live with each other in peace.

The Economist: Maybe it is a nice dream that foreign interference will stop, but probably it will not. Can you state again what would be your main message to Donald Trump? What should he do now to avoid worse trouble in this region? What would your main messages be to Donald Trump today?

Mr Araghchi: It is interesting that you yourself admit that foreign interference in this region exists. So this is the main source of the problem in the Middle East. The message to all foreign powers is just to leave this region alone and let the countries of this region decide for themselves.

The Economist: One last question about Iranians abroad. You have millions of Iranians living in the West and countries around the world. They are anxious to maintain ties with their country of origin. But they are very afraid about coming back to Iran because they fear that they could be subject to arrest or their families could be subject to intimidation. What assurance can you give them, if any, that Iran is safe for them to return?

Mr Araghchi: My understanding is different from yours. Every year we have hundreds of thousands of Iranians living outside the country who visit their homeland. Yes, there are a few who have faced problems here because of the previous problems that they had inside the country. But the number is very, very limited. Of course, there are lots of noises about that, lots of perhaps a negative atmosphere, created mostly by media. But in reality, as the figures on the borders prove, there are millions of Iranians who visit their homeland every year. But I do accept that we have to work more to make them more comfortable when they decide to come back to Iran. We have to confront the negative atmosphere which has been created mostly by media outside of Iran.

The Economist: We are fascinated in Europe about the relationship between Iran and Russia, and we know that the war in Ukraine and Iran gave some help to Russia, which is a form, perhaps, of foreign interference. What is your current relationship with Russia?

Mr Araghchi: We have signed an agreement for a strategic partnership. It was signed last year between the two presidents. Iran and Russia have always enjoyed very good relations. They have been very helpful to us in many different directions. And we have enjoyed co-operation in many different fields, including on military questions. We never accepted the aggression to Ukraine. This is what I have to emphasise. We always supported the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. And we always asked for a peaceful settlement of the dispute between the two countries. But as I said, military co-operation between Iran and Russia is not something new. It goes back many years. And the purpose of our military co-operation was only for our defensive purposes. And that has been our position from the beginning.

The Economist: Have they given you any assurances that your skies will be protected in the event of another Israeli attack?

Mr Araghchi: The Russians helped us a lot during the 12-day war, and after that we have been engaged in more cooperation than before, and this is why I am telling you that we are even more prepared than the previous war.