TEHRAN – Saeed Khatibzadeh, an advisor to Iran's foreign minister, a deputy foreign minister, and the president of the Office of Political and International Studies (IPIS), arrived in China for his first foreign visit after the recent US-Israeli hostilities targeting Iran in June.

He held an extensive interview with China’s Phoenix Television, discussing key nuclear, national, bilateral, and international issues.

Below is the full text of the interview:

Doctor Khatibzadeh it's great to have you here in Beijing and welcome on Talk with World Leaders.

Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me.

Do you see there's a further possibility of escalation as what's been reported in the news recently with the current conflict? And what is Iran's bottom line?
 

Escalation is always possible when the other side of the aisle is Israel and the United States. Iran is for peace. Iran has always been for peace. For the last few centuries, Iran has not started any war against anybody, and Iran has been the anchor of stability in the region. Iran has been a civilizational state. Iran has existed for millennia and is going to remain for millennia.

The Israelis would like to make a Palestinian state impossible through all the atrocities they are committing. Because of that, escalation is always possible. But the bottom line is that there is huge awareness right now in the Middle East—from Egypt to Turkey, to Saudi Arabia, to the Persian Gulf—that the Israelis are the real threat.

The Americans are trying to misuse relationships in the region and abuse their power to exercise hegemony over other countries. They have the illusion that the Middle East is a place through which they can set the future order of international relations.

There is will, commitment, capacity, and capability in countries such as Iran to stand against this wave of hegemony coming from the United States and Washington and to stand against Israeli atrocities in the region.

There is also growing concern that this is going to grow into a wider or broader military confrontation or tensions in the Middle East. How do you look at that sort of perception and statement?

As Iran, we are doing all we can to prevent that. We actually did our best even before this aggression to stop this war. But a full-fledged war is always an option because the United States and Israel have no boundaries. We can only change this situation if we send a very strong signal together: the future of the Middle East is not what they envision—one where Israelis and Americans dominate as hegemons and maintain a military and intelligence edge over all other countries.

We need a stable region, and the key is the state of Palestine. The Palestinian issue is the most important matter. You must understand that Palestine is the root cause of all the problems we face. By refusing to accept the state of Palestine, the Israelis are creating all these crises.

A full-fledged war is not a good alternative to our current efforts. Iran, China, and other responsible countries are trying their best, using all available means to prevent such an outcome. This is why, up until now, we have tried to remain restrained and measured, avoiding a scenario that would be disastrous not only for the region but could also become an endless war for the United States.

Doctor, your military officers, generals, and there's also nuclear scientists that have been assassinated recently, and also in recent years, this has been happening. Do you think this exposes a certain sort of vulnerability in your intelligence or counterintelligence system? How do you take steps to address that?
 

You have to look at Israel as a terrorist cult. I'm not going to challenge that. They are probably the best assassins in the world by nature. They were created based on this nature—to assassinate, to sabotage, to manipulate; they are trained to assassinate. This is the nature of this terrorist entity that calls itself Israel. This is not just my opinion—look at Israel's history: they have assassinated anyone who opposed them. This was also a huge but covert and cowardly operation.

Those familiar with this will know that security operations are of course a great challenge. We are looking into this. We are working on countering these assassinations in Iran. But conducting security operations and assassinations in a country such as Iran, with its 90 million population and vast territory, might be a sort of tactical strategy for Israel. I'm not telling you that they aren't the best assassins in the world. But we are determined to stop them and make them pay to the extent that they understand this is not how they can treat the proud Iranian nation.

I think over the past year, Iran has announced the dismantling of networks allegedly linked to Mossad. Do you think this would act as some sort of deterrent for further future infiltration into your country's core security system?

You should not look at this situation as just Mossad operations. This is a very coordinated operation involving Mossad, the CIA, and other Western intelligence agencies inside Iran. Our intelligence apparatus has been very efficient in preventing their atrocities. These kinds of challenges are pushing us to transform how we counter Israeli activities within Iran.

We are not just dealing with Mossad; Mossad is one of the intelligence agencies trying to sabotage and manipulate, not only in Iran but even here in China. They are very active in sabotage and manipulation. That is why we are in close coordination with our friends and partners to prevent Mossad, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies from achieving their goals.

There are also western media reports that some of these arrests may have human rights concerns. How would you respond to such claims?

Human rights coming from the mouths of Westerners and Europeans! What a bitter joke. They have no moral ground to talk about human rights after this slaughter and genocide in Gaza, in Palestine.

Let me tell you something: in academic circles, there are people arguing that after years of European incompetence in protecting their own interests, and after Trump came to office and neglected them, Europeans are losing their strategic relevance. I'm not saying this to criticize, but I can now say that after what happened in Palestine, they have become morally, ethically, and culturally irrelevant. They have no ground to talk about human rights because they are complicit in this genocide and these atrocities.

And let me tell you, after the United States and Israel attacked our nuclear sites—sites that were under IAEA supervision and UN safeguards—and when the West failed to even verbally condemn such attacks (which are grave violations of international law), I can now say they have lost their standing to speak about international law. They always claimed to be architects of international law and international organizations, but by taking the wrong position on such blatant violations, they have lost all credibility.

Iran is deeply committed to people's rights. As a civilizational country, we do not use or abuse human rights as tools in our foreign policy toolbox. For Americans and Europeans, human rights are merely tools in their foreign policy toolbox to advance their ill political agendas. For Iran, it is a matter of principle, not just a means of foreign policy. Therefore, we do not take such accusations seriously, but we remain committed to people's rights.

It’s widely reported that if the regional escalation and tensions go further, there might be a possibility that Iran might consider closing the Strait of Hormuz. This is speculation. Do you think that would happen?

Even during the Iran-Iraq War when there was a war of oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, Iran tried to secure the free shipment of oil in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. Therefore, Iran is the anchor of stability and the guarantor of this free shipment. This is the bottom line. This is the principle.

Of course, Iran showed considerable restraint and calculation when Israel tried to spread its violations and aggression into the Persian Gulf. Iran remains predictable and measured as long as possible. We have no intention of escalation. However, if the United States poses any existential threat to Iran, then Iran has no option but to consider all possibilities. In such a case, Iran could no longer remain measured or predictable or act based on calculation.

We are not currently discussing the Strait of Hormuz. This is our backyard - the place we intend to secure forever. As I've stated, the Persian Gulf is integral to our territorial integrity. This body of water is vital to us, but God forbid the United States should gamble with it. They must not pose any existential threat to Iran. If they do, Iran will have no choice but to respond differently.

So, there is the red line.

Absolutely. There are red lines. If Iran has acted measuredly, it is to avoid the spillover of these tensions and wars to other regions. The United States has shown that they are not very good at strategic calculations. They are doing things that have long-term implications. Therefore, we are always warning them: do not threaten our vital interests.

Doctor, let's move on to discuss the recent IAEA report stating that Iran possesses about 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to approximately 60%. Would you please tell us what the main use is for the uranium that Iran currently possesses?

I think the answer is embedded in your question. This 60% enriched uranium was under IAEA supervision. Every gram of it was under IAEA supervision. This was not a hidden program that the IAEA or others discovered. We conducted it openly from the beginning, under the IAEA's constant supervision and monitoring. This was simply another demonstration of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities.

So, it's for civilian purposes.

It is definitely for civilian [use], but everybody knows that up to 60% is for civilian purposes. Let me tell you something. Iran strictly abided by the JCPOA nuclear agreement signed in 2015 with the P5+1. We accepted significant caps on our program: caps on enrichment levels, caps on the number of centrifuges, and caps on the quantity of enriched uranium. The main restriction was the enrichment level limit of 3.67%.

The Americans illegally withdrew from the JCPOA and then launched a maximum pressure campaign against Iran. We exercised one year of "strategic patience." The other side failed to compensate for the U.S. withdrawal, and worse, they assassinated our top nuclear scientists and General Soleimani. In response, we decided to increase enrichment to 20%. This wasn't arbitrary. When they continued with assassinations and sabotage, we responded by increasing from 20% to 60%.

One key principle in all our negotiations has been that everything is reversible. The only irreversible aspect is the economic pain inflicted on Iranian society. All technical measures can be reversed, and this can be achieved through meaningful negotiations.

Are you saying these growing percentages are going up from 20% to now 60%? Do you think this is more as a bargaining power for potential negotiations with countries like the US?

This is not a bargaining chip, but it is the right of the Iranian people. If the other side does not abide by its commitments—and all our activities are under IAEA supervision—you and your audience should know that everything was done under constant supervision by international inspectors. It was not a hidden program that someone discovered.

We do have the right: if the other side is not committed to anything, if they try to sabotage, if they impose unprecedented sanctions on ordinary Iranians and the Iranian nation, and if they maintain the illusion of "zero enrichment in Iran," then our response is to exercise our rights extensively. This does not mean we will divert our program, which was never our intention. Had that been our intention, we would not have operated under the IAEA's constant supervision and monitoring.

We are a member of the NPT and party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We are members of the IAEA, so we know our responsibilities and act accordingly.

And you assert that all of the enrichment is done for peaceful purposes.

Has anyone else claimed that Iran's program is about something else? Even the U.S. intelligence community, in its latest reports, has stated that there is no evidence Iran intends to divert its peaceful nuclear program. There is not a single report suggesting Iran's program is not peaceful.

There is an active demonization campaign against our peaceful nuclear program conducted by Israelis and mainstream media funded by American and Israeli lobbies, but this does not reflect reality. The facts show that through constant IAEA monitoring and all reports on our program, everything remains under the Agency's supervision and control.

How would you further cooperate with the IAEA given the circumstances?

Our parliament has passed a resolution identifying Iran’s National Supreme Security Council as the main and sole authority to formulate Iran-IAEA relations. Therefore, Iran's relationship with the IAEA will continue, but under the new modality that it will be handled by our National Security Council. This represents a new approach we are implementing, but we are not stopping our cooperation.

In the coming weeks, the inspectors will return to Iran. They left voluntarily; we did not expel them. Due to the war and ongoing aggression, they felt compelled to leave. They will be returning to Iran soon.

Doctor, now the recent attacks on your nuclear facilities, for example, in Natanz and Isfahan, would you be able to tell us the extent of damage that's been done and is there underway preparation work going for redeployment of such facilities?

When there is bombardment, there is damage—severe damage. You cannot target with the heaviest bombs or missiles and expect no damage. The damage is serious, and we consider every instance of damage very serious. However, we definitely need time to assess. There are many risks—significant health risks—that must be carefully evaluated. Then we must review our assessment of the extent and level of destruction at our sites.

But this is not the main issue. The real issue is the grave violation of international law by the United States in attacking our nuclear sites that were in use, without considering the health aspects of radiation exposure and other consequences.

The United States remains the only country on earth that has used nuclear bombs—they used them against Japan. This demonstrates their disregard for everything: human rights, even basic human rights. Everyone should recognize that if the United States has no red lines against attacking another country's peaceful nuclear sites, they have no red lines at all.

We must stop the United States. We must teach them that they cannot recklessly and wantonly attack the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other nations.

Doctor, now moving on, is Iran prepared to enter into another negotiation to come to a JCPOA-like program?

We were in the middle of negotiations. You remember that we were in Oslo, I was with foreign minister, his excellency Araqchi in Oslo a few hours before the aggression begam. Actually, we arrived in Tehran on midnight and then the aggression started at 3 am. [in Oslo] we exchanged a lot of messages through our channels to Mr. Witkoff and to the United States. And we were preparing ourselves for the 6th round in Muscat…

It was a couple of days before, right? You were due to have next round of negotiations.

Yes, the aggression happened on Friday, and the negotiation was supposed to be on Sunday. So, the other side should be committing itself. They are sending a lot of messages that they are ready to get back to the negotiation, but this aggression has changed a lot of things on the ground. If anything happens in future, that will be an armed negotiation.  all our fingers will be on the trigger, because the other side has shown to everybody that is untrustworthy. There is not only zero trust, but we have all the reasons to be so suspicious to the other side. They use or misuse of these framework of negotiations to advance their ill-political agenda. For future, we are double cautious.

Now, you talked about your suspicion about the US and Israel several times. What would be Iran's expectations and requirements if you would enter into direct or indirect negotiations again?
 

We have no rush to enter into any sort of indirect or any format of interaction with US unless we make sure that there are enough assurances of entering into result-oriented negotiations. Israel is not a party that we consider as a partner, because we do not recognize Israel as a country. And also, we think that Israelis have done a lot of atrocities against the Palestinians. The first issue is to deal with the state of Palestine.  But on the United States, there are hostility between us and US going on for many decades. The United States after the Islamic revolution tried to make a coup inside Iran. Later on, they supported Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Iran. And later on, they targeted our civil aircraft. So, there are continuous of incidents or operations done by Americans against the people of Iran and against Iran.

Probably we need the management of hostility between two countries, which may can happen through these sorts of negotiations, but we are not rushing into anything unless we make sure that Americans have moved on from the old illusions.