MADRID – Abbas Araghchi’s recent interview with France 24, during his visit to Paris, provides a clear window into how Iran projects power, manages its international relations, and balances domestic interests with complex regional dynamics. 

The topics discussed, including the prisoner swap with France, nuclear negotiations with the United States and Europe, correspondence with Saudi Arabia, the situation in Syria, and the recent twelve-day war, reflect a deliberate and strategic approach that combines firmness on core principles with tactical flexibility.

First, the prisoner swap with France illustrates how Iran handles delicate matters under the umbrella of national law and strategic interests. Araghchi highlighted that the release of Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris, after three and a half years of detention, is part of a process regulated by the Supreme National Security Council and framed within national interests. At the same time, Iran has requested the release of Mahdieh Esfandiari, an Iranian citizen detained in France, turning the swap into a carefully managed mechanism of reciprocity. By emphasizing that all legal procedures will be completed according to the timelines of each country, Araghchi reinforces the perception of Iran as an actor that respects internal processes while acting with strategic clarity, projecting order and predictability to the international public.

This approach not only protects domestic legitimacy but also projects an image of international pragmatism. The insistence that “the swap will take place as soon as the judicial procedures in France are completed” demonstrates a balance between firmness and flexibility. The narrative constructed reinforces the perception that Iran acts consistently, legally, and predictably, despite Western propaganda that frames such cases as political kidnapping.

Regarding nuclear negotiations, Araghchi makes it clear that Iran remains willing to engage in dialogue—but under conditions of parity and respect for its interests. He notes that there is currently no active negotiation channel with the United States due to Washington’s unwillingness to commit on equitable terms. Nevertheless, the message is unmistakable: Iran is always open to serious discussions leading to mutually beneficial outcomes. This reflects a mature strategic approach, in which the country safeguards its position without closing the door to diplomatic solutions. References to previous negotiations, including those in 2015, establish continuity and coherence, countering the Western framing of Iran as an unpredictable actor.

The recent correspondence from the Iranian president to Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, was addressed with particular care by Araghchi. He emphasized that the letter related exclusively to pilgrimage and cultural cooperation, not to nuclear mediation between the United States and Iran. Iran underscores that the resolution of nuclear issues does not depend on regional intermediaries; responsibility rests directly with Washington.

This nuance is crucial: although Saudi Arabia has significantly improved its relations with Tehran and participates in a strategic rapprochement under Chinese mediation, it does not act as a mediator in nuclear talks. Araghchi’s interpretation reinforces Iran’s narrative of autonomy and control over its negotiation processes, preventing external actors from limiting its maneuvering space.

The normalization of relations between Tehran and Riyadh represents a far-reaching strategic adjustment. While there has been an increase in bilateral trust, particularly regarding regional stability and security cooperation, Iran carefully defines the limits of such collaboration. Tehran’s priority lies in consolidating the stability of its immediate environment, mitigating tensions and direct risks, while preserving its independence from external pressures. This approach reflects a sophisticated understanding of regional dynamics, where historical rivalries are managed through pragmatic coordination rather than unilateral concessions.

Interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) highlights a complex dimension of Iran’s strategy. Araghchi notes that, while the agency presents itself as a technical body, in practice its decisions reflect a political orientation, aligned with Israel and the United States. From this perspective, recent resolutions do not account for prior attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities carried out by these countries. Tehran’s response seeks to balance technical compliance with strategic defense, demonstrating its intent to protect its interests and sovereignty without violating international law.

Defense and security occupy a central place in the discourse. Araghchi emphasized the effectiveness of Iran’s defensive systems during the recent twelve-day war with Israel, highlighting that Iran successfully defended its territory and critical infrastructure. He noted that the war was not only contained but resulted in a de facto strategic victory: Iranian missile systems operated with precision and efficiency, limiting the impact of Israeli attacks, while Israel and its allies were forced to request a ceasefire after suffering significant losses and failing to achieve their objectives. Araghchi’s narrative underscores that Iran’s ability to withstand direct aggression strengthened its regional position, demonstrating resilience and deterrent capacity.

In Syria and Lebanon, Iran’s strategy remains at the level of active observation and indirect support. Araghchi emphasized that Iran does not intervene in Lebanon’s sovereign decisions and that its goal in Syria is stability, state unity, and the end of Israeli occupation. This stance reflects a diplomacy of containment and risk management, in which Iran prioritizes consolidating stable state structures rather than engaging in direct conflict.

The interview also reveals the economic and energy dimension of Iran’s strategy. Despite ongoing Western sanctions, Iran has developed mechanisms to maintain economic resilience, diversifying trade relations—particularly with China—and securing influence over energy transport routes. This enables Tehran to mitigate pressure and project regional economic power. The combination of energy influence, negotiation capacity, and institutional resilience makes Iran an actor with maneuvering space against sanctions and diplomatic pressure without compromising its sovereignty or strategic objectives.

Iranian foreign policy is therefore built around an adaptive balance: firmness on principles such as sovereignty, the civil nuclear program, and defensive capability, combined with tactical flexibility and diplomatic pragmatism. This “diplomacy of balance” allows Iran to project stability and legitimacy while navigating a complex and changing international environment. The narrative crafted by Araghchi reinforces the perception that Iran acts strategically, aware of its limitations and opportunities, and with a long-term vision combining security, diplomacy, and economy.

Iranian diplomacy is characterized by a calculated approach to timing and opportunity. Araghchi’s statement that “they are not in a hurry” reflects a strategic understanding of international rhythms, leveraging negotiation margins to consolidate its position. This temporal prudence is combined with tactical flexibility, allowing Tehran to respond efficiently to changes in the international environment without compromising its core principles.

In terms of narrative and perception, Iran has learned that managing strategic image is as important as possessing material capabilities. The combination of effective defenses, calculated diplomacy, and legitimacy-building allows it to be a solid, resilient, and reliable actor, capable of negotiating from positions of relative strength while protecting national and regional interests.

Finally, the interview shows Iran’s accumulated learning after decades of sanctions, international pressure, and regional conflicts. The contemporary strategy combines institutional resilience, alliance diversification, and asymmetric capability development, raising the cost of direct confrontations and ensuring pragmatic risk management. Iranian diplomacy in 2025 thus emerges as a model of adaptive state action: firm in principles, flexible in tactics, capable of managing complexities, and projecting sustainable influence in a transitioning world.

In short, Araghchi’s interview not only reveals Tehran’s stance on immediate issues but also projects a long-term vision: an Iran seeking regional stability, international recognition, and autonomous capacity for action. This strategy combines diplomacy, defense, economy, and narrative into a coherent framework of resilience and pragmatism, showing that in the complex geopolitical landscape of the 21st century, strength is measured as much by negotiation and adaptation capacity as by military or economic presence.