TEHRAN — Military attacks and economic pressure will not force Iran into submission, says former foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who argues that Washington has failed to translate its superior resources into its desired outcomes.

In an interview with the Tehran Times, Mottaki, now a lawmaker and member of Parliament’s Economic Committee, discusses the country’s wartime governance, its response to renewed sanctions and its diplomatic efforts at recent Inter-Parliamentary Union assemblies. He acknowledges the economic hardships facing Iranians but maintains that public grievances should not be mistaken for a willingness to yield to foreign pressure.

Mottaki also assesses the potential consequences of the upcoming U.S. congressional elections and how the Trump administration’s failed war against Iran could shape the president’s political future.

The following is the text of the interview:

Could you please elaborate on the activities of the Parliament since the beginning of the 40-day war? Did the security threats from the United States and Israel against the lives of the representatives lead to any temporary suspensions of parliamentary functions?

War inherently carries specific consequences. The aggressors in these two wars imposed upon us have shown no regard for international law or human rights, as evidenced by their targeting of innocent civilians—children, women, and athletes—alongside their conflict with our military forces. They have created an ugly reality in this American-Zionist war. It is only natural that when they are committed to sowing fear and terror—striking schools, seminaries, and civilian areas like Lamerd and Koushk, or attacking weddings and funerals—they would also attempt to assassinate officials of the Islamic Republic whenever possible, as their terrorist acts have clearly demonstrated.

Consequently, yes, measures were taken within Iran to mitigate the fallout from the enemy’s actions. For example, government cabinet meetings, parliamentary sessions, and other official state gatherings were not held in their traditional, established locations. We, as representatives, continued to carry out our committee work and oversight duties, but we suspended open parliamentary sessions due to these specific threats. Cabinet meetings were still held, but not at the presidential office.

However, while these security measures were necessary, they did not disrupt the administration of the country. As you have observed throughout the past year and a half of the war, despite the inevitable pressures—particularly regarding food and basic supplies, which are usually the first sectors to suffer—there has never been a shortage of goods in the market or a lack of food for our people. This success demonstrates that the government, drawing on the experience of the eight-year [Iran-Iraq] war, had a firm grasp on wartime management and successfully adapted to the circumstances. Thus, while we faced significant difficulties, these challenges were unable to disrupt the cycle of governance, notwithstanding the damage inflicted upon our people and our nation.

In recent months, you have participated in international forums several times as the head of the Iranian parliamentary delegation. What was the reaction of foreign representatives during these trips? Has their perspective on Iran changed?

The two recent assemblies where I and several other representatives attended were held in March in Istanbul, and in early October in Arusha, Tanzania, for the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) conference, which typically convenes twice a year. Part of our work in these assemblies involves dividing ourselves among the working committees—numbering three, four, or five, such as the Committee on International Peace and Security, the Committee on Women, the Committee on Youth, the Committee on Environment, and the Committee on United Nations Affairs—where we present our positions on various thematic issues. 

Another key component is the General Assembly, where countries can propose emergency items. In Istanbul, three emergency items were proposed, while in Arusha, four were brought forward. Naturally, the Assembly must vote on which topic becomes the official emergency item for debate, resolution, and final decision.

One point of particular significance to us was the maneuver carried out by Bahrain at both the Istanbul and Tanzania conferences. Bahrain was essentially a party to the war, having allowed U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf for 40 years—dedicating 135,000 square meters of its small territory to the Americans to do as they pleased, alongside hosting the U.S. Fifth Fleet. However, the war resulted in the disruption and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which had been open prior to the aggression of these very countries. We have consistently sought to remove these obstacles and restore conditions so that the Strait can be safely utilized for international shipping, tankers, and vessels, in accordance with established regulations and Iran's rightful regional role.

In both Istanbul and Arusha, the Bahraini delegation submitted a draft emergency item aiming to condemn Iran for supposedly attacking them, while completely ignoring the fact that we were merely defending ourselves against aggression. When an enemy attacks you, you must strike back— ‘al-‘aynu bil-‘ayn, wal-sinnu bil-sinn’ [an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth]; just as they transgress against you, you must confront them. Instead of apologizing or explaining their predicament, Bahrain adopted an air of entitlement, claiming that Iran had attacked them. In Istanbul, their move to condemn Iran ended in total failure.

In Tanzania, they no longer dared to directly target Iran with a condemnation. Instead, their text called for the support of "freedom of navigation". Of course, Iran is not opposed to freedom of navigation, but tabling a one-sided text that ignores the root causes of maritime insecurity is entirely inappropriate, especially coming from them. We dealt Bahrain a heavy defeat in Istanbul, where their proposal was rejected. 

In Tanzania, four texts were submitted: one from Bahrain, one from Iran, one from Ukraine, and one concerning the humanitarian crisis and thousands of deaths from flooding in Nepal. We maintained our resolution, while others pressured Nepal and Ukraine to withdraw their proposals so that Western, Arab, and Zionist delegations could unite behind Bahrain's text. Ukraine gave in to their enticements and withdrew, but Nepal refused to withdraw, and neither did we. We forced a vote. Despite intense lobbying by Western nations, their followers, and a significant bloc of Arab states, Nepal’s proposal—appealing to humanitarian and emotional considerations—secured the highest number of votes, delivering another defeat to Bahrain.

Another major part of these assemblies involves the floor speeches, where delegations frequently criticize other countries—such as Ukraine against Russia, European nations against Russia, or various countries targeting China. Britain, Germany, and Bahrain all made statements against us in their speeches. According to assembly rules, any country directly referenced has the right of reply to address those remarks. 

Two of those replies regarding Britain and Germany were delivered by me, while Bahrain was addressed by Dr. Hosseini, a member of our IPU delegation and the Chairman of the Parliament's Economic Commission, since I was engaged in a meeting at the time. The video of my response to Bahrain that went viral actually originated from the Istanbul session six or seven months ago, where I also answered Australia and Ukraine. 

In this recent session, however, three countries spoke against us: Britain, Germany, and Bahrain. Bahrain was answered by Dr. Hosseini, while I responded to Britain and Germany. The British representative—a female MP—made relatively mild remarks against Iran. Germany, however, brazenly violated the rules. Typically, a right of reply is only granted if your country was specifically mentioned in the preceding speech. I had not mentioned Germany in my address, yet this female German delegate requested the right of reply. At the very end of the day, as the final speaker on the roster, she took the floor and spewed nonsense against Iran—talking points straight out of the playbook of Israel Radio. 

The morning session concluded, and the afternoon session began. Although the official male representative of Germany was scheduled to speak that afternoon and delivered his remarks without mentioning us, I took the floor. I stated that I had no objection or protest regarding the remarks made that afternoon by this gentleman—this German gentleman—and that I actually agreed with and thanked him for mentioning the Persian Gulf. However, I turned my attention to the rude German woman who had improperly claimed a right of reply that morning, and whom the inexperienced chairperson had mistakenly allowed to speak, even though she had no such right since Germany was never mentioned.

I stated that her remarks were the voice of Israel Radio, which clearly revealed her true identity—acting within this assembly essentially as an agent of the Mossad, which is entirely beneath the dignity of this gathering. I told her and any other potential spies in this assembly: tell the Israeli regime that the Iranian nation will break Netanyahu’s and Trump’s teeth, and the nation of Iran will take revenge for the blood of its martyred Imam [Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei]. I even held up a picture of the martyred Imam. That was our response to the German woman.

Regarding the British representative, she made a brief, passing remark while speaking on the assembly's theme of good governance and empowerment. In my response, I expressed astonishment that a British representative had the audacity to lecture us on good governance. If Britain wants to examine its record of governance, it should reflect on its long history of global colonization, the torture it inflicted, its mistreatment of women, and the slaves it shipped to the West. 

Fifty years ago, I was a student in India. If you visit India and ask the local people about the 120 years of British colonial rule, you will learn firsthand how they treated the Indian people and the brutal tortures they employed—whether in India, Kenya, or elsewhere. Britain is in no position to lecture a country like Iran. I advised her—she is a member of the British Foreign and Security Policy Committee—to spend an evening walking the streets of London to see how young Londoners view Britain's shameful complicity in illegal U.S. wars. When Bush and Trump launched unauthorized attacks against Iraq without UN approval, Britain was the sole country to join that unlawful aggression. We successfully presented a clear indictment of British crimes during our response.

Now, regarding your question about the feedback from other delegations and countries: because we arrived straight from the battlefield, our speeches were naturally combative. We spoke swiftly, clearly, and decisively in defense of our martyrs, our nation, our ideals, our country's demands, and to demand justice for the blood of our people. Many delegations, even European ones, approached me afterward to say, 'We agree with everything you are saying, but we lack the courage to say it ourselves.' 

I spoke with one European delegation head for perhaps half a minute—or rather, half an hour. Many delegations from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Venezuela itself—when the Venezuelan delegation took the podium, they declared that their president had been kidnapped and that American thieves had transgressed against their country, abducting their president and his wife—completely transformed the atmosphere of the meeting. 

When I stated in my speech that America is afflicted by the most foolish president in its history, you could see smiles on the faces of nearly all the delegations, as if everyone fully agreed with the portrayal of Trump we presented, but lacked the courage to voice it publicly. 

Thus, it was a very successful assembly. This time, we defeated Bahrain, the Europeans, and the faction of Arab states that had rallied to support Bahrain. I very much doubt that Bahrain will ever dare to propose another emergency resolution against Iran in future IPU assemblies.

We know that the United States currently places heavy emphasis on economic warfare against Iran, hoping to force the country into submission by inducing a form of economic collapse. Given that you are a member of Parliament's Economic Committee and receive reports regarding the country's economic and livelihood conditions, do you think such a scenario is probable?

A nation that others might superficially dismiss as a mid-tier, third-world country has found itself locked in a multi-front war—military, economic, and political—against the world's foremost self-proclaimed superpower and the most bloodthirsty regional regime in history, whose very existence has been intertwined with slaughter, terror, and massacres. This war was unjustly imposed upon us: a 12-day war followed by a 40-day war across three different arenas. 

On the military front, their initial assumption was that they could very quickly destroy and eliminate our navy in the Persian Gulf. Relying on their air superiority, regional bases, and the confident assumption that they could effortlessly neutralize our air defenses, they believed they would swiftly dismantle our defense capabilities and subsequently obliterate our missile bases. During the 12-day war, our launcher crews did indeed attempt to fire their missiles, but many of them were targeted and martyred by Israeli and American aircraft the moment they launched. 

Between the ceasefire of the 12-day war and the outbreak of the 40-day war, however, we implemented critical adjustments within our defense sector and among our launcher crews. Consequently, in the 40-day war, they realized things were no longer as they had expected. In the 12-day war, after eight days had passed, the Americans realized that Israel was not winning. Within a couple of days, fearing that Israel would suffer a defeat reminiscent of the 33-day war, they pushed for a ceasefire, which was established after 12 days. 

Then, in the roughly seven-month interval between the 12-day and 40-day wars—spanning from July to March—they orchestrated a coup d'état, which in its own right was a full-scale war. To put it in perspective: if during the 1953 coup we had just one Shaban-e Bi-Mokh [notoriously CIA-backed thug], here they deployed a hundred Shaban-e Bi-Mokhs—individuals who had trained for years, engaged in espionage, and maintained direct connections with American and Israeli intelligence services. They brought them into the field, and although they caused considerable bloodshed—martyring well over three thousand of our people, the coup ultimately collapsed. 

Following that failure, they entered the 40-day war. To keep things brief: both they and the international community ultimately acknowledged that America was the military loser of the 40-day war. Why do we assert that they were defeated in both the 12-day and 40-day wars? Because any aggressor launching an attack does so with a specific objective; they do not end a conflict until that objective is achieved. Requesting a ceasefire midway through a war is an admission that they failed to reach their goals, which means they accepted defeat and sued for peace. 

On the military front, it became evident to them that they were incapable of confronting Iran. Having failed in a comprehensive war, they shifted to a limited conflict. This time, they resorted to tactics in responding to our naval and missile capabilities that were difficult for them to even fathom. They had assumed that if they encountered trouble in the Persian Gulf, they could simply retreat to Jordan; but this time, they found Jordan turned upside down—their AWACS aircraft were hit, their F-35 fighter jets were struck, and so forth. Whispers began circulating that they needed to relocate all their assets directly to the occupied territories. This institutionalizes America’s military defeat, both in the comprehensive war and in the limited engagements against Iran.

Trump waged this economic war once before during his previous presidential term. As you may recall, in his very first year, Trump entered the arena with full force, proclaiming: "I will destroy Iran, I will paralyze Iran, I will impose lethal sanctions," proudly flashing his signature on television every new sanction document, driving Iran's oil exports to zero, and shouting various slogans. Yet, not only did he fail to force Iran into submission or break its resolve, but the fallout from his actions and foreign policy resulted in him losing his re-election bid. Everyone expected Trump to secure a second term [in 2020], but he failed—right up until his recent revival of economic sanctions and pressure campaigns. 

Although they are attempting to showcase new tactics, the 47-year-old Islamic Republic is standing—and has continually stood—firm against these sanctions. Our role model is the Prophet of Islam, who stood firm and resisted during the economic blockade imposed upon him by the patricians of Quraysh in an enclosed valley—and of course, how economic prosperity eventually blossomed through resistance at battles of Badr and Khandaq.

In these very days when they imagine their pressures have multiplied and are bearing fruit, international economic institutions are actually speaking of the revitalization of Iran’s economy and the effectiveness of our stabilization measures. That the country's economic conditions face difficulties under these pressures is entirely natural—just as we face severe hardships during military onslaughts, where some of our infrastructure was targeted, our leader was martyred, thousands of our people were killed, and various hospitals, Red Crescent facilities, and other centers were struck. These are indeed losses. In the economic sphere, it is similarly natural that damages are inflicted, but the objective pursued by America will certainly not be realized. 

This is because our people have been thoroughly tested. Our people have learned to voice their grievances and protest against hardships and articulate their demands, but they will not sell their country, nor will they compromise their faith. This is what the Americans fail to understand. How much time has elapsed since the night Mina’s school was struck, and the day our martyred Imam and leaders were martyred? It has been some 240, 250, 260 days, and the people have remained in the streets every single night, with not a single faction emerging to support this foreign-backed narrative against the popular movement. Our people face problems; we are enduring difficult economic conditions. But firstly, we are working to correct our governance model, discard erroneous methods, and adopt proper ones. On the other hand, the unwavering cry of our people remains: neither compromise nor surrender. Therefore, Trump's renewed push for economic pressure is merely the screening of a film that was already shown once for an award, failed to win a prize, and was shelved—only for the exact same film to be re-screened now.

The third arena of our confrontation with America is the political sphere. Sensing the consequences of their military defeat and the lack of results in the economic sphere, the Americans are now losing on the political front as well. This is evidenced by the fact that over 70 percent of American public opinion does not endorse Trump's warmongering. Meanwhile, we are only days away from the U.S. congressional election. All polls indicate that they have lost the House of Representatives; Republicans will undoubtedly be pushed out there. In the Senate, it is a dead heat fifty-fifty, and they may even lose seats in a few districts traditionally held by Republicans, as recent polling shows. Public opinion points in this direction, and it is increasingly likely that the Senate will also slip from their control. 

If this happens, a wounded, caged wildcat of a Trump will emerge in American politics—someone who will no longer be able to pull off such reckless stunts. The American nation possesses perhaps the most foolish president in its history.

Even if Democrats win both houses of Congress, many argue that U.S. lawmakers’ deep ties to Israel and AIPAC funding mean we can never realistically expect Congress to block or restrain Trump when it comes to his war against Iran. Do you think this assessment is correct?

First, if the Democrats win the legislature, they will view this as a crucial stepping stone toward their ultimate goal: capturing the next presidential election. That remains their pinnacle. Therefore, their confrontation with Trump will persist right up until the next presidential race; they will pursue impeachment and apply constant pressure to tie his hands. However, the friction between the Democrats and Trump will revolve primarily around American domestic issues rather than Iran. 

Another point I wish to emphasize is that both Democrats and Republicans champion the two faces of America's hegemonic, domineering system—one wears a mask, while the other goes unmasked. The Democrats represent the masked face of America—embodying the "velvet glove" metaphor used by our martyred Imam regarding Obama. The Republicans, by contrast, present that dominance openly and unmasked. 

When I speak of defeat, I am not merely referring to the personal defeat of Trump. Despite the Republicans being pushed aside, my intent is not just the defeat of the Republican Party; this defeat strikes at the very heart of America's overarching hegemony—the defeat of the American Deep State, meaning its hidden governance. Why? Because back in 2016, when America was undergoing decay, as forewarned by our martyred Imam, they tried desperately to thwart that prophecy. In 2016, they realized America was in terminal decline. Why is it declining? Because a superpower possesses two defining characteristics: it achieves whatever it wants, and it successfully prevents the realization of what it opposes. For a long time, America could no longer accomplish whatever it desired, while the exact outcomes it wished to prevent were happening despite its best efforts to stop them. 

Therefore, in 2016, they devised a new blueprint for the presidential election to salvage America—bringing in Trump, given his known temperament, precisely with the aim of neutralizing the prediction of our martyred Imam. Thus, what was Trump's primary slogan? "America First"—meaning America must dictate and secure whatever it wants. For four years he tried, but he ultimately failed to secure a second term. Thus, a core pillar of that theory was shattered—by whom? By the Deep State. The Deep State refers to the hidden, behind-the-scenes power structure in America under which both Republicans and Democrats govern as subordinates. Whatever the establishment demands, these politicians execute. One of their foremost mandates is maintaining unshakeable ties with Israel, which you noted. 

Upon his return in this new term, Trump thought he could break Iran through military force. They waged war, martyred Iran’s leader, and killed thousands of our people, but they failed to achieve their objective. Failing to achieve one's objective is the definition of defeat. If this political defeat is also realized, it is America's hidden governance that will have suffered a historic collapse. To put it succinctly: global Zionism has been defeated vis-à-vis Islamic Iran. Therefore, my reference to Trump's defeat in the elections is not merely about a tactical victory for the Democrats, but rather the unraveling of America's entire global hegemony.