Exclusive Interview
«While the President of the United States tries to use the language of threats, the answer will definitely be a resounding “No”»: Interview with Dr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh by Artem Astvatsaturov
March 24, 2025
On March 17, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian rejected U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s letter and public calls for nuclear talks, describing them as deceptive and coercive. Additionally, last week, Trump sent Iran a letter proposing negotiations on a new nuclear deal.
Amid these developments, PIR Center interviewed Dr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s former Ambassador to the IAEA, President of the Vienna International Institute for Middle East Studies, and a Member of the PIR Center Advisory Board. The discussion covered the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran’s national interests regarding its nuclear program, and the PRC-Russia proposal to lift Western sanctions on Iran.
The interview also addressed the implementation of the initiative to establish a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East.
The interview was conducted by Artem Astvatsaturov, an intern at PIR Center.
Artem Astvatsaturov: “Something is going to happen one way or the other. I hope that Iran — and I have written him a letter — will negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it is going to be a terrible thing for them,” said Donald J. Trump, the U.S. President-elect, last week. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) could have been an ironclad and efficient agreement for addressing a wide range of issues related to the Iran Nuclear Deal. However, it was President Trump who ultimately dismantled it. What do you think of Donald Trump’s peace talks initiative? Do you believe such an agreement could be successful?
Dr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh: Peaking on personal capacity, I have to reiterate that, Iran has been always for negotiation in order to resolve the problem via constructive tool of diplomacy which could play a supreme role. The past records prove the assertion that Iran has not hesitated to seize any opportunity for dialogue with any country. In case of the United States, of course, it is very complicated because of the historical hostile relation of the U.S. specifically for over 40 years, since the triumph of the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979.
I have to recall that for the first time, Iran made a great concession during the negotiation with the P5+1 (Editor’s note –– a group of nations working together on the Iran Nuclear Deal, which include the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with the addition of Germany), where even the two foreign ministers of Iran and U.S. met and talked to each other in Vienna. Finally, the JCPOA was finalized, somewhat of a manifestation of diplomacy.
But regretfully, the U.S. did not fully comply with its own commitments during Obama’s presidency, the same administration that negotiated the JCPOA. Then Donald Trump came to the White House and tore up this agreement, which was even endorsed by the Security Council under Resolution 2231. Therefore, U.S. has disregarded the agreement made after long negotiation.
Having said so, the same person now is in office. How can Iran trust the same person who withdrew from this agreement? How can Iran trust such an unpredictable person who openly disregards any international agreements and treaties, well known as an opponent of multilateralism? Of course, starting a new negotiation from scratch is not possible. The present agreement should be respected.
Is Iran ready to go back? Iran still tries to keep the track of dialogue with the three European countries so that possibly there would be a way to revive JCPOA and put everything on the right track. But regarding the language of threats, I have to say in a nutshell, Iran, with thousands of years of its civilization, has shown to all the world that if there is a language of “carrot and a stick”, which is applied to animals or a language of threat, the answer is definitely negative. Iran shall never yield to pressure.
Asking Iranians to do something, there are two pathways: if you say to an Iranian “You must “do something –– the answer is “No” with a loud voice, but if you ask Iranians: “Please, do something”, –– the answer is “Yes”, or “I try my best”. The fact that President Obama wrote a letter, recognizing the “inalienable right” of Iran to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which is envisaged in article 4 of the NPT, encouraged Iran to give a positive response, which led to the JCPOA. However, the current President tries to use the language of threats, therefore, I believe the answer of Iran would be “NO” with a loud voice.
The Supreme Leader of Iran has given a crystal-clear message through his recent public appearance to that effect.
Artem Astvatsaturov: From the outset, the JCPOA was controversial for both the U.S. and Iran, facing criticism from a significant number of experts worldwide. What do you think about the effectiveness of the JCPOA? Were its terms aligned with Iran’s national interests?
Dr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh: I was not involved in JCPOA negotiations, and I have criticisms of the JCPOA because I believe that Iran has gone too far and made a lot of unnecessary unprecedented concessions. For example, the JCPOA has imposed the most intrusive inspection in the history of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
In addition, there are so many restrictions and a wide range of problems and constraints for Iran’s peaceful use of nuclear energy even under the IAEA control, so called Safeguards.
The main problem of the JCPOA is the lack of any verification mechanism of commitments of other parties of the JCPOA while Iran is under the Agency’s 24/7 surveillance and robust inspection.
That is why when the U.S. withdrew from it and even the EU3 have not fulfilled their full obligations, specifically removing sanctions, there was no mechanism to verify and hold them accountable. Last but not the least is the appalling provision, so called “Snapback Mechanism”, where even if Iran complains about the violation of other parties, the previous sanctions of the UN Security Council (UNSC), which have been suspended, will apply against Iran again. Worth noticing that according to this provision Russia and China cannot use their Veto power to prevent such UNSC sanctions to come back! No one can find such provision in any multilateral or international agreements.
Artem Astvatsaturov: We have seen a series of irrational and extraordinary statements from U.S. President Donald J. Trump regarding Iran’s nuclear program. How would you assess Washington’s current policy toward the JCPOA within the framework of Mr. Trump’s second presidential term?
Dr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh: The most auspicious scenario though improbable is that Donald Trump openly apologizes for his withdrawal from the JCPOA and the damages inflicted on Iran with the maximum pressure, then we would be back to the original track. Iran has had logical and legitimate expectations, namely for all parties to the JCPOA to comply with their obligations. In such a case, I do not rule out the possibility that Iran might consider going back again to where it was in 2015, of course, putting additional enriched uranium, beyond the JCPOA ceiling, under the IAEA seals, since diluting or exporting them in not logical and possible.
Artem Astvatsaturov: On Friday (March 14, 2025), China and Russia joined Iran in calling for an end to Western sanctions after President Trump urged nuclear talks with Tehran earlier this week. Do you believe that lifting sanctions could be a key factor in improving U.S.-Iran strategic relations amid the ongoing instability in the Middle East?
Dr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh: I reckon that the attempts made by China and Russia represent a positive gesture. This is a positive gesture in the right direction, giving the strong message that these two countries are also for peaceful negotiation and resolution of this whole issue. But of course, if the sanctions are removed, which was part of the obligation of the United States and other members of the JCPOA it will give a positive response to Iran.
I recall that Iran now has achieved technology of enrichment up to 60 % and is manufacturing advanced centrifuges, all under the 24/7 surveillance of the IAEA. I have to emphasise that all are consistent with provisions of the JCPOA and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT), thus everything is legitimate.
Artem Astvatsaturov: In your opinion, what is Tehran’s top priority regarding its nuclear program?
Dr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh: Iran has always insisted its determination to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, which is a legitimate right under the Article 4 of the NPT, and it will never give up this right. I assume this is clear for everybody. Despite substantial nuclear threats and threats of attacking nuclear facilities, Iran has never yielded to pressure and will never do it. I have no official position, but this is clear for me. At the same time, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa, the religious decree, that Iran considered to forbid such weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons. In a nutshell, Iran does not have nuclear weapons in its defence doctrine and will not go for it, but at the same time it will never give up nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
I reiterated this simple message when I was Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Iran to the IAEA, in my statements and interviews. The status quo, proves that my assertion, decade ago, is still valid. Therefore, this is the right time for those who have held a hostile position against Iran, to reconsider their attitude and conduct. I think if wisdom prevails in Washington and in Brussels, then we can put everything on the right track.
Unfortunately, the IAEA, assumed to be a technical organization, is polarized and politicized, mostly with western political motivations, specifically by U.S. This is a very dangerous trend threatening its future.
Artem Astvatsaturov: There have been numerous initiatives to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, in the Middle East. The IAEA has played a role in discussions on creating a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) in the region and applying full-scope safeguards to all nuclear activities. However, according to the expert community, this remains an idealistic concept with little chance of being implemented in the near future. Do you believe that establishing an NWFZ in the Middle East is a utopian idea given the current international political situation in the region?
Dr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh: Iran was the first state to propose the NWFZ in the Middle East in 1974. Then, Egypt did join the initiative. Iran and Egypt, as well as other nations in the Middle East, have been always calling for establishing the NWFZ in the region. Iran has been always supporting that.
The only obstacle is the Israeli position. Israel has not joined the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWS), Biological Weapons Convention (BWS) or the NPT. It has rejected any international verifications.
I have to recall that there was a breakthrough in the NPT Review Conference in 2010 in New York, which I had the privilege to serve as one of the friends of the President. For the first time, there was a decision by consensus to convene a Middle East WMD-Free Zone conference in 2012. After two years of planning and negotiation, shortly before the conference was due to be held in Helsinki, the same Obama administration, which joined the consensus in the 2010 NPT Conference, unilaterally stopped and postponed that conference in order to satisfy Israel. This is a historical disregard to all countries party to the NPT, and a serious setback for multilateralism.
Otherwise, the world and the Middle East should look different now. This is a crystal-clear message: Israel’s nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to the states in the region, and the world at large. Countries in the Middle East have every right to worry about its nuclear capabilities, to call upon international community and international organizations to put pressure on Israel to eliminate its nuclear weapons and put all nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA without delay. In addition, it should dismantle all chemical and biological weapons and join both the BWC and the CWC. Unfortunately, this legitimate and urgent demand by countries in the Middle East, which is directly related to international peace and security, has been blocked by Western countries, the USA in particular. They must also be blamed for the sustained insecurity in the Middle East.
Key words: Nuclear Nonproliferation; JCPOA; International Security; Iran; Nuclear Weapons
NPT
F4/SOR – 25/03/24
