The Iran-Israel Conflict According to Foreign Minister Araghchi

Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting recorded an interview with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Iran’s conflict with Israel. Although Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting never aired the interview, excerpts have surfaced online, offering valuable insights into the inner workings of the regime. The excerpts have confirmed that, in times of crisis, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei favors collective decision making rather than unilaterally imposing his will, thus avoiding personal accountability for major strategic decisions. Araghchi revealed that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps opposed immediate retaliation against Israel following the July 31, 2024 assassination of Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. The IRGC argued that Iran needed to bolster its defensive posture before launching any strikes. Moreover, when a civilian official, likely Saeed Jalili, Khamenei’s representative to the Supreme National Security Council, criticized President Masoud Pezeshkian for inaction and called for swift retaliation, the IRGC came to Pezeshkian’s defense. Regarding the cease-fire that ended the Iran-Israel conflict, Araghchi asserted that the SNSC had already approved and secured Khamenei’s authorization for a cease-fire without preconditions. In doing so, Araghchi legitimized the cease-fire agreement, despite Khamenei being cut off from the SNSC when Iran accepted it. Finally, while Araghchi stopped short of stating it explicitly, his remarks implied a tacit admission that the regime was unprepared for a full-scale military confrontation with Israel. 

• July 27: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was interviewed about the Iran-Israel conflict by Iranian documentarian Javad Mogouee. The interview was part of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting’s series on the conflict, but, for reasons not disclosed to the public, the interview was never televised. Some parts of the interview were released online by Shahrara News, and other portions were transcribed by reformist Entekhab:
  • “When Martyr Haniyeh was assassinated, it was the day after Dr. Pezeshkian had been sworn in, but the ministers had not yet been selected. I was one of the candidates for the position of foreign minister. That same evening, the supreme leader held a meeting, as he usually does when significant issues arise, and I was invited. Members of the Supreme National Security Council and the president were present.” 
  • “In that meeting, there was consensus that we must respond, but there was disagreement among the politicians and military officials regarding the timing and manner of the response. Interestingly, the hesitation about the timing came from the military side. The military commanders believed that an attack should be launched only when we were certain that we could defend the country after the operation. Differences of opinion about the timing and method of the attack existed among both the military commanders and the politicians. It was decided in that meeting that military preparations should be completed to ensure the country’s defense after the initial strike, and then the operation would be conducted.” 
  • When Iran’s retaliatory response to Israel – “Truthful Promise Three” –  was discussed, one of the participants, likely Saeed Jalili, the supreme leader’s representative to the Supreme National Security Council, “criticized the fact that it had not yet been implemented and questioned why the president was opposed to it. In that meeting, Martyr General Bagheri confronted the individual and said, ‘Why are you bringing this up? I am responsible for defending the country, and when I am certain that I can defend the country against the consequences of the ‘Truthful Promise Three’ strike, I will carry out my duty. I have not even asked the president yet,’ and he fully defended the president.” 
  • “Before the cease-fire was announced, it had already been approved by the Supreme National Security Council that if the enemy requested a cease-fire without preconditions, we would accept it. This was a completely intelligent and powerful decision. All resolutions of the Supreme National Security Council are approved and then issued with the consent of the supreme leader. At 1:00 am, we received a call saying that, starting at 4:00 am, the Zionist regime was ready to halt its attack. Several countries acted as intermediaries for this proposal. I checked the matter with the IRGC commander and other relevant bodies, and then we announced that we would not accept a cease-fire or an end to the war. We only stated that if they didn’t strike, we wouldn’t strike either.” 
  • Asked whether the Foreign Ministry was “deceived” by the United States during U.S.-Iran negotiations that took place before the conflict, Araghchi said: “When the decision to negotiate is made, it is a decision made by the entire state and must be implemented. To say that the Foreign Ministry was deceived is incorrect, because it was a national decision to undertake this action. The Foreign Ministry acted on the directives of the system’s leadership.” 
  • Asked whether Iran had been prepared for the conflict, Araghchi noted: “The armed forces had assumed a wartime posture, and the government had prepared for war. After the assassination of Martyr Haniyeh, Operation ‘Truthful Promise Two,’ the fall of Syria, and the election of Trump, we were effectively on the brink of war three times. In each case, both the government and the armed forces were ready, and the foreign policy apparatus was highly active … With the goal of using diplomacy to prevent war, I undertook 17 regional trips. Diplomacy is always the less risky and less costly path to achieving goals, and it must always be the priority. I conveyed the message to all countries that if a war were to break out between Iran and Israel, it would not remain limited to those two countries. Israel is doing everything it can to drag the United States into the war. But if the United States enters the conflict, our missiles cannot reach American soil. The expression I used with some regional leaders was this: ‘Praise be to God, there are enough American bases in the region,’ unfortunately, located on your soil, that we would be forced to target.” 
  • “The Americans pursued a ‘maximum pressure’ policy, bringing military forces into the region as a threat. Then, Trump sent a letter offering two options: war or negotiation. He placed us at a crossroads. It was at this point that the leader exercised wisdom by deciding that we would negotiate – but only indirectly.” 
• July 27: Tabnak News Agency, which is close to Mohsen Rezaei, the longest-serving IRGC chief commander, and center-right Fararu criticized Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting for not airing Araghchi’s interview.  

The views represented herein are the author's or speaker's own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AGSI, its staff, or its board of directors.