Video Summary
Iran’s spokesman says Tehran views itself as resilient and frames the conflict as a defensive victory.
Diplomacy is distrusted after past U.S. withdrawals and attacks during negotiations.
Spokesman claims a new deal was ‘within reach’ but insists Iran will retain enrichment rights.
Iran defends its 60% enriched uranium stockpile as non‑weaponized and a negotiating tactic.
Tehran portrays strikes on Gulf targets as self‑defence and blames regional tensions on foreign bases and allies of Israel/US.
Yes — he framed Iran as resilient and effectively defending itself, saying Iran views the conflict as another phase in a long confrontation and that Iranian resolve amounts to a form of victory.
He said a deal had been 'within reach' and that Iran showed flexibility on issues like stockpiling, but insisted Iran will not give up its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
He called the 400 kg of 60% enriched uranium a negotiating tactic and a response to the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 deal, arguing enrichment alone does not equal pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The spokesman cited repeated U.S. betrayals — notably the 2018 unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA and attacks launched while talks were ongoing — as reasons Iran believes it must guarantee its own security.
He insisted Iran acted in self‑defence, targeting military assets used by U.S./Israeli forces, and denied aggression toward Gulf states while blaming their policies for regional tension.
The spokesman disputed some human‑rights claims as foreign‑influenced, acknowledged civilian casualties are contested, and while defending Iran’s legal stance, he did not fully deny use of cluster munitions and argued both sides have committed problematic attacks.
"I think we have already won this brutal war because we have been in confrontation."
Dr. Ismael Bay asserts that Iran views itself as having already won the ongoing conflict, emphasizing the long-standing confrontation with the U.S. that dates back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
He describes the U.S. and its ally Israel's actions as a miscalculation, indicating that this war is largely driven by Israel's motives, and portrays Iran's resistance as a demonstration of its determination to defend its homeland against what they perceive as an unjust aggression.
Dr. Bay highlights the resilience of the Iranian people and military in the face of technological superiority from their adversaries, stating they have learned to "survive and thrive under these critical situations."
"I think this is based on the past experiences we have had."
Bay describes the Iranian government's perspective on diplomacy, emphasizing that past aggressions from the U.S. occurred even during negotiations, leading them to distrust future promises.
He recalls specific instances where Iran was attacked mid-negotiation, stressing that such a pattern has created a cycle that makes genuine diplomatic engagement difficult.
The quote also indicates a clear desire for security guarantees that would ensure Iran is not attacked again, asserting that complete reliance on allies and internal capacities is vital for Iran's security assurance.
"The deal was within reach."
Dr. Bay discusses the nuclear negotiations that were occurring prior to the outbreak of the war, indicating that there was significant progress and flexibility on Iran's part.
He refers to comments made by the Omani mediator, highlighting that negotiations had advanced to the point where big issues were agreed upon, such as the approach to uranium stockpiling.
The spokesperson identifies key points where Iran exhibited flexibility, particularly around the dilution of highly enriched uranium and adhering to their needs for uranium enrichment, framing these actions as legitimate within the context of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"Iran has the right to have nuclear capacity for peaceful purposes."
Dr. Bay firmly states that Iran's nuclear program has been subjected to stringent inspections and has always been safeguarded from any deviation towards weaponization.
He clarifies that while Iran could agree to limit stockpiling highly enriched uranium, they will not concede the right to enrich uranium, a practice deemed acceptable under the NPT for peaceful purposes.
This reflects Iran's stance that their nuclear program is not a violation of international law but rather a rightful pursuit within the framework of the NPT.
"The fact that 400 kg of highly enriched uranium doesn't mean that we have a nuclear weapon."
Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman defended the country’s stock of 400 kg of 60% enriched uranium by clarifying that it does not indicate an intention to develop nuclear weapons. He emphasized that their uranium enrichment was a response to the United States' withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, which initially set a limit of 3.67% enrichment.
Following the U.S. exit from this agreement in 2018, Iran felt compelled to reduce its commitments since it could not adhere to a deal that was being one-sidedly disregarded by the U.S.
He characterized the enrichment at this level as a "negotiating tactic" rather than a preparation for creating nuclear arms, asserting that Iran's goal never included pursuing nuclear weapons.
"We regard the United States as a state... Regardless of who is representing the United States, the outcome was catastrophic."
The spokesman pointed out that Iran perceives the U.S. as a state irrespective of the individuals involved in negotiations, and highlighted past failures as a result of the U.S. not fulfilling its obligations in the negotiations.
He mentioned that the Iranians had unfavorably experienced negotiations with past U.S. representatives like Jared Kushner, stressing a lack of trust due to aggressive actions taken against Iran right before talks, specifically an attack that undermined diplomatic efforts.
"We are a nation of principle... you cannot find any statement from our leaders saying that we will go for nuclear weapons."
The spokesman reiterated that Iran's leadership has consistently rejected the pursuit of nuclear weapons, maintaining principles rooted in both their national values and religious beliefs.
Despite challenges and attacks faced by Iran, including assassinations and sanctions, he stated that there has been no departure from this stance, thereby affirming Iran's commitment to a nuclear weapons-free policy.
The future regarding nuclear ambitions, however, remains uncertain as the current geopolitical climate evolves.
"Those suggestions are extremely maximalist and unreasonable."
In response to a U.S. peace plan that allegedly included restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program and other demands, he described these proposals as unreasonable.
He suggested that discussing aspects of national rights, such as military capabilities, is a sign of bad faith in diplomatic negotiations. The spokesman cautioned against assumptions regarding the Iranian position, stating that many reports might not reflect Iran's official stance.
"We didn't bomb them. We didn't attack them. We just defended ourselves."
The spokesman claimed that Iran did not engage in aggressive actions towards its Gulf neighbors, framing Iranian military actions as acts of self-defense in response to threats from the U.S. and Israel.
He expressed a desire to maintain relations with regional countries, highlighting that any tensions stem from their policies that allow foreign powers to use their territories as bases for aggression against Iran.
Concerns about Saudi Arabia and the UAE potentially joining conflicts against Iran were dismissed as unlikely, emphasizing that Iran harbors no animosity towards Arab Muslim countries.
"Iran is fighting against the United Israeli aggressors."
The interview discusses how missiles are targeted at military bases and assets used by Americans and Israelis against Iran. There is a strong perspective on the alignment of Arab countries with Israel, described as a "genocidal regime" responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians. It urges those nations to reconsider their stance and support Iran for regional security.
It is emphasized that Iran's military actions are not merely for self-defense but also for the overall security of the region, reflecting a belief that the outcome of the conflict could lead to significant dangers for all involved nations.
"He is now the commander of the armed forces and our Supreme Leader."
The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman responds to concerns about the new Supreme Leader, Much Bakamay, highlighting his significant role as the head of the military. There has been no public appearance since his appointment, raising questions about his health and safety amidst ongoing threats and conflicts.
The spokesman insists that while the situation is fragile, the Supreme Leader is in good health and capable of leading the country. He stresses that the nature of warfare today involves unconventional threats, including terrorism and targeted assassinations of leaders.
"We had this protest mainly because of the economic hardship, because of the sanctions."
The discussion shifts to the protests in Iran, which were initially driven by legitimate economic grievances but escalated into violence. The government’s narrative suggests foreign interference, particularly by the United States and Israel, in inciting and orchestrating the unrest to destabilize Iran.
There is a contentious debate regarding the government's use of force during these protests. While the official stated that around 3,170 people were killed, he acknowledges that the situation is complex and that many security forces may have acted aggressively, leading to civilian casualties.
"Many of those so-called evidence and videos were provided to them by Israel and the United States."
The interview examines accusations from human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, claiming that the Iranian government brutally suppressed protests, resulting in numerous civilian deaths. The spokesperson challenges the credibility of these claims, suggesting they may be influenced by foreign powers.
The spokesperson admits a lack of precise information regarding the number of casualties and deferred detailed questions to security authorities, indicating an ongoing investigation into the incidents surrounding the protests. He insists that the government is transparent about the situation, despite controversies about the information provided.
"Iran is also using cluster munitions against Israel, which are indiscriminate."
The conversation addresses the ongoing military actions between Iran and Israel, recognizing that both sides are engaging in conduct that can be deemed as war crimes. The spokesperson condemned U.S. and Israeli bombings of civilian structures, while also acknowledging that Iran's military tactics, including the usage of cluster munitions, pose significant risks to civilians.
This dual acknowledgment highlights the complexity of the conflict, where both parties are accused of employing violence that endangers innocent lives. It illustrates the broader implications of international warfare standards and humanitarian laws in the context of regional instability.
"How can you condemn the US and Israel for breaking international law if you're doing it too?"
The discussion addresses the civilian casualties resulting from military actions, focusing on accusations against the US and Israel. Amnesty International has labeled the use of certain munitions as a blatant violation of international humanitarian law.
The interview probes the contradiction in condemning others for their actions while similar tactics are reportedly used by Iran. A critical back-and-forth occurs regarding the classification of munitions suspected to be Iranian.
There is mention of specific incidents where three Palestinian women were killed, with conflicting narratives surrounding the source of the missile responsible for these casualties. The Palestinian Red Crescent attributes the deaths to an Iranian missile, whereas the spokesperson ambiguously denies the claim.
"But one thing is for sure: only in one single act of war crime, as you put it correctly, 175 innocent kids and teachers were killed."
The discussion also touches on the use of cluster munitions, which are banned under customary international law. Despite not having signed the relevant conventions, Iran's spokesperson maintains that the country complies with its obligations under international law.
The interviewer challenges the legitimacy of using these munitions if Iran considers itself a principled nation. This highlights a potential hypocrisy in military practices versus proclaimed values.
"You see, this is our homeland and we have to stay strong and we have to fight back."
The conversation shifts to the potential for a ground invasion by the US, with the Iranian spokesperson expressing confidence in the preparedness of Iran’s armed forces.
He emphasizes the determination of the Iranian people to resist invasions, suggesting that fighting back is not just a choice but a necessity in defending their homeland.
"This is a war of whims; this is not the war of American people against the Iranian nation."
The spokesperson delineates between the American public and the actions of the US government, suggesting that the current conflict is influenced more by Israeli interests than by any legitimate concern for the American people.
He stresses that the strife caused by this war must hold the United States accountable for the broader consequences, framing it as a war of choice rather than necessity. The underlying message suggests a call for understanding and differentiation between governments' actions and the sentiments of their citizens.
