Speaking via online video from Tehran at a meeting of the Arms Control Association in Washington, Zarif rejected the assumption that increased pressure would force Iran to surrender, noting: “In my view, the missing link in these narratives is Iran’s dignity,” according to the PAIAB Institute published on Thursday.
The full text of his speech is as follows:
Good afternoon. I’m pleased to join you from Tehran, not as a government representative, but from the nascent PAIAB institute, an NGO, that is dedicated to architecting inspiring future possibilities instead of remaining prisoners of our pasts.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In the past three decades, Iran’s nuclear program has been approached from two inter-related perspectives:
Iran’s adversaries have considered it a clandestine program to build nuclear weapons, and to engage in what they called “nuclear blackmail.” Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed Iran to be a few weeks or months away from a bomb. He has led this campaign since the mid1990’s, well before Iran even had an enrichment program.
On the other side of the spectrum, more reasonable observers have considered Iran’s enrichment program as a lawful program to acquire “legal capability.”
Both, though, assume that the Iranian nuclear program is ultimately geared towards nuclear weapons.
I contend that a third explanation, namely dignity, explains Iran’s nuclear program more accurately and enables the world to deal with it more successfully.
Let us briefly consider the facts:
Iran, for years, has been heavily sanctioned, securitized, threatened, subjected to sabotage, assassination of its scientists, and military attacks. Yet despite all this, it has not caved in. Instead, its resolve has only hardened.
The so-called “crippling sanctions” of the Obama administration and 6 UN Security Council resolutions managed to increase Iran’s enrichment capability from less than 200 centrifuges in 2003 to 19000 in 2013.
In 2009 and 2010, the Stuxnet cyberattack by the US and Israel, and Israel’s assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, briefly slowed Iran. But it was immediately followed by further enhancement of Iran’s capacity.
Under the so-called “maximum pressure” campaign after Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran expanded its enrichment activities from nearly 5000 Separative Work Units in June 2019 to nearly 130,000, in June 2025; and from under 4% to over 60% purity, while drastically reducing cooperation with the IAEA.
In late 2020, Israel assassinated Iran’s most prominent nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. In response, Iran’s parliament quickly passed a law to increase nuclear enrichment and limit inspector access. Rather than intimidating Iran, that terrorist operation killed any possibility for a compromise with the incoming Biden Administration. I should add that this eventuality was actually the stated objective of Israel’s terrorist operation.
Believe it or not, Netanyahu considers dialogue and stability as his real “existential threat.”
Just a few months ago, two nuclear-armed powers launched an intensive 12-day bombing campaign aimed at Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The strikes targeted Iran’s scientists, enrichment sites, and more. Yet Iran did not surrender or renounce its nuclear program.
Key facilities were hit. But Iran emerged more convinced than ever that it must rely on itself and never trust the West. The population rallied around the flag, and the leadership asserted victory and underscored Iran’s right and intention to continue nuclear activities.
The fact is Iran’s knowledge “cannot be bombed away”.
After the strikes, Iranians began debating whether Iran should withdraw from the NPT and build a bomb. Yet, the Leader openly rejected the demand of a growing portion of the population to weaponize the program.
Now, let us restate the two prevailing approaches and see whether either can explain the past thirty years. The first treated Iran as a potential proliferator that must be constrained at all costs. The second assumed that Iran’s goal is to obtain at least a latent nuclear weapons capability – the so-called “legal capability”, for deterrence.
Both tend to interpret every Iranian action as dishonest, as part of a secret bomb plan, or at least an ambition to be one step away from a bomb. Both have prescribed to treat Iran as a problem to be tackled by pressure: sanctions to choke off its economy, inspections to catch any illicit activity, military action to set back its progress, and even regime change to remove the so-called “threat.”
Now, after over 30 years of standoff, it is evident that both these conventional perspectives need serious reassessment. If either of those interpretations were even partially accurate, we would not be where we are today.
If Iran wanted to build a bomb, it would have done so by now, having paid a higher price for not building a bomb than those who actually built them. Why has it paid such a high price, without finishing the job that 30 years Netanyahu claimed would be done in 6 months?
If Iran wanted to engage in “nuclear blackmail,” why has the “counter blackmail” of sanctions and brute force failed to end it? Why has it not been compelled by economic pain to give up its nuclear work for the rather lucrative offers of normalization of ties, investments, and so on?
Alternatively, if Iran wanted the enrichment program to provide deterrence through “legal capability”, why doesn’t Iran either stop enrichment or opt for building a bomb now that it has been proven that its enrichment program, far from being a deterrent, has been a pretext as well as a target for attacks and an excuse for economic pressure?
But Iran has done neither. It did not capitulate, nor did it dash for a bomb even now, when popular demand is high and legal justification can be easily produced. Instead, Iran has steadfastly continued nuclear development without weaponizing.
It is crystal clear that the situation cannot be explained by these narratives, which have led to the assumption that more pressure would eventually force Iran to surrender.
In my view, the missing link in these narratives is Iran’s dignity. Iranian leaders and much of its population view the nuclear issue through the lens of dignity, historical pride, and national resilience, not through the cold calculations of nuclear capability or economic cost.
The oldest civilization-state with a proud imperial history was subjected to loss of territory, occupation, and humiliation from 1804 to 1946 and to alien-dependent capability from 1946 to 1979. Since the revolution, as Iran successfully reasserted its independent identity and dignity, it has been bullied and disrespected for decades by the Iraq war, US sanctions, UN double standards, demonization, the betrayal of the JCPOA, and finally an outright aggression by two nuclear-armed powers.
Having been able to withstand all of this, albeit at immense cost, Iran refuses to humiliate itself by bowing to coercion. For Iran, maintaining a nuclear program in the face of external pressure has become a symbol of independence and honor. And one cannot put a price on this.
The truth is that while the world has looked at Iran’s nuclear program primarily in terms of non-proliferation, Iran’s leaders and much of its population have been looking back at the world through the prism of dignity and national pride. This fundamental disconnect of perspectives is at the heart of our failure to resolve the issue.
The nuclear negotiations leading to the JCPOA in 2015 acknowledged Iran’s dignity by recognizing its enrichment capabilities. Treating Iran as an equal enabled Iran to accept limits and unprecedented monitoring. That agreement was possible only when the US and others engaged Iran on the basis of reciprocal mutual respect.
That did not last long, as old habits die hard. Trump withdrew from the accord and resumed the failed approach. And President Biden followed suit. Europe self-righteously faulted Iran, while the EU itself lacked the will or power or both to fulfill its own commitments in the face of resumed US sanctions.
Worse yet, the three European countries openly endorsed war against Iranian nuclear capabilities. Having failed to achieve that objective through war, they hypocritically resorted to “peaceful means” within the JCPOA to achieve the same illusion of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program.
Based on the same convoluted perspective, the German Chancellor endorsed Israel as doing the West’s “dirty job”. And Trump, only two days ago, said, “world’s number one sponsor of terror cannot even be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon.”
I have news for Merz and Trump: The world’s most dangerous state terrorist is already armed with nuclear weapons: Genocide and forced starvation against two million people in Gaza; apartheid and settler violence against millions more in the West Bank; weaponized pagers, carpet bombings, and destruction of infrastructure against civilians in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen; and murder of all 23 members of an extended family or 86 residents of an apartment building to kill two scientists in Iran; and all of that just in the last 12 months. Its terrorism extends even against countries that contemplate normalization with Israel: murder in Dubai in 2010, and airstrike in residential areas in central Doha earlier this month.
Yet, it sits outside the NPT and is believed to hold nearly 200 nuclear warheads. It faces no sanctions but receives generous aid, even as it openly boasts about its terrorism, aggression, and genocide. The impunity has reached the level that it publishes books about them: “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations”.
Make no mistake: Israel’s ultimate fear is peace. Netanyahu admittedly made it his mission to destroy the Iran nuclear deal, but his aversion to stability is not limited to Iran. He has destroyed every opportunity for peace in Palestine since the 1990s.
The so-called dirty job that he claims to be doing for the West is the illusion that “regime change” will magically resolve the nuclear issue. Netanyahu knows that pushing for regime change only reinforces Iran’s threat perception and encourages it to double down on its position. Moreover, Iran obviously has the capability, and it is only restrained from building a bomb because of the current strategic and religious doctrine. There is absolutely no guarantee that a new regime would not actually opt for weaponization.
What Israel is aiming at is to dismember Iran and other strong regional states, create a chaotic power vacuum, and drag the US and Europe into a prolonged regional quagmire to advance the illusion of the so-called Greater Israel.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In my own humble view, the illusion these days that the restoration of Security Council resolutions against Iran will give the US and EU a better bargaining position is nothing but folly. In practice, it undermines engagement in favor of pure resistance. It destroys the credibility and relevance of diplomacy, thereby eliminating any role for Europe. And it will further entrench hostility towards the United States as an unreliable bully.
Distinguished friends,
To move forward, we must shift to a paradigm that places dignity at its core. Only within such a framework can we hope to find possibilities for a solution.
Just as one example, I proposed in July the creation of the “Middle East Network for Atomic Research and Advancement”, or MENARA, which in Arabic means beacon. This initiative envisions a collaborative regional body dedicated to non-proliferation and peaceful nuclear cooperation. It will be open to all Middle Eastern countries that commit to rejecting nuclear weapons. It would facilitate joint research, technology sharing, and oversight mechanisms, which would ensure transparency and build trust among participants.
We can and should envisage similar initiatives, founded on inspiring possibilities for West Asia to reclaim agency in shaping its own future. In so doing, I propose that we should bridge the dignity gap and offer practical ways to break the cycle of conflict and build foundations of genuine non-proliferation rooted in equity and shared prosperity.
Let us escape from the prison of our past failures, re-evaluate our failed assumptions, consider mutually respectful approaches, and thus build possibilities for an inspiring future.
Thank you for your time.