Speaking in an interview with Iran's national broadcaster IRIB, Larijani said Tehran had accepted many of the Europeans’ conditions to remove excuses for them, but resisted proposals it deemed unacceptable.

“The Europeans proposed conditions that no rational person would agree to,” Larijani said, adding Tehran "stood firm" against them.

He explained that Britain, France, and Germany—signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal—had demanded a “new design” for cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for withdrawing their request to trigger the snapback mechanism. The so-called snapback process, invoked on August 28, will automatically reimpose all UN sanctions against Iran by September 28 unless a new arrangement is reached.

Larijani said the European demand was directly linked to the US-Israeli aggression against Iran in June. “They told us that if you redesign cooperation with the , we will withdraw the snapback request. This meant we had to set up an entirely new system because nuclear centers were bombed,” he said.

This was the first time in history that nuclear facilities had come under military attack which drew no response from the director general, the Board of Governors or the UN Security Council.

The Israeli regime’s June 13 terrorist assault, which continued for 12 days, was later accompanied by unlawful US airstrikes on three nuclear facilities under the supervision of the UN nuclear agency.

Larijani said Iran was prepared, “if security and safety conditions allow,” to permit inspections of nuclear centers with precautions. He said a deal reached in Cairo with the on September 9 was “broadly acceptable,” but that European states nonetheless did not withdraw their snapback move.

He said Russia had proposed a six‑month delay in activating snapback to allow negotiations; Tehran accepted. He said the Europeans proposed other conditions, including talks with the United States.

“It is interesting that Europe’s condition was for us to negotiate with America. That shows the actual weight of these countries,” Larijani pointed out.

Iran, he said, was willing to negotiate in a 5+1 format that could include the US, but the Europeans declined and said the matter would be taken to the UN Security Council.

He added that Washington’s insistence was not only on reviving nuclear talks but also on expanding them to cover Iran’s missile program.

“If you say negotiation must end with what they want, no sensible person will accept it,” he said, adding Iran would firmly oppose attempts to curb its missile capability.

Larijani recalled that under the 2015 deal, Iran was permitted to enrich uranium up to 3.5 percent and, for the Tehran reactor, up to 20 percent.

“Those who had signed the previous agreement suddenly said we should not have any enrichment at all,” he said, pointing to another condition set by the countries that failed on their part to adhere to their commitments under the deal in the first place.

Larijani stressed that the US and its allies had specifically demanded Iran cut the range of its missiles to below 500 kilometers.

“This condition means they want to take away the only significant defensive or deterrent capability we have. Naturally, Iran will resist such a condition and not only resist but respond strongly,” he said.

He clarified that Iran is not opposed to negotiations in principle. “The problem is not sitting down to talk. No one is against dialogue. But if you say the outcome must only be what they want, no rational person will accept such a negotiation,” Larijani argued.

On the consequences of a snapback, Larijani said any change would be largely in the field of sanctions and that “95%” of sanctions were already in place, with the remaining 5% being of limited practical effect. He rejected the notion that the mechanism would legitimize military action against Iran, noting UN resolutions make “no reference” to authorizing force.

Larijani said Tehran had taken steps to insulate the economy and would use “special mechanisms” in a crisis to prevent pressure from being passed on to people’s livelihoods, limiting immediate market turmoil.

He further noted that the snapback mechanism cannot justify military action against Iran. “This mechanism absolutely does not legitimize military operations because none of these resolutions make any reference to military action,” he said.

He acknowledged, however, that some countries, especially the United States, might disregard legal constraints as they had done previously, including in the June war.

Larijani said Iran would maintain and strengthen its military readiness and deterrence, noting post‑war evaluations had identified weaknesses to be fixed and strengths to be built upon.

“After the war, we carried out evaluations to see where our strengths and weaknesses were. We reinforced the strengths and compensated for the weaknesses. Today, the armed forces enjoy a good deterrent power, and progress in this area is going well,” he said.

Larijani reiterated that while Iran has been open to dialogue, it cannot accept conditions that undermine its defense or deny it nuclear rights recognized in past agreements.

"We have tried every path,” he said. “But if they insist on unreasonable demands, such as restricting our missile program or banning enrichment, then we must stand against them.”