Exclusive: Esmail Baghaei warns against entering Iranian soil

In a charged diplomatic moment — hours after Iran formally rejected the United States’ nuclear proposal and President Trump declared it “totally unacceptable” — India Today Global secured the first exclusive international interview with Esmail Baghaei, the public face of Iran’s foreign policy. Speaking from Tehran, Baghaei laid bare Iran’s position with striking candour: the nuclear impasse, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, allegations of US and Israeli aggression, and Iran’s readiness for further escalation. As war clouds gather over the Persian Gulf and global energy markets reel, Baghaei’s words carry consequences far beyond Iran’s borders — reaching into India’s energy security, global shipping lanes, and the fragile architecture of international law.

THE BIG POINTS

Trump’s proposal was rejected because America wants total surrender, not negotiation. Washington’s approach amounts to the imposition of its will, not genuine give-and-take. Iran’s counteroffer focused on ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz first, before any nuclear talks.The US destroyed the nuclear negotiating table twice in under nine months. Baghaei says America torpedoed talks mid-process in June last year and again on February 28 — Iran was not the party that walked away. Iran’s position: stop repeating a failed formula.The Strait of Hormuz closure is America’s fault, not Iran’s. Before February 28, the strait was open. Iran says it was forced to act after the US and Israel used Persian Gulf states’ territory to launch attacks — and that under international law, a blockade is itself an act of war.Israel is the real nuclear proliferator in the region. Baghaei called it a “black comedy” that Israel — the only regional state outside the NPT, widely believed to possess nuclear weapons — is demanding Iran dismantle its peaceful nuclear programme. Iran has been an NPT member since 1970.Iran has “many surprises” left militarily. Without going into specifics, Baghaei dismissed Trump’s claim that Iran’s forces have been decimated, saying US miscalculations created this crisis and Iran’s capabilities are being severely underestimated.It is not Iran that is isolated — it is America. With global public opinion, BRICS partners, and even US Congress members questioning the war’s legality, Baghaei argued Washington is the one standing alone, defending what he called an “illegal, whimsical war” fought on behalf of Israel.

FULL INTERVIEW

GM: Let’s begin with the proposal. What were the problem areas with America’s proposal? What was your counteroffer, and why has Trump said it is totally unacceptable?
EB: Well, I think you have to put it in context. We have been in a diplomatic process with the United States for more than 10 years now. We started negotiations on the nuclear issue in 2012, and that process led to the formation of the JCPOA in 2015. Then, in 2018, the United States decided to unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA. Iran waited for one long year, hoping that the European partners would somehow compensate for the US withdrawal. They didn't, so as of May 2019, Iran decided to scale back its commitments. Every two months, we decreased the level of our commitments, again giving time and opportunity to other parties to make it up, but they didn't.

If you remember, under the JCPOA we agreed to the most robust verification and inspection regime by the IAEA. Iran was enriching at less than 4%. But then the United States withdrew during the first Trump administration. We did everything to avoid a conflict, but still they assassinated our great commander, Hajj Qasem Soleimani.

Then during the Biden administration, we tried hard to forge another agreement to take care of their concerns about our nuclear programme. We believed from day one that these concerns were not authentic or genuine, but we said, “OK, if that's your concern, we can take certain measures to build confidence and be more transparent about our activities.” If you go through the history of our nuclear activities, you will find that during the implementation of the JCPOA, the IAEA issued 15 consecutive reports affirming Iran's impeccable performance.

Then during the second Trump administration, even though we didn't have any trust in the United States, out of our responsible approach, and after many leaders across the region demanded that we give it another try, we agreed to engage diplomatically with the United States through Oman, a friendly country and a professional mediator between Iran and the United States. But you remember what happened last year. In the midst of negotiations, they torpedoed the negotiating table. We had a war, and then they repeated it again on 28 February.

So this is the story of Iran-US engagement on the nuclear issue. After the war, after we managed to have these ceasefires, we again started this diplomatic process and exchanged some texts. We said, “Let's focus on priority number one, which is important for the whole region and the whole world economy. Let's focus on ending the war. Let's focus on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and you, the United States, stop maritime piracy against freedom of navigation.”

Basically, this attempt was aimed at resolving the most immediate issue affecting international maritime routes and the world economy. But unfortunately, the United States does not seem to understand the importance of this opportunity.

Look, we are talking about negotiations. Negotiations mean give and take. Negotiations mean being ready to recognise your interlocutor's demands and concerns. But if you think negotiations mean 100% one-sided satisfaction, that's not negotiation, that's imposition of your will, and it will not happen, at least as far as Iran is concerned.

We're not going to yield to their maximalist demands because we think it is basically unjust. It has been part of their unjust campaign. It was an unjust war, an unlawful aggression against Iran. So at this stage they have declared that they cannot go along with Iran's proposal, but I guess we are going to receive more details and assessments of the situation through Pakistani mediators.

GM: But what specifically did Iran include that Trump says is totally unacceptable?
EB: As I said, basically the difference is between Iran, which says that as long as we are a member of the NPT, we have to be able to use the prerogatives granted to us — the right to have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes — and the other side, which says they are concerned about our nuclear programme and do not care about the IAEA’s reporting reaffirming that Iran's nuclear programme has been absolutely peaceful.

We also have another actor in the region that for the past three decades has been talking about Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons. If countries recognise that each nation has its own vital national interests, that would be the beginning of compromise. Any negotiation needs middle ground and compromise. Unfortunately, the American administrations do not think they should agree to a middle ground that takes care of everyone's concerns and interests.

GM: What are Iran’s red lines? Are you looking at partially parting with highly enriched uranium while retaining what you need for civilian purposes?
EB: Look, at this stage we have not gone into the details of our nuclear programme because what's the logic? The logic is that we have talked about the nuclear programme twice in less than a year, and we were unable to come to a conclusion because of the United States' obsession with Iran's nuclear programme. It was not Iran, by the way, that left the negotiating table. Not only did they leave the negotiating table, they destroyed it twice in less than nine months.
So if we were unable to take care of the nuclear issue, and we have already tested it, let's focus on another issue that is of utmost concern for the region and the international community. Don't you think that this is the most responsible way of dealing with an international issue? Iran said, “Let's focus on ending the war,” and by ending the war, we mean taking care of the Strait of Hormuz issue and discontinuing the so-called blockade that the US has imposed on Iran.

Again, we have been in a nominal ceasefire, but under international law, blockade itself is considered an act of war. So we have exercised maximum self-restraint in the face of continued US reneging on its commitments under the ceasefire.

GM: How do you see the war ending? I am talking about the Strait of Hormuz now. Do you see America agreeing to lift the blockade in exchange for Iran allowing energy supplies to flow — because countries like India are suffering?
EB: Again, you have to see what happened on 28 February. Before that, the Strait of Hormuz was open and free to every country. Iran was forced to take certain measures under international law, and I have to stress this: what Iran did is allowed under international law because we had to face aggressors, the United States and Israel, who were abusing the soil of other Persian Gulf states to attack Iran. That was absolutely unlawful. It was an act of aggression.

So we had to fight back. We had to take measures in order to prevent these aggressors from abusing this water lane for conducting military aggression against Iran. It was not Iran's fault.

After we showed certain flexibility — you remember after Minister Araghchi issued that tweet saying the Strait of Hormuz would be open — the President of the United States immediately said, “Thank you Iran for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, but we are going to continue our blockade.”

We are not happy about what is happening in India and other countries, but this was caused by the United States and Israel. Iran depends on this strait more than many other countries because we are a coastal state. We want to see security and safety in this water lane. But the problem is that the United States and Israel initiated this war of aggression and inflicted these consequences on the whole economy. They have to be held accountable by the international community for what they started and are still continuing.

GM: Trump has called Iran’s proposal totally unacceptable and has threatened Iran again. Are we looking at another imminent attack? Netanyahu has also said it’s not over.
EB: Of course they're happy because they were able to drag the United States into this war. And this is not me saying it — the State Department itself said they came into this war in support of their ally, and they also said it was an exercise of their right of self-defence. This is absurd because they were not attacked by Iran. If you want to exercise your right of self-defence, you need to be attacked by another country.

The United States also has this excessive fascination with military might and military power. That's unprecedented in terms of violating every norm and principle of international law. By threatening Iran, they are continually violating the United Nations Charter.

As far as our armed forces are concerned, we are prepared for every scenario. We have no choice other than fighting back ferociously, and we showed that during the recent warfare because this is an unjust war and the Iranian people are united in defending their homeland against these aggressors.

GM: Well, we have seen your resilience, sir, and we will talk about your preparedness despite what President Trump has claimed. But the French are sending their warship into these waters. They're not going to. They said that they are, but they're waiting for the war to end. What does that really mean? What's your assessment?
EB: They clarified that they didn't mean they wanted to send their warship to the Strait of Hormuz or to our region. Because I think Europeans are smart enough to recognise that this was a war of aggression. This was an illegal war. This was against the core values that Europeans have been advocating for. Politically and security-wise, they have recognised that this war of choice by the United States has harmed not only the stability and security of our region, but also had dire consequences for the whole economy, including the European economy and their sense of safety and security. So I think they are well advised not to further complicate the situation.

GM: Well, it is quite interesting because we keep talking about how Iran is isolated and the West puts that out all the time. But looking at the conversations your minister is having with his counterparts, your President is having with his counterparts, and how President Trump has had hardly any help from any quarter, it looks more like Iran is not the isolated country here — America is a tad bit isolated.
EB: We are very proud that we are defending our homeland, and it is not only about defending Iran. It is defending humanity and the basic norms of international law against this wave of lawlessness. Who are we fighting? We are fighting a system that is wanted by the ICC for committing genocide. We are fighting in defence of our homeland against a system that has been calling for the annihilation of an entire civilization. Can you imagine that the United States is calling for wiping Iran off the map?

So basically, I think this is not only a national resistance, a national defence against the bullies of the world, but it is in defence of common human values that human civilization has stood for for millennia. That's why I think public opinion across the globe is so sympathetic to Iran's cause, because no one believes this war could be justified in any form or manner. It is an illegal war.

The US Congress has also been very clear. Many congressmen and congresswomen have said clearly that this is a war of choice by the US administration, perhaps on behalf of Israel. In any case, I think the world has come to recognise that this is a whimsical war with long-term consequences for the whole normative infrastructure that has underpinned the international system for the past eight decades after World War II.

GM: Speaking of consequences, what would the status of the Strait of Hormuz be should the war end, whatever that may look like? Because it's a shared strait between Oman and Iran. So what is the status going to be? Is Iran forever going to change how the Strait of Hormuz looks or used to look?
EB: We are a coastal state along with Oman, and we have every responsibility to ensure safe passage through this strait. We have done it before.

Now, after having this bad experience and seeing this water lane being abused by aggressors to harm Iran's national security and national interests, I think we need to devise certain measures to make sure that it is not repeated. That doesn't mean controlling the Strait of Hormuz. We are compliant with our international obligations under international law. We are a responsible state.

But which countries other than Iran and Oman are responsible for taking care of, for instance, the environmental damage inflicted on these waters? For the past four decades, huge damage has been done to the marine environment of the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and someone should really take care of that problem.

Again, regarding safe passage and safe navigation, these are the things that Iran and Oman should work on together. They should adopt certain measures to ensure the safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, while at the same time not allowing their national security to be compromised by a similar situation to what we experienced during the past two or three months.

GM: A lot of people don't really know that the Strait of Hormuz is not just above water that Iran controls. There is a whole lot under the sea as well — cable networks. Is there a proposal or something that Iran is looking at in terms of how that could become your next big leverage, your next big power move, considering Iran controls a huge percentage of the world’s communications because of the undersea cables in the Strait of Hormuz?
EB: I think we have to take care of the misrepresentations intentionally propagated by some mainstream Western media and by American politicians, portraying Iran's lawful measures in the Strait of Hormuz as Iran creating leverage for bargaining. That's not the case.
We didn't adopt these measures simply to find another leverage point in negotiations with the United States or other countries. The measures taken by Iran were a reaction in response to the United States and Israel abusing this water lane and the territories of Persian Gulf countries to attack Iran. Any country in a similar situation would take the same measures because we cannot allow this water lane to be abused by warring parties to harm Iran's national security.
GM: When I say leverage, I don't mean it in the sense that you're going to blackmail the world. I mean it in the sense that you're a country at war. Is that also a big power move for Iran?
EB: You cannot find anything suggesting that Iran is not going to comply with its obligations under international law. As I said, we are a responsible state and compliant with our obligations under international law. So no cutting cables. As I said, we have never even thought about that.
GM: That's good to know because a lot of it will impact India, South Asia, and Southeast Asia as well. Coming to a very important point — and I keep saying this — you have a proposal and you're negotiating with America. Does Iran consider Israel a nuclear state? And if so, why is disarmament of Israel's nuclear weapons not part of any of the deals or conversations?
EB: I think that's a pertinent question. There is no doubt that Israel is the only actor in our region that is not part of the NPT. That is the sad irony, the black comedy — Israel is advocating for the removal of Iran's nuclear facilities out of alleged concern about Iran's nuclear programme, while Iran has been a member of the NPT.

Do you know that Iran was one of the first countries to join the NPT in 1970? Iran was also the first and only country in 1974 to advocate for a Middle East free from nuclear weapons. So the only obstacle to realising this ideal of a Middle East free from nuclear weapons is the Israeli regime, and the United States is backing such a regime — the only proliferator of WMD in the region.

We have not been seeking nuclear weapons. That has always been Iran’s clear and transparent position. But I think the demand for disarming Israel, removing its nuclear programme, and ensuring that its nuclear activities are under IAEA supervision must become a global demand. Countries in the region and beyond have always called for this.

Right now, the annual NPT conference is being held in New York, and that demand remains one of the permanent calls of the international community. But every time, that demand has been blocked by the United States.

GM: Let’s look at the Arab world. Before the war, they were actually going to normalise ties with Israel, and some of them have. So how does the international community wake up and raise its voice against Israel while Israel remains in denial? They've never accepted that they have nuclear weapons. Is this not an opportunity for Iran to put it on the negotiating table — that if you want Iran not to have nuclear weapons—
EB: As I said, this is the contradiction. This is part of the contradictory position of the United States and its allies. They have been calling for Iran's peaceful nuclear programme to be halted while at the same time ignoring the fact that Israel is the only proliferation risk in our region.

I think people have come to recognise the depth of hypocrisy that the United States and its allies are exercising with respect to the issue of nonproliferation. It is at the maximum level right now.

You can also refer to the fact that this sole possessor of WMD is at the same time the only entity that has committed genocide in modern history. They have been attacking another country, Lebanon. By the way, more than seven countries have, in one form or another, been attacked by Israel over the past two years.

So these are the contradictions and double standards that people in our region are witnessing on a daily basis, and that's why no one can really have even minimum trust in United States policies regarding our region.

GM: For clarity — now you're going to have a conversation where there will be an MOU, and then after that MOU is signed, there’s an agreement to have talks on nuclear issues for the next 60 days. Have I got that right?
EB: As I said, for the time being we were going to focus on ending the war. By ending the war, we meant agreeing mutually to stop violating each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

And by the way, everyone knows that we didn’t start attacking the United States. They are far from our region. But as a matter of principle, we were ready to agree on a sort of MOU to put these principles — based on international law and the UN Charter — into writing. No one can challenge the accuracy and importance of such principles.

Within the next 30 days, of course extendable, we were supposed to talk about the details of any such agreement. So basically that was the concept, and we have to see what the next step will be.

GM: Interestingly, there’s another report about dolphin submarines that the IRGC has announced they are now sending out or launching. From what I understand, President Trump has said that your complete defence capability has been decimated and destroyed. Contrary to that, what we're seeing here is not just your mosquito fleet of small boats — you also have a dolphin fleet. Sir, what is that?
EB: They can say whatever they want. Basically, they have created this quagmire, this catastrophic situation, because of their miscalculations about Iran, the Iranian nation, and Iran's capabilities. That’s their problem.

They need to reconsider their sources of information. They need to understand that the Iranian nation is a proud nation. They are patriotic, and they are going to do everything in defence of their homeland.

When it comes to our military might and military capacities, I'm not going to go into details, but I can assure everyone that Iran has many surprises. Iran has many capacities that we use whenever needed.

GM: The FIFA tournament — is that something Iran is going to participate in? Because of the countries your team will have to visit. Are you OK with that? And is America OK with that?
EB: Unfortunately, sport, including football and the World Cup, has been badly politicised because of the United States’ obsession with unilateralism. The other day, they stopped some technical members of our team from entering Canada. That was against FIFA rules and regulations.

We regard FIFA as responsible for ensuring that the Iranian football team can attend their games without impediments or obstacles. Necessary preparations are being made, but we will make final decisions in the coming few days.

GM: when it comes to India, the energy crisis is a huge problem. Prime Minister Modi is headed to the UAE. We were here just across the building with Mr. Araghchi last time when Prime Minister Modi was in Israel, and now he’s in the UAE. Energy crisis for India is a major issue. How is Iran looking at these visits?
EB: We have very good bilateral relations with India. Iran and India have many historical commonalities and have always maintained good diplomatic ties. What is happening in our region, as I said, is part of the consequences of the war imposed on Iran and the region. I think India recognises the fact that Iran, a sovereign member of the United Nations, has been unjustly attacked by two nuclear-armed regimes. No one can ignore these very clear facts.

When it comes to India's bilateral relations with other countries, it is up to India to decide. Our relations with other countries have never been directed against India, and this is part of the basic principles of international law — no bilateral relationship should be against a third country.

So our relations with India are based on mutual respect and mutual interests, and we are looking forward to continuing these healthy relations.

GM: In terms of engagement, will Foreign Minister Araghchi be going to India? Will you be coming for the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ meeting?
EB: We plan to. I know that Minister Araghchi plans to attend this important meeting. Iran and India are both members of BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and I understand that we have a good level of cooperation and coordination in both organisations.

The meeting is important for us, and we are looking forward to having bilateral meetings with other ministers participating in this event, including, of course, the Foreign Minister of India as the host.

GM: My final question: Is Iran prepared for a ground invasion should America plan one? Because analysts such as Professor Marandi have been saying that that's exactly what America is planning.
EB: I can assure you that our armed forces are prepared for every scenario. I’m sure that anyone who dares to put their foot on Iranian territory would badly regret it.

Interview conducted by Geeta Mohan, Senior Executive Editor, India Today Global, in Tehran.

- Ends