Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has described the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme as an “excuse,” saying the deeper disagreement between Tehran and Washington is about Iran’s political outlook and its opposition to US influence in the Middle East. His comments, carried by Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB, came as officials on both sides made competing statements about the conflict, the possibility of renewed fighting and the future of diplomacy.
In an interview with Iraq’s Al-Ikhbariya network, Araghchi argued that the United States rejects what he called Iran’s ideology and its refusal to accept American dominance. He linked that position to the emergence of regional resistance movements. These remarks express the Iranian government’s view of the dispute; they do not establish that the nuclear issue has no independent importance in negotiations or international policy.
Araghchi also referred to earlier nuclear diplomacy. He said Iran had reached an agreement with world powers and argued that the United States later withdrew from it without justification. He added that a similar pattern had occurred “again in Islamabad,” though the supplied report does not explain the specific events he was referring to in that comparison. The account says renewed tensions are connected to the implementation of a 14-point memorandum of understanding signed in June. The memorandum was intended to end hostilities and create a path toward further negotiations, including talks on Iran’s nuclear programme. According to the report, its collapse was followed by renewed fighting.
The foreign minister also said Iran’s military readiness would deter the United States from starting a new war. He warned that the US could not achieve its objectives through military action and described Iran’s defence preparations as a key factor preventing a direct conflict. These statements reflect Tehran’s position and should be understood as claims by an Iranian official, rather than as independent confirmation of either country’s military intentions or capabilities.
US President Donald Trump offered a different account at a campaign rally in Kentucky. He said the conflict would end “very quickly” and repeated that Iran would never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Trump also connected the end of military operations to lower fuel prices in the United States, saying gas prices would fall below their previous level once the conflict ended. He defended earlier strikes against Iranian targets, describing them as necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Those remarks were made at a political rally, and the supplied report does not independently assess the military results he claimed.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Saeed Khatibzadeh, meanwhile, said ending hostilities across all fronts was necessary for lasting peace. He warned that fighting in any area could prolong the wider conflict. Khatibzadeh also said Iran was prepared to answer questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United States about its nuclear programme. He referred to more than 15 IAEA reports that he said had verified Iranian compliance. The report provides his characterization of those reports, but does not reproduce them or detail their findings.
The statements reveal how far apart the public positions of Tehran and Washington remain. Iran’s officials frame the conflict around sovereignty, military deterrence and what they see as US pressure. Trump’s remarks emphasize preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and portray military action as having weakened Iran’s nuclear capacity. The supplied report does not establish that diplomacy has resumed or that either side has agreed to new terms. For now, the key questions are whether the June memorandum can be revived, whether hostilities will stop across the region, and whether Iran and the United States will return to negotiations over the nuclear programme.
