Iran parliament speaker lays out terms for ending war, security ties with Arabs

Iran’s Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (parliament), Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said his country would not return to the conditions that prevailed before the outbreak of the war, stressing that Tehran is prepared to conclude mutual security agreements and guarantees with neighbouring Arab states to help strengthen regional security and stability.

In an interview with The New Arab’s correspondent in Tehran, Ghalibaf stressed that a ceasefire would not be acceptable to Iran unless it guarantees that the war will not resume, adding that Iran is ready to continue fighting until the political and security conditions are in place to end the threat in a genuine way.

The following is the text of the interview:

You previously said in a post that you certainly do not seek a ceasefire. If the other side or some mediators pursue one, under what conditions could Iran accept ending the war?

A ceasefire only becomes logical if it guarantees that the war will not resume, not if it gives the enemy an opportunity to fix its problems, such as repairing destroyed radars or addressing shortages in interceptor missiles, only to attack us again. We will continue fighting until the enemy truly regrets its aggression, and until the appropriate political and security conditions are established in the world and the region so that the threat and the war genuinely come to an end.

If the United States and Israel were to halt the war unilaterally, would Iran continue closing the Strait of Hormuz and carrying out attacks to achieve its demands?

We will not accept a ceasefire unless the enemy regrets its aggression and the appropriate political and security conditions are prepared in the region and the world.

In light of these positions, a question arises in the region and around the world: how long can Iran continue the war despite the ongoing attacks it faces and its enemies’ claims that its military capabilities have declined?

We prepared ourselves for a long war because we knew the attack would come. Based on the experience of the previous war, we understood how they would try to reduce our operational capabilities. Therefore we took the necessary measures. I believe no one any longer believes the American claims about destroying Iran’s offensive capabilities. We have sufficient stockpiles of missiles and drones, and because this technology is domestic, we can produce them at higher rates and at far lower cost than the enemy’s interceptor missiles.

It is said that some countries, such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, are holding consultations with Tehran to end the war. How is Iran dealing with these efforts?

The only guarantee that aggression against us will not be repeated for a third time is to make the enemy regret its aggression to the extent that it never again considers attacking Iran.

What is the significance of selecting Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei after the assassination of the leader of the Islamic Revolution under these wartime conditions? What message did you want to send?

If we place this choice and the people’s support for it alongside the first message issued by the leader, it becomes clear to the world that Iran is not like Syria, whose leader abandons the country and leaves it, nor like Venezuela, which surrenders to force. All the people, from the supreme leader to officials and citizens, stand united in defence of Iran’s dignity, independence and territorial unity. A country that relies on divine providence cannot be defeated.

Could Iran’s policies change under his leadership?

Naturally, this is a question that His Eminence himself must answer, but what is certain is that the principles of the revolution and its foundations, which led to his selection as leader of the revolution, will not change.

Why does Iran continue attacking its Arab neighbours despite their opposition to the war on Iran and the significant efforts they made to prevent it?

This question should be directed to the Americans. They used the territory and assets of those countries and established military bases there under the pretext of providing security to them, but they exploited those bases to attack Iran and forced us to respond. The destabilisation of security began with the United States operating from the territory of those countries. Naturally, in an existential war we are compelled to defend ourselves. As you have seen, we had this capability even during last June’s war: despite the Americans standing alongside Israel, we did not bring the countries of the region into the confrontation until the United States entered the war directly.

But these attacks may give the impression that relations with these countries no longer matter to Tehran, do they not?

Today we believe more than ever in the necessity of strengthening relations with neighbouring countries. However, under the current circumstances, we are compelled to defend ourselves. We believe the region’s security should be provided by its own countries without external interference. Therefore we believe this war will change many regional relationships, and we will not return to the conditions that existed before it. We are prepared to conclude lasting security agreements with countries in the region that can provide mutual guarantees and create stable, sustainable security for investors.

Iran’s Arab neighbours, both governments and populations, did not expect these attacks after the significant improvement in relations in recent years. How do you respond?

Let us set aside diplomatic courtesies. We did not expect our southern neighbours’ territories to be used to attack Iran, which forced us to defend ourselves. My message is the same one our new leader pointed to: you gave America military bases to ensure your security, but they have become a source of threat to your security because they betrayed you. The United States has only one real ally — Israel. Even when Israel attacked the State of Qatar, these bases did nothing to defend against Israeli aircraft and did not even issue a simple warning. This war has once again proven that these countries hold no real importance for the United States. If matters have reached this point, then settle it once and for all and close the American bases in your countries.