- January 16, 2026
- 1:07 pm
- Middle East
Amid the ongoing internal crisis in Iran, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made bold statements in an interview with the program Special Report. The conversation went far beyond diplomatic protocol and touched on several sensitive topics — from mass protests and accusations against Israel to the country’s missile and nuclear programs.
The speech came at a time when Iran is experiencing one of the most difficult periods in recent years. Since the end of 2025, the country has been engulfed in mass unrest, triggered by an economic crisis, the collapse of the national currency, and growing social tension. According to human rights activists and independent sources, the death toll could be in the thousands, with some estimates reaching up to 12,000 dead.
Missiles as a “red line”
One of the key focuses of the interview was ballistic missiles. Araghchi made it clear that for Tehran, this is a non-negotiable issue. According to him, the missile arsenal remains the main element of the country’s defense and a guarantee of security under external pressure.
The minister flatly rejected the possibility of negotiations with the United States on this front, emphasizing that no sanctions or diplomatic efforts will force Iran to abandon its missile program. This thesis was presented as a signal not only to Washington but also to Iran’s regional adversaries.
Nuclear program: readiness for dialogue or tactical maneuver
Araghchi spoke much more cautiously about the nuclear program. He acknowledged that the strikes within the framework of Operation “Midnight Hammer” in 2025 caused serious damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. At the same time, the minister tried to portray Tehran as a party ready for negotiations.
According to his version, Iran is capable of providing international guarantees of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program — but only in exchange for the full or partial lifting of sanctions. This approach appears as an attempt to bring the nuclear deal topic back into the diplomatic field, without abandoning strategic levers of pressure.
Accusations against Israel
The most resonant part of the interview was the accusations against Israel. Araghchi claimed that the escalation of violence on the streets and the increase in the number of deaths were allegedly part of a pre-planned scenario. According to him, the goal was to provoke US President Donald Trump to use force against Iran.
The minister argued that the protests were used as a tool of external pressure, and the increase in casualties was a deliberate attempt to draw the US into a direct conflict. These statements were made without presenting evidence but were presented as fact.
Two versions of what is happening on the streets
Describing the events within the country, Araghchi spoke of fighting “terrorist cells.” He claimed that radical groups allegedly set fire to buildings and beheaded police officers, and the actions of the security forces were a forced measure.
This version sharply contrasts with reports from eyewitnesses and human rights organizations. They record the use of snipers by government forces, shooting at unarmed demonstrators, and mass arrests. The contrast between official rhetoric and testimonies from the ground is becoming increasingly noticeable.
“Situation under control”
Despite the scale of the crisis, the Foreign Minister tried to convey confidence. He denied information about plans for mass executions of activists and stated that the situation in the country had stabilized. According to him, the authorities fully control the situation and strive to avoid further catastrophe.
Such statements sound like an attempt to reassure external partners and simultaneously demonstrate strength within the country. However, against the backdrop of ongoing communication disruptions, reports of repression, and economic decline, assurances of “full control” seem increasingly unconvincing.
Between diplomacy and reality
Araghchi’s interview illustrated how Tehran is trying to maintain a balance between tough rhetoric and cautious signals of readiness for dialogue. On one hand — missiles as an inviolable basis of security. On the other — the nuclear program as a subject of bargaining. And against this backdrop — an attempt to shift responsibility for the internal crisis onto external enemies.
The mass protests that began in December 2025 continue to be the main factor of uncertainty. The economic reasons for discontent have not disappeared, and public trust in official statements remains undermined.
The question of whether the current “stabilization” is a reality or merely a diplomatic formula remains open. And it is this gap between words and what is happening on the streets that defines the Iranian crisis today — as recorded by NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency, examining events not through slogans but through their consequences for the region and global security.
