'The Iranian people will neither compromise nor surrender'

TEHRAN — Military attacks and economic pressure will not force Iran into submission, says former foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who argues that Washington has failed to translate its superior resources into its desired outcomes. In an interview with the Tehran Times, Mottaki, now a lawmaker and member of Parliament’s Economic Committee, discusses the country’s wartime governance, its response to renewed sanctions and its diplomatic efforts at recent Inter-Parliamentary Union assemblies.

He acknowledges the economic hardships facing Iranians but maintains that public grievances should not be mistaken for a willingness to yield to foreign pressure. Mottaki also assesses the potential consequences of the upcoming U.S. congressional elections and how the Trump administration’s failed war against Iran could shape the president’s political future. The following is the text of the interview: Could you please elaborate on the activities of the Parliament since the beginning of the 40-day war?

Did the security threats from the United States and Israel against the lives of the representatives lead to any temporary suspensions of parliamentary functions? War inherently carries specific consequences. The aggressors in these two wars imposed upon us have shown no regard for international law or human rights, as evidenced by their targeting of innocent civilians—children, women, and athletes—alongside their conflict with our military forces.

They have created an ugly reality in this American-Zionist war. It is only natural that when they are committed to sowing fear and terror—striking schools, seminaries, and civilian areas like Lamerd and Koushk, or attacking weddings and funerals—they would also attempt to assassinate officials of the Islamic Republic whenever possible, as their terrorist acts have clearly demonstrated. Consequently, yes, measures were taken within Iran to mitigate the fallout from the enemy’s actions.

For example, government cabinet meetings, parliamentary sessions, and other official state gatherings were not held in their traditional, established locations. We, as representatives, continued to carry out our committee work and oversight duties, but we suspended open parliamentary sessions due to these specific threats. Cabinet meetings were still held, but not at the presidential office. However, while these security measures were necessary, they did not disrupt the administration of the country.

As you have observed throughout the past year and a half of the war, despite the inevitable pressures—particularly regarding food and basic supplies, which are usually the first sectors to suffer—there has never been a shortage of goods in the market or a lack of food for our people. This success demonstrates that the government, drawing on the experience of the eight-year [Iran-Iraq] war, had a firm grasp on wartime management and successfully adapted to the circumstances.

Thus, while we faced significant difficulties, these challenges were unable to disrupt the cycle of governance, notwithstanding the damage inflicted upon our people and our nation. In recent months, you have participated in international forums several times as the head of the Iranian parliamentary delegation. What was the reaction of foreign representatives during these trips? Has their perspective on Iran changed? The two recent assemblies where I and several other representatives attended were held in March in Istanbul, and in early October in Arusha, Tanzania, for the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) conference, which typically convenes twice a year.

Part of our work in these assemblies involves dividing ourselves among the working committees—numbering three, four, or five, such as the Committee on International Peace and Security, the Committee on Women, the Committee on Youth, the Committee on Environment, and the Committee on United Nations Affairs—where we present our positions on various thematic issues. Another key component is the General Assembly, where countries can propose emergency items.

In Istanbul, three emergency items were proposed, while in Arusha, four were brought forward. Naturally, the Assembly must vote on which topic becomes the official emergency item for debate, resolution, and final decision. One point of particular significance to us was the maneuver carried out by Bahrain at both the Istanbul and Tanzania conferences. Bahrain was essentially a party to the war, having allowed U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf for 40 years—dedicating 135,000 square meters of its small territory to the Americans to do as they pleased, alongside hosting the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

However, the war resulted in the disruption and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which had been open prior to the aggression of these very countries. We have consistently sought to remove these obstacles and restore conditions so that the Strait can be safely utilized for international shipping, tankers, and vessels, in accordance with established regulations and Iran's rightful regional role. In both Istanbul and Arusha, the Bahraini delegation submitted a draft emergency item aiming to condemn Iran for supposedly attacking them, while completely ignoring the fact that we were merely defending ourselves against aggression.

When an enemy attacks you, you must strike back— ‘al-‘aynu bil-‘ayn, wal-sinnu bil-sinn’ [an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth]; just as they transgress against you, you must confront them. Instead of apologizing or explaining their predicament, Bahrain adopted an air of entitlement, claiming that Iran had attacked them. In Istanbul, their move to condemn Iran ended in total failure. In Tanzania, they no longer dared to directly target Iran with a condemnation.

Instead, their text called for the support of "freedom of navigation". Of course, Iran is not opposed to freedom of navigation, but tabling a one-sided text that ignores the root causes of maritime insecurity is entirely inappropriate, especially coming from them. We dealt Bahrain a heavy defeat in Istanbul, where their proposal was rejected. In Tanzania, four texts were submitted: one from Bahrain, one from Iran, one from Ukraine, and one concerning the humanitarian crisis and thousands of deaths from flooding in Nepal.

We maintained our resolution, while others pressured Nepal and Ukraine to withdraw their proposals so that Western, Arab, and Zionist delegations could unite behind Bahrain's text. Ukraine gave in to their enticements and withdrew, but Nepal refused to withdraw, and neither did we. We forced a vote. Despite intense lobbying by Western nations, their followers, and a significant bloc of Arab states, Nepal’s proposal—appealing to humanitarian and emotional considerations—secured the highest number of votes, delivering another defeat to Bahrain.

Another major part of these assemblies involves the floor speeches, where delegations frequently criticize other countries—such as Ukraine against Russia, European nations against Russia, or various countries targeting China. Britain, Germany, and Bahrain all made statements against us in their speeches. According to assembly rules, any country directly referenced has the right of reply to address those remarks. Two of those replies regarding Britain and Germany were delivered by me, while Bahrain was addressed by Dr. Hosseini, a member of our IPU delegation and the Chairman of the Parliament's Economic Commission, since I was engaged in a meeting at the time.

The video of my response to Bahrain that went viral actually originated from the Istanbul session six or seven months ago, where I also answered Australia and Ukraine. In this recent session, however, three countries spoke against us: Britain, Germany, and Bahrain. Bahrain was answered by Dr. Hosseini, while I responded to Britain and Germany. The British representative—a female MP—made relatively mild remarks against Iran. Germany, however, brazenly violated the rules.

Typically, a right of reply is only granted if your country was specifically mentioned in the preceding speech. I had not mentioned Germany in my address, yet this female German delegate requested the right of reply. At the very end of the day, as the final speaker on the roster, she took the floor and spewed nonsense against Iran—talking points straight out of the playbook of Israel Radio. The morning session concluded, and the afternoon session began.

Although the official male representative of Germany was scheduled to speak that afternoon and delivered his remarks without mentioning us, I took the floor. I stated that I had no objection or protest regarding the remarks made that afternoon by this gentleman—this German gentleman—and that I actually agreed with and thanked him for mentioning the Persian Gulf. However, I turned my attention to the rude German woman who had improperly claimed a right of reply that morning, and whom the inexperienced chairperson had mistakenly allowed to speak, even though she had no such right since Germany was never mentioned.

I stated that her remarks were the voice of Israel Radio, which clearly revealed her true identity—acting within this assembly essentially as an agent of the Mossad, which is entirely beneath the dignity of this gathering. I told her and any other potential spies in this assembly: tell the Israeli regime that the Iranian nation will break Netanyahu’s and Trump’s teeth, and the nation of Iran will take revenge for the blood of its martyred Imam [Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei].

I even held up a picture of the martyred Imam. That was our response to the German woman. Regarding the British representative, she made a brief, passing remark while speaking on the assembly's theme of good governance and empowerment. In my response, I expressed astonishment that a British representative had the audacity to lecture us on good governance. If Britain wants to examine its record of governance, it should reflect on its long history of global colonization, the torture it inflicted, its mistreatment of women, and the slaves it shipped to the West.

Fifty years ago, I was a student in India. If you visit India and ask the local people about the 120 years of British colonial rule, you will learn firsthand how they treated the Indian people and the brutal tortures they employed—whether in India, Kenya, or elsewhere. Britain is in no position to lecture a country like Iran. I advised her—she is a member of the British Foreign and Security Policy Committee—to spend an evening walking the streets of London to see how young Londoners view Britain's shameful complicity in illegal U.S. wars.

When Bush and Trump launched unauthorized attacks against Iraq without UN approval, Britain was the sole country to join that unlawful aggression. We successfully presented a clear indictment of British crimes during our response. Now, regarding your question about the feedback from other delegations and countries: because we arrived straight from the battlefield, our speeches were naturally combative. We spoke swiftly, clearly, and decisively in defense of our martyrs, our nation, our ideals, our country's demands, and to demand justice for the blood of our people.

Many delegations, even European ones, approached me afterward to say, 'We agree with everything you are saying, but we lack the courage to say it ourselves.' I spoke with one European delegation head for perhaps half a minute—or rather, half an hour. Many delegations from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Venezuela itself—when the Venezuelan delegation took the podium, they declared that their president had been kidnapped and that American thieves had transgressed against their country, abducting their president and his wife—completely transformed the atmosphere of the meeting.

When I stated in my speech that America is afflicted by the most foolish president in its history, you could see smiles on the faces of nearly all the delegations, as if everyone fully agreed with the portrayal of Trump we presented, but lacked the courage to voice it publicly. Thus, it was a very successful assembly. This time, we defeated Bahrain, the Europeans, and the faction of Arab states that had rallied to support Bahrain. I very much doubt that Bahrain will ever dare to propose another emergency resolution against Iran in future IPU assemblies.

We know that the United States currently places heavy emphasis on economic warfare against Iran, hoping to force the country into submission by inducing a form of economic collapse. Given that you are a member of Parliament's Economic Committee and receive reports regarding the country's economic and livelihood conditions, do you think such a scenario is probable? A nation that others might superficially dismiss as a mid-tier, third-world country has found itself locked in a multi-front war—military, economic, and political—against the world's foremost self-proclaimed superpower and the most bloodthirsty regional regime in history, whose very