مصاحبه خبرنگار شبکه یک رادیو و تلویزیونی سنگال با سفیر جمهوری اسلامی ایران در داکار در خصوص حمله آمریکا و رژیم صهیونیستی علیه ایران
مصاحبه خبرنگار شبکه یک رادیو و تلویزیونی RTS سنگال (RSI) با سفیر جمهوری اسلامی ایران در داکار در خصوص حمله آمریکا و رژیم صهیونیستی علیه ایران
مصاحبه خبرنگار شبکه یک رادیو و تلویزیونی RTS سنگال با سفیر جمهوری اسلامی ایران در داکار در خصوص حمله نظامی آمریکا و رژیم صهیونیستی علیه جمهوری اسلامی ایران
- As the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Senegal, how do you experience this war from afar?
Undoubtedly, being away from my homeland, my family, and my compatriots under such sensitive circumstances is emotionally very difficult, and I am concerned about my country and my people. Nevertheless, as a representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I have a duty to follow developments with calmness, composure, and a responsible approach, and to explain my country’s principled positions. In such circumstances, diplomacy more than ever requires wisdom, restraint, and efforts to prevent the escalation of tensions.
- Have the people and government of Senegal supported Iran under these circumstances? In what form has this support been expressed?
I would like to sincerely thank the Government of the Republic of Senegal—especially President Bassirou Diomaye Faye—as well as the government and the good and aware people of Senegal for their principled and responsible positions in condemning this aggression and expressing sympathy with the people of Iran.
Over the past three weeks, I have witnessed expressions of solidarity from various segments of Senegalese society, including religious leaders, elites, media, and ordinary citizens. These supports—based on opposition to aggression and respect for national sovereignty—have taken the form of statements, signing condolence books, and sending messages, and are highly valuable and appreciated by us.
- The war has entered its fourth week, and Iran has not surrendered to the United States and Israel. Is your country prepared for a prolonged war?
The Islamic Republic of Iran has never sought war and does not seek it, and over the past several centuries has not initiated aggression against any country. However, it stands firmly in defense of its sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. Throughout history, the Iranian nation has demonstrated great unity and resilience in the face of external pressure and threats.
Over the past nine months, under the pretext of a nuclear program—which has never been proven—Iran was twice subjected to illegal military attacks by the United States and the Zionist regime in the midst of negotiations. Unfortunately, Trump bombed the negotiating table and diplomacy itself, effectively closing the path of dialogue.
- Many senior officials, including Ali Khamenei, have been targeted. If this trend continues, would it not endanger the continuity of the system?
Targeting senior officials of a country—especially the highest political and religious authority—constitutes a clear violation of international law and the fundamental principles of the global order, and poses a threat to regional and global stability and security. It must be unequivocally condemned.
The United States and the Israeli regime have, in addition to targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader, assassinated many senior commanders and nuclear scientists. They have also committed crimes such as the bombing of an elementary school in Minab, in which 185 students were martyred, as well as targeting 80 sailors aboard the Dena warship in the Indian Ocean and many innocent civilians.
Historical experience has shown that the Iranian nation becomes more united in the face of pressure and threats. More importantly, the governance structure in Iran is not dependent on a single individual; it is based on various institutions and supported by the people. Therefore, it does not collapse or become disrupted through the removal of individuals or through unlawful actions—as evidenced by Iran’s month-long resistance.
- Iran is responding to certain actions in the region. Does this not raise concerns about a decline in regional public support?
The principled policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has always been based on good neighborliness, mutual respect, and the preservation of regional stability. Iran has clearly stated and warned that it harbors no hostility toward neighboring and brotherly countries. However, if the United States uses its bases in neighboring countries against the Iranian nation, Iran will certainly target U.S. military bases and interests in order to defend its people.
Iran’s actions are carried out within the framework of its inherent right to self-defense and in response to specific threats and attacks launched by the United States from these bases. These actions are not directed at nations, but rather at sources of threat. We believe that regional public opinion, by understanding the realities, distinguishes between legitimate defense and acts of aggression—even if there may be anger. It is the United States that has created this situation, not Iran.
Today, people in the region are asking: U.S. military bases were established to defend the countries of the region, but now they are being used only to defend Israel. Therefore, public opinion in the region—and indeed globally—clearly recognizes this distinction.
6.According to claims made by Israel and the United States, Iran was only two weeks away from acquiring a nuclear weapon. What is your response to this claim and to Israel’s concerns?
Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful in nature, and this has been officially declared many times. The claims being made are largely understandable within the framework of political and media pressure. The Islamic Republic of Iran has explicitly and repeatedly stated that it has never sought to acquire, produce, or use nuclear weapons.
There are several reasons for this:
Iran is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and it is also a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). All members of these two frameworks have the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (such as energy production, medicine, and scientific research). Prior to the war, 120 IAEA inspectors were monitoring Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the Agency’s cameras provided 24/7 online surveillance.
Moreover, both the IAEA and 16 U.S. security and intelligence agencies have, in 16 separate reports, confirmed that there has been no diversion in Iran’s nuclear program to date. In addition, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has issued a religious decree (fatwa) declaring the production and use of any weapons of mass destruction—including nuclear weapons—as forbidden.
In contrast, Iran emphasizes that double standards in the non-proliferation regime—particularly regarding the nuclear arsenal of the Zionist regime—undermine trust and collective security. How is it that the Zionist regime is believed to possess between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads, is not a member of the NPT or the IAEA, and yet faces no accountability or pressure, while Iran is subjected to continuous pressure? The world is suffering from these double standards.
More importantly, Donald Trump himself announced following the June 2025 attack—and has repeatedly claimed—that Iran’s nuclear facilities were bombed, destroyed, and eliminated. Why then did he attack Iran again on February 28 under the same pretext, and why does he still insist that it is due to Iran’s nuclear program? These claims are therefore merely pretexts.
Benjamin Netanyahu has, since the year 2000, repeatedly and falsely claimed every year that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons within six months. Today, 26 years have passed, and he continues to repeat the same statement in an attempt to mislead global public opinion. However, public opinion is now well aware of the realities and pays little attention to such propaganda.
From Iran’s perspective, sustainable regional security will not be achieved through nuclear weapons, but through dialogue, transparency, mutual respect, and the establishment of a region free of weapons of mass destruction.
- Do you observe support from Islamic countries?
In the Islamic world, although approaches vary, there are shared principles such as opposition to aggression, support for national sovereignty, and the necessity of preserving regional stability, which are emphasized by many governments and nations—Senegal being one of them.
We have witnessed various forms of political, media, and popular support from parts of the Islamic world. At the same time, some countries, due to the circumstances arising between us and certain regional countries—particularly because of our strikes on U.S. military bases—have their own considerations.