Iran entered the negotiations with the aim of reducing the West’s sensitivity regarding its peaceful nuclear program and creating an economic cooperation mechanism with the world’s powers. The result of the negotiation was an agreement with the spirit of removing concerns on one hand and creating economic bonds with joint interests on the other hand. But the withdrawal of Donald Trump from the JCPOA and the lack of Europe’s adherence to its commitments showed that the other party has no serious will to maintain the agreement. Now, along the same path, Larijani has emphasized once more that Iran is ready for cooperation based on joint interests. However, if threats and pressure continue, Tehran has no other option but to use all its capabilities to defend itself.

JCPOA: An agreement for removing doubts and creating economic cooperation

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was designed with the aim of responding to the alleged concerns of the West about Iran’s nuclear program and, in turn, enabling Iran to have extended interactions with the world in a safe and transparent space. The spirit of the agreement was economic cooperation and joint interests, but after Trump took office, the U.S. chose another path. The one-sided exit from the JCPOA and the imposition of maximum pressure on Iran showed that the White House not only was not seeking to reduce tensions but also preferred the maximum pressure policy over any economic cooperation.

Nevertheless, Europe could not implement its commitments within the framework of the JCPOA. This issue caused Iran to gradually reduce some of its JCPOA commitments while still emphasizing that if all parties return to their commitments, Tehran is also ready to fully implement the agreement. This is exactly the same issue that Larijani presented recently in his remarks: that Iran’s strategy has not changed and is still defined based on interaction and cooperation, but interaction cannot be unilateral.

Is the U.S. ready for economic interaction?

The main issue is whether the United States, particularly under the presidency of Trump, is ready to distance itself from the policy of conflict and seek an approach based on joint interests. Iran has explicitly announced that as long as there is no threat against the country, it will not change its nuclear policy. However, if foreign pressures and military threats reach a point that endanger the country’s existence, maintaining national security would take priority, and Iran would have to use all its deterrence capabilities.

Larijani, in his recent remarks, pointed to the same reality and emphasized that if the U.S. is really seeking to reduce tensions, it must think about creating joint economic interests instead of relying on threats and pressure. This is the same logic that Iran sought during the period of JCPOA negotiations, and the result was an agreement that provided the interests of all parties. But the problem is that Washington has so far proven that it is not ready to set aside the policy of pressure and threat.

Deterrence against military threats

The main issue in Larijani’s recent remarks is pointing to the secondary legal rulings in Islamic jurisprudence—a concept that, under emergency conditions, provides the possibility of changing some policies. He emphasized that if military threats reach a point that endangers the security of the country, the system will inevitably adopt an appropriate decision. The stance is not a change in strategy, but an accepted principle in every political system for defending its existence.

Essentially, no country in the world sits back under direct threat. Iran, like any other country, has the right to defend itself against security threats; however, this does not mean that Iran has the tendency to change its nuclear policy or move toward building nuclear weapons. It is a defensive reaction against probable threats. If the U.S. and its allies are looking to prevent such a scenario, the only way is adherence to the principle of cooperation and creating joint economic interests.