not happen again. this is the message we have and that is why think about the enormous span and getting to deal with whatever is really wants to see them off but is worried you know will while we do not want this to return. we want to change the reality to better and we did that in many ways. and with of course the support of the allies in the united states of america, but with all people are heroes and many paid with their lives predict so i'm absolutely optimistic always optimistic about israel eternity but when it comes to the details as you can see, i want to be lucid mainstream cautious reading i think that we can do both, strive to continue to change not only by way of military operations but also by way of diplomacy.

it also site. >> thank you, my pleasure. >> the iranian vice president for strategic affairs said he hopes that this time around, a trump 2 will be more serious, more focused, more realistic. that's at a conversation at the 2025 world economic forum meeting in davos, switzerland. started with our distinguished guests. this is being recorded for my sunday show, so i would appreciate it if people would not show either very loud signs of approval or disapproval. just make it easier if we don't have any, any, you know, noise from the audience.

great, great pleasure to be able to i hope you will make it possible. let's get started. joining me now of course is a man who needs no introduction, probably the most famous,, visible face of iran over the last three decades, the people have encountered, deputy foreign minister ambassador to the u.n., now vice president. apply strategy on. >> good to be with you. >> me begin by telling you what it looks like to me right now in terms of iran's position in the region. i think one could make an argument that iran has never been in a weaker position. you made a huge about on a side in syria, enormous amount of money, arms, malicious. assad is gone.

hezbollah key ally in lebanon has been decapitated three times over, desmet in terms of its forest. you have relations with hamas, hamas leadership has been destroyed. the infrastructure been destroyed. the whole idea of the axis of resistance, these militia groups, these substate actors that we're going to push back against israel, against the gulf arabs, american interests, it all seems to be much, much weaker than it was before. i'm sure you're going to disagree so tell me why. >> well, first of all, let me make two points because we don't have much time. first point, in 1982, if you can

remember, sharon invaded lebanon, pushed all the way in beirut. because in 78 he pushed all the way to the river and order to prevent the palestinians from getting into israel. and then in 82 he went all the way to beirut in order to basically decimate the palestinian resistance. if you remember, he sent -- to exile. so what happened? from 1981-1987 islamic jihad was born in 81. 81. hezbollah was born in 82, and hamas was born between 85 and 87. so i wouldn't suggest anybody to start rejoicing over destroying hamas, hezbollah, or the palestinian resistance or to

cutting iran's arms. because the resistance will stay as long as the occupation stays, as long as repression stays. resistance to israel, to a friend occupation, to apartheid, to genocide existed before the iranian revolution. it came to being reinforced exact at the time that israel and sharon believed that it wiped out the resistance. i think right now as you look at gaza, hamas is still there. israel, netanyahu did not achieve his goal of destroying hamas. hamas is still there. israel had to come to ceasefire temporary, i hope it will be permanent for the sake of 50,000 people who were massacred,

genocide by israel. so that there won't be another 50,000. the resistance is not dead. i can tell you that the vicious, for the resistance to go away, has been based on on a misrepresentation, a framing by israel that this is not an israeli-palestinian issue but an israeli iranian issue. that's number one. number two, go back to 1981-82, and move all the way to 2023, 2024. give me a single sentence, instance when this resistance operated on a rainy behalf. they always worked for the own cause, even at their own expense. they never carried our orders. we didn't know about october 7

actually we were supposed to have a meeting with the americans on jcpoa window on october 9. which was undermined and destroyed by this operation. >> and makes the cases been unwise investment for iran to be funding all these militias which are not even doing iran's interest but let's not talk about funding because a lot of people are funding and other things that are successful. but let's focus on the fact that we have supported peoples rights. now, israeli actions are a matter of jurisdiction of international court of justice in the case of genocide, a matter of criminal jurisdiction of national criminal court in terms of netanyahu and the ministry of defense. and they cannot come to dave

vos. the president can come today those because he's nobody initial to reciprocate what he said yesterday. otherwise he would've had to go to the hague instead of davos. this is the reality on the ground. people will continue to resist. why am i making a statement? if you want to resolve the problem of palestine, because do not look at iran. you should look at the palestinian issue. as long as the palestinian issue isn't there, the struggle will be there. the resistance will be there and it will be support from the international community. including allies of the united states. >> i take your point but if i may come with respect you haven't answered my question which is about iran's position. you've lost a key ally in assad. or at least you have much weaker ally in hezbollah. your air defenses have been destroyed. we have reports that you tell me it's not true.

we have reports of generals and iran talk about the fact that they paid a very heavy price for the support of assad. is it not true that you are in a much weaker position? >> and make again a couple of points. we fought iraq and we didn't have any air defense and we didn't have any weapons. when the united states was providing iraq with a wax, when the french were providing iraq with missiles and fighters come when germany was providing iraq with chemical weapons, when britain was providing tanks come when russia soviet union of the time with providing iraq with migs and missiles, when china at the time was providing iraq its missiles, we didn't have anything. we stood against iraq for eight years and we did not give up an inch of our territory. first of all, the story about

destroying our air defense is a story because, and there is a reason behind it. >> are you saying it did that happen? >> no, we suffered. but it did mean that we lost our air defense. and secondly, we have fought against a well-equipped army, equipment everybody, and over he was giving us any weapons for eight years and we didn't lose any of our territory. that something that didn't happen in iran for 220 years. for the previous 220 years we had lost every war in which we engaged. this was the first government in iran that has not lost any territory in the past two and half centuries. we are not talking about weak government. but it answered your question by saying that finally a single instance when these groups which are i think erroneously called iranian proxies operated on our

behalf. if they did that operate on our behalf, what does, what did he do to our strength? now, you can tell me that we worked on their behalf diplomatically and that gave us strength. but we never tried to cash our investment in the region. you now tell me that this was a foolish investment. i believe that you and i belong to a school of thought in social science which does not believe in only material power. we, both of us, leaving ideation of power. the fact that iran can, in fact, move people in the streets, in many parts of the world, gives us power with or without hezbollah. we still possess that power. we can still move people,

inspire people to him as he did in the beginning of the revolution. now, it may not be as big as it was because we have our own favors domestic and we need to work on them. let me tell you what i wrote in for affairs. now for us is the time to move forward. we have been looking at our surrounding as a threat because of our history. now, we've proven time and again that that will not be an easy food to swallow. because we used to be. i mean, the british, the russians took over iran, impose on us a, i mean, a famine after the second world war. nobody thinks of iran as such an easy place to carry out the

rims. so we can move forward. >> so let's talk about -- >> forward based on opportunity rather than based on threats. >> so but let's talk about that. let me start by asking, use intelligence says iran is weak, sometimes they say days away from the breakout capacity to build a nuclear weapon. is that true and will you? >> had wanted to build a nuclear weapon we would've done it a long time ago. but but a program to build nur weapons is not going to be like our program. you build nuclear weapons in hidden laboratories that are not subject to international inspections. by the way, people who are worried about our nuclear program like the israelis, they say we are days away from a nuclear weapon. so why didn't they do to help them in jcpoa? jcpoa in the worst analysis

would've kept iran with nuclear weapons for at least 15 years. the people who are saying adarand by a company netanyahu has been saying from 1994, 96 that iran will have a nuclear weapon in six months. now we're about what, 30 years later? and we still are a couple days away from nuclear weapons. this is what we call in our jargon securitization, not security. i iran is not a security threat. some people want to frame iran as the security threat. iran a phobia, islamophobia are tools to carry out programs like the genocide in gaza. our i can always think we're doing this against iran. but if you are doing etiquettes children in gaza -- >> me asked about the foreign affairs article you wrote. you talked about how under trump

there may be an opportunity for a deal with iran. i was surprised by that because trump was the person pulled out of the iran nuclear deal, the jcpoa. why do you think the guy who pulled out of the iran nuclear deal and recomposed american sanctions on iran and said i want maximum pressure on a rant, why an opportunity? >> there's always hope that people will choose rationality, but in order to be more serious, let me give you a chronology. john walter went to paris that john bolton went to paris in february of 2017 -- >> at this point is the national security adviser? >> no. i mean he wrote an article and i think late 2016 giving the blueprint for trump to get out.

okay, jcpoa. in february 2017 he went to paris, spoke to this gathering. i think his tax return shows he received $40,000 for it. the telly he lied on his tax sheet so i it may have speweds group that advocates -- >> the reigning -- terrorist of the trend for some time. he said in that speech that we will celebrate next time this year in tehran. he was appointed national security adviser in april. pompeo was confirmed as secretary of state on april 26. he went to israel on april 28 and asked netanyahu to put out that she'll about the documents that they had uncovered from iran. trump pulled out of jcpoa on ma. you look at these sequence of

events. they, and i have reason from what i hear, what i heard from leaders of other countries that they had convinced trump of two things. one, iran was crumbling. and a sudden withdrawal from jcpoa would be the last mail in iran's coffin. second, that with this document that netanyahu is shown to be an international support for the united states to israel through jcpoa. quote, extreme of wrong assumptions of trump's advisors, not trump himself. i hope this time he takes bold now, he kicked pompeo out because pompeo was seeking an appointment. hook was -- he was secret

service support from john bolton on on a bogus charge that iran was trying to kill them, basically has been bogus from the very beginning. so i hope that this time around a trump two will be more serious, more focused, more realistic. to know that his withdrawal that was imposed on it, and he said he did it for israel, , and you said now that he won't do anything for any other country, he said on his inauguration. after he withdrew from jcpoa, iran has gained much more nuclear capability, based on your breakout calculations. i don't do breakout calculations because we don't want to break

out. but based on american breakout calculations we were a year away from a nuclear weapon when bolton wrote that, whatever executive order, to get trump out. memorandum to get trump out. and today, even the american say we are a few days away. so in terms of being able to dissuade iran, it has failed. now, it has imposed heavy economic costs on the iranian people. of course there incumbent is suffering by the iranian people in the most vulnerable groups in iran are suffering the most. >> there are people in washington who talk about the new deal, i do iran nuclear deal but one that would also include a pledge by every not to continue supporting proxies or militant groups. >> we never had proxies. >> over, not supporting groups like hamas, hezbollah. et cetera.

would iran consider such a just? >> you see, the united states was already insisting that we should have a regional peace. now, we have a regional peace. we have good relations with saudi arabia. we have good relations with the united arab emirates. i have proposed in an article i recently wrote in a economist after my four affairs article that we should have a new arrangement in this region, i call it -- mw ada which is the acronym means amnesty. economists -- let's do that. so with that and you say our arms are cut off. what did he worry about them? for rent doesn't have any strength in the region, if iran's arms -- >> but but a pledge not to hem

rebuild. would you consider that? >> the problem is that's the wrong address. the address for the resistance in the region is in tel aviv, is israeli occupation, janacek and apartheid and violation of palestinian rights. the address is not in iran. the united states and israel for the next 50 years can push iran. that will not resolve the palestinian issue. they want to resolve the palestinian issue, the only solution and i think everybody who has spoken here in davos 2025 probably with the exception of the gentleman you interviewed yesterday, the only solution is a viable palestinian state. unless that solution is reached, there would be more resistance,

more groups with or without iran's help. iran has always supported the struggle of people for their human rights come for the right to self-determination, and we'll continue to support that. but that's not the cause. there has to be a struggle before you can support it. your support does not create the struggle. there is a struggle. there is a resistance caused by the fact that there is an occupation, aggression, violation of human rights. >> let me ask you about something going on in iran with regard to yemen rights. i was in saudi arabia a few times in the last year and sadly, women came to me and said they were very proud that now in saudi arabia women had far more rights than in iran. this president, the new president has said he was going to make it possible for women to wear whatever they wanted, they

did not have to wear the scarves. them rally police would be prevented from what i regard as harassment of women. this doesn't seem to have happened yet. will it? >> well, use, i'm proud to of te had a role in the information desk with the formation of a rain cap and with four women in our cabinet. at the cabinet level. >> can they come to cabinet meetings with her hair uncovered? >> well, they choose not to because -- >> is that a choice they have? >> they believe in the law of the country. go to the streets of iran, you see that there are women who are not covering their hair. it's against the law of the government has decided not to put women under pressure. this was a promise the president made and the promise is being observed.

he did not implement the law with the consent of the leadership. i don't mean the leader, the leadership of the country, had a parliament, the head of judiciary and others, national security council. so we we're moving in the rit direction. we have for the first time i think minorities are governors in iranian -- regions. the minority member of the cabinet. so these are things that i'm sure the present is proud of. as a person who's responsible for the formation of cabinet, i'm very proud. >> did -- >> is not enough. it's a step in right direction. >> there are hardliners and iran who don't like you. in fact, you are currently, i don't understand the complete specific but it taken you to

court, or they are filed cases in court to have you dismissed from your current job. >> yeah. >> is this going to succeed? basically the argument is your child have american citizenship. >> my children were born in the u.s. >> so the both citizens. >> when i was student. >> will these efforts succeed, and more important, doesn't it show, doesn't it reveal what the president of israel said, which is the hardliners are often seen as controlling core security policy don't trust people like you, that they're going to make policy and what you said doesn't matter because they are the guys actually running think? >> actually they are not because i am here. had they been running the show, i would be, i mean, according to their visions, not even free to walk in the streets, not the

streets of davos but not even the streets of tehran. but it shows that iran is not a single voice society. we have many voices, many views, and we cannot shut them down. now, in other places, at one time they shut down the voices of progress. at another time they shut down the voices of tradition. we don't, voices of progress, voices of, i mean, i don't like these labels, but voices that like more open policies, voices that are against us, also active. losing the elections, they win in the elections. last election we lost. this election we want but it was

a very close competition. i mean, first time in my life that i didn't anything domestic was during this campaign, and i had to go to town after town campaigning for president pezeshkian, and i know for, i mean, i sense with all my being that this is, wasn't a a racea real race with a real choice. it would've been much different under pezeshkian, under his rival or whatever, in the election. if today instead of president pezeshkian you had president is easy, you might've had a major war going on in the region.

so that is rattled in iran here there are differences views and iran. i i trust, i respect these different views. i don't accept people who are running smear campaigns against me to be shut up, shut down or to be quieted by the government. because if you do to them, tomorrow they will do it to us and they have more power to do it. so i think it's good that they're taking me to court, not taking me, taking the government to court, to try to dismiss me because they believe my appointment is a violation of the law. that's their interpretation. we have a different interpretation, and if the case goes through the court, i mean if the court decides that it has jurisdiction to hear it, we were present, the government will present its argument. if the court decided that i i

should go, i'll go. it won't be the end of the world. i'll start teaching again. i've done it. this is my third, what is it, coming back from the dead. >> reincarnation. >> reincarnation. i mean, i i was, i was sent bk home after i was iran's ambassador to the u.n. i went home and stayed in the university for six years. and i was sort of reincarnated as foreign foreign minin after my term as foreign minister ended, i went to the university and i had three wonderful years writing to macbooks. and now i'm back. i can go back to university. or have a retirement. it's time. >> a