Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a quotation record.
00:00:08The anti-Iranian resolution adopted by the Board of Governors is technically
00:00:12baseless, entirely political, and unacceptable. It clearly
00:00:15bears the fingerprint of American and
00:00:18Zionist pressures. Politicized and destructive actions
00:00:21by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will push countries towards
00:00:24withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
00:00:28Mr. Najafi, these stances we are seeing
00:00:32from officials, do they indicate a
00:00:36serious will within the country before we delve into
00:00:40how you analyze it? Should we or should we not?
00:00:44How far should we go? You
00:00:56these stances that our officials have taken regarding
00:01:00the NPT issue and the change
00:01:03in nuclear doctrine, which this term is less
00:01:07used, more often, the stances revolve around
00:01:11withdrawal or non-withdrawal or revision in the NPT.
00:01:14We had this before. Before the 12-day war, we had it.
00:01:18After the 12-day war, we had it. Martyr Larijani brought it up. Martyr
00:01:21Kharrazi brought it up. It's not the first time. This is not the
00:01:25first time, but
00:01:29in reality, it was more hasty. Now it has
00:01:32increased. More officials are talking about it. There is
00:01:36more frankness, I think. It has
00:01:39become more widespread, because, I think,
00:01:42more demand is forming around this.
00:01:46In reality, in 2019, I wrote a
00:01:49note that had no relation to these current developments,
00:01:53and I argued that we should move towards nuclear deterrence.
00:01:56This is a historical discussion related to Dr.
00:02:02from Qajar to the current situation,
00:02:05and that is that, in any case, a state and
00:02:08an entity called Iran faces an issue called
00:02:12survival. This is not a matter of courtesy.
00:02:15Why are we facing survival? Look,
00:02:18throughout history, no country has been
00:02:22attacked as much as Iran. That is, the most
00:02:25foreign aggressions in the world were carried out against
00:02:30an entity called Iran. More than 400
00:02:33attacks, of which approximately 50 were large and devastating
00:02:37attacks. You are talking about this historical basis. I haven't
00:02:41counted. Look, and within this framework, our political elites
00:02:45and governments in Iran
00:02:49— and this is not just related to the Islamic Republic — have always faced
00:02:52the issue of how to
00:02:56maintain survival. Unfortunately, the
00:02:59governments before the Islamic Republic of
00:03:02Iran , for various reasons,
00:03:06could not secure this survival. For example, during the
00:03:10Qajar period, twice the current size of Iran was separated from Iran.
00:03:13Or during the Pahlavi period, we gave away
00:03:17part of the country's territory.
00:03:20And it seems that, perhaps, Pahlavi had started that nuclear project
00:03:24towards the end of his reign.
00:03:27According to the available documents, according to
00:03:43because we have several models
00:03:47of maintaining survival or ensuring national security. Either
00:03:51you go towards balancing great powers,
00:03:54which was perhaps the Qajar model,
00:03:58where the country became a buffer zone.
00:04:01Or you go towards strategic reliance
00:04:04on a great power, which was the Pahlavi model, and this was
00:04:08not successful either. Our model was strategic self-reliance.
00:04:12That is, let's go,
00:04:16which was also based on conventional tools like missiles and
00:04:20drones and asymmetrical regional tools.
00:04:23In the note I wrote, I said that this
00:04:27doesn't work, in reality. That is, it cannot
00:04:31create complete deterrence for us,
00:04:33and eventually leads to a military attack on the country.
00:04:37Given
00:04:40this particular geopolitics that we have, which I don't want to elaborate
00:04:43on, it doesn't help, or it cannot, in my opinion, address the issue of survival.
00:04:47That is, the issue of survival also means
00:04:50that gradually, if you enter a war, the tools
00:04:53of deterrence will erode and be depleted,
00:04:56and it will challenge your existence.
00:05:00What has happened
00:05:04now, in our opinion, is that we have been at war for eight months. Have
00:05:08our military deterrence tools depreciated
00:05:11or developed? Look, we have added some
00:05:15geopolitical levers to our deterrence
00:05:19tools, but the reality is
00:05:23that, in any case, we are facing a great
00:05:25power and two nuclear
00:05:28powers, and we are dealing with them.
00:05:32You are naturally in a strategic
00:05:36imbalance with them. It's true that they couldn't
00:05:40defeat you
00:05:46existence, but this strategic imbalance and strategy exist. What's the difference? or destroy your
00:05:49Besides conventional military
00:05:52tools, there are unconventional
00:05:55and nuclear deterrence tools, and in any case,
00:05:59the nuclear tool and the nuclear threat
00:06:02that they have, we don't have nuclear bombs.
00:06:05Yes. Look,
00:06:09before the 12-day war, given the perception we had, we
00:06:13used to say that they wouldn't attack us, and even if they did,
00:06:16we would change our nuclear doctrine. Martyr Larijani
00:06:20stated this very clearly, and Martyr Kharrazi
00:06:23did the same. But we were subjected to a military attack.
00:06:27All our efforts in these 20-30 years, these 20 years, two decades
00:06:30that we negotiated, were sanctioned, agreed,
00:06:34negotiated again, sanctioned. And this vicious
00:06:37cycle of negotiation, sanctions, agreement, then
00:06:41sanctions and threats continued.
00:06:44What was our goal? Our goal was not to enter a military confrontation.
00:06:48That is, through these negotiations and
00:06:51agreements, we aimed to prevent a military attack on the country. But
00:06:55it happened. 23 years. Yes, 23
00:06:58years, and the country entered a war. That is,
00:07:02in addition to sanctions, it also entered a war. Nuclear facilities
00:07:06were targeted, and after the 12-day
00:07:09war, you faced a snapback. After the 12-day war,
00:07:13you again faced a new
00:07:16war. With what goal? With the goal
00:07:20of destroying your existence
00:07:23and putting it at risk. After
00:07:25all these things that happened, we must ask ourselves
00:07:29a question beyond the NPT issue,
00:07:32because the NPT is one of the aspects of changing
00:07:36our nuclear doctrine. The question is,
00:07:39do we want to continue our nuclear
00:07:43doctrine according to the same previous routine?
00:07:47If the answer to this question is positive and we want to
00:07:51continue this on the same previous routine,
00:07:55another question arises: What was the result of that strategy?
00:07:58The result of that strategy was nothing but
00:08:02a military attack on the country.
00:08:05It wasn't. And the question now,
00:08:08the important question that arises, is: Should
00:08:14we move towards changing our nuclear doctrine or
00:08:17not? Well, now, and if
00:08:20we do, what strategic consequences and
00:08:23advantages can this have for us? Now,
00:08:27again, we face two issues. One issue is
00:08:30the possibility of changing our nuclear doctrine, whether
00:08:34it's technically possible or not, and whether there's political will
00:08:38or not. The other is that, in any case, if it's
00:08:42possible, in what framework do we want to change
00:08:45the doctrine? Because again, two issues arise.
00:08:49Some friends suggest that we can achieve
00:08:52nuclear deterrence through nuclear ambiguity,
00:08:56which I think is a very dangerous assumption. Let's pause
00:08:59before getting there. There are two questions. The first question is, do
00:09:03we want to prevent an attack? Do
00:09:06we want to prevent an attack on our country,
00:09:09or do we want to preserve
00:09:11our survival? If you say we
00:09:15want to prevent an attack, critics who have moved towards
00:09:19weapons say, what do they say? They say,
00:09:23Russia, a nuclear country, couldn't prevent an attack. It can't. Now,
00:09:26the conflict between Ukraine and Russia is between a completely nuclear
00:09:30country with a very large arsenal and a non-nuclear
00:09:34country. But Russia cannot prevent attacks.
00:09:37This is the first point. The second point is, they say, if you are concerned about
00:09:41survival, a nuclear power has also not been able to
00:09:45jeopardize your survival. Despite fighting, attacking,
00:09:49and leaving, it has achieved no result. From these two
00:09:52propositions, what do they infer? They say, whatever our purpose,
00:09:56we don't need nuclear weapons.
00:09:59So why pursue something that becomes a burden
00:10:02and makes our situation harder, and so on? What is your answer?
00:10:06Look, we need to see
00:10:09what
00:10:12objective a country pursues from acquiring
00:10:15nuclear weapons, and
00:10:19what results nuclear deterrence can
00:10:22have for a country, according to experience.
00:10:26Look, the most important issue is
00:10:29not that if you have nuclear
00:10:33weapons, you won't be militarily attacked.
00:10:36The most important issue is that they won't
00:10:39threaten your existence. That is the difference between these
00:10:43two. Look, when
00:10:46I have a question: If Russia didn't have nuclear
00:10:49weapons, would Europe and America have acted
00:10:53in the Ukraine war in this manner? Would they not have
00:10:57intervened more directly? Would they not have threatened Russia
00:11:00with nuclear weapons? Why? I think they would have. If Pakistan, in my opinion,
00:11:04now Ni'ma is not an expert in this field, but if Pakistan and
00:11:08India did not have nuclear weapons, meaning this strategic balance
00:11:11and balance of terror between them did not exist, would
00:11:15their war have ended at that point? No, it wouldn't have continued.
00:11:19Someone would have come to destroy it. The
00:11:22difference is this: If we,
00:11:26the next point is North Korea, and
00:11:29again I refer to the statements of Trump and
00:11:32Rubio.
00:11:34North Korea, which has nuclear weapons, America
00:11:38dealt with North Korea in the same way it dealt
00:11:41with us? Very differently. And
00:11:44they respect it. As Trump says, if they had
00:11:48nuclear weapons, I would have to
00:11:51call and talk to them differently.
00:11:57During a trip to Israel before the war,
00:12:01he said something important.
00:12:04He said nuclear Iran
00:12:07would be immune from any
00:12:10threats and pressures. So we shouldn't allow
00:12:14it. It can almost be said
00:12:17that,
00:12:20academically and experimentally, scientifically
00:12:23and experimentally, no one should doubt
00:12:27that if we had nuclear weapons,
00:12:31we would not be facing foreign
00:12:34aggression in this way, where
00:12:38all our political and military
00:12:41leaders are targeted for assassination. Our
00:12:45infrastructure would be easily attacked. Our existence
00:12:48would be threatened. And therefore,
00:12:52and the next point is that those who believe in
00:12:55nuclear ambiguity, meaning staying in this
00:12:58ambiguous situation of 60%
00:13:00enrichment,
00:13:03which we have, now, for example, to remain, what to do with it? Give
00:13:07it or not give it? But there's no middle ground in reality. Either you
00:13:10have to shut down your nuclear program, or you have
00:13:14to turn it into a lever that can
00:13:18help you in strategic equations.
00:13:21That is, in the international system,
00:13:24actors are self-reliant, especially for a country
00:13:27like ours that is not dependent on any of the blocs.
00:13:31This
00:13:32issue of strategic ambiguity,
00:13:35ambiguity in nuclear doctrine, in my opinion, does
00:13:38not work. And those who now believe that we should continue
00:13:42this doctrine of ambiguity and that this can
00:13:46create deterrence for the country, in my opinion, are making a big
00:13:50analytical mistake that can have serious consequences for the country. Eid or Nima.
00:13:53Nima.
00:14:55The video confirmed Mr. Najafi's words. He said exactly the same thing.
00:14:58We are fighting with two nuclear countries,
00:15:01and we are, and they are, in fact, very
00:15:05wild, but they are different from other nuclear countries. For example, if you look
00:15:09at China, China has enacted a law in its House of Representatives,
00:15:12it's a law in China, that we will not launch any pre-emptive
00:15:16nuclear attack on anyone, but we will certainly respond to nuclear attacks
00:15:20with several times more nuclear power after
00:15:24the war. The 40-day North Korean experience
00:15:27adopted our war experience and quickly turned it into a tactic,
00:15:31a strategy. It said that if my leader is assassinated
00:15:34by another country, I will first launch a nuclear attack on that country, and
00:15:38then I will think about continuing the war. This is now law.
00:15:41And
00:15:43you are dealing with two people who have no rules or laws, and this should not
00:15:46be reduced to two people, Trump and Netanyahu. No, America and
00:15:50Israel are like this.
00:15:53The argument you mentioned, that critics of weapons say
00:15:57that it doesn't prevent conventional war, so it's useless. No, that's not precise.
00:16:01Even someone like me, who has never been a critic of weapons in my life,
00:16:04says this. This is the reality. That is, conventional war
00:16:08is conventional, just as India and Pakistan fight each other, and
00:16:11the Russian war is different.
00:16:15Well, it doesn't prevent war. No one who supported weapons and said
00:16:18they were good recommended them. He didn't say that this is good, but you can
00:16:22regulate some things. For example, assassinations can be brought under this attack on
00:16:26our nuclear facilities, which has happened twice in two wars.
00:16:29This is a very dangerous thing. So far, God has
00:16:33mercy on us that we haven't had nuclear contamination in this country. We
00:16:45all have to ask ourselves. Look, critics,
00:16:49strict critics of weapons, have a premise, which is that
00:16:52nuclear weapons are not for use. I just have
00:16:56a question for all of us to ask ourselves and think about. Now, we are a television
00:16:59program, not decision-makers, but who says they won't
00:17:02be used? This is a serious question. The one
00:17:06who has weapons is like China, which passed that law.
00:17:10They have an answer for me. But
00:17:13you don't have them, and you're dealing with two completely
00:17:16lawless entities. The question is,
00:17:20who said they won't be used? Hitler is very similar
00:17:23to these people. He has a saying: Armies are made not for
00:17:26show, but to fight, and weapons are made to be used.
00:17:30Well, I am quoting Hitler,
00:17:34not saying he was a good person. His personality also matches these people.
00:17:37The main question is this. Look, now in some
00:17:41media and political circles in America,
00:17:44they are slowly starting to talk about using
00:17:47tactical nuclear weapons. Nuclear
00:17:51weapons are a bit more compact. Nuclear weapons are a bit more compact
00:17:55that they are talking about. Most of them are larger than the Hiroshima bomb. The
00:17:58Hiroshima bomb, if it were around now, would be nothing.
00:18:01It's not even a number.
00:18:04Well, the question we all have to think about
00:18:08is: Who says they won't be used? I want to add this,
00:18:11and the terrorist network Iran International, in the
00:18:14most despicable way, shows Tehran and
00:18:18speculates about what would happen if a nuclear explosion occurred there. How many
00:18:21kilometers would be destroyed, how much would be engulfed in
00:18:25fire, how much would be contaminated with radioactive materials. Then
00:18:29that same criminal and conscience-less person
00:18:32explains that the new bombs are not dirty bombs anymore, and
00:18:35their contamination is not that much.
00:18:43One thing, and this is my own life experience, they always talk about it first.
00:18:46First, they gauge reactions in the world. Second,
00:18:49they try to prepare their own public opinion
00:18:53that, well, it was necessary.
00:18:56A reporter asked Trump the same question. Although he said it's not
00:19:00on our agenda and so on, I think it's in line with this normalization. There's another
00:19:03important point that I've seen in the last two or three days in
00:19:08the country's media space, which is very strange to me.
00:19:12That is, some say, don't talk about
00:19:16this issue of changing the nuclear doctrine. This will create a consensus
00:19:20against us, and these stories.
00:19:23My real question is, a consensus for what
00:19:27would form against us? Now, let it form. Excuse me, time for a consensus
00:19:31for a military attack on the country. It has already happened. A consensus
00:19:34after 20 years, again, the country's nuclear file.
00:19:38From the Board of Governors, it went to the Security Council. Again, that
00:19:42happened. There's a lot to discuss. The decision-making process for this issue,
00:19:46this analytical discussion we are having, naturally, first and foremost, the Supreme Leader
00:19:49and the apparatus under his command. That's where decisions are made. We are having an analytical
00:19:53discussion. Thank you very much, viewers. This was the "Iran's Time" program. Thank you, Mr. Najafi,
00:19:57Agha Vahid, Agha Nima. Every night after the 7 PM news, we
00:20:00will be with you on Khabar Network. Long live Iran. Goodbye from
00:20:04peace.
00:20:38Everyone ready for battle. In the name of the Lord of the
00:20:42Highest Throne. Raise the Iranian
00:20:45flag high. With the help of the Sultan
00:20:48of Najaf. Towards the heart
00:20:51of the target. With the help of the Sultan
00:20:54of Najaf. Towards the heart of the
00:20:57target. We attack the enemy
00:21:01by chanting "Ya Abolfazl". We
00:21:05are each an army, by
00:21:08chanting "Ya Abolfazl".
00:21:10Haidar, Haidar, Ya Haidar, Hai
00:21:13dar.
00:21:38The final war is
00:21:40coming. Our battlefield is Allah.
00:21:44Our work is in the hands of the Master. Their plans
00:21:47are shattered. Their tricks
00:21:50will be nullified. Our victory
00:21:53will be complete. Our glory is
00:21:57in our unity. The logic of the battlefield
00:22:00is our power. Our glory is in our unity.
00:22:03The logic of the battlefield is our power.
00:22:07The statements of the Leader are the
00:22:11basis of our understanding. The guarantee
00:22:14of the future is only the faith
00:22:17of our people.
00:23:20We will crush the East and West
00:23:23of the world. Eventually, the White
00:23:26House, Oh Haidar,
00:23:29Haidar, Ya Haidar, Haidar,
00:23:32Haidar, Ya Haidar, Haidar,
00:23:35Haidar, Ya Haidar, Haidar,
00:23:38Haidar, Ya Haidar, Haidar,
00:23:41Haidar, Ya Haidar, Haidar,
00:23:44Haidar, Ya Haidar, Haidar,
00:23:47Haidar, Ya Haidar. Activities
00:25:00are formed based on trust between
00:25:03the parties. Therefore, this trust must be controlled
00:25:07and guaranteed by formal mechanisms. From company
00:25:10accreditation and checking their records and financial
00:25:14capacity to receiving sufficient
00:25:17guarantees, contract control, and continuous
00:25:21monitoring of the flow of foreign currency, the operating
00:25:24banks and the Central Bank play an important role
00:25:27in monitoring the entry and exit of foreign exchange
00:25:31resources, controlling accounts, matching
00:25:34documents, and ensuring the return of resources
00:25:38from exports. Supervisory bodies must also continuously
00:25:42review the performance of trustee companies, how commitments
00:25:45are implemented, and the possibility of deviation or misuse
00:25:49of resources. Of course,
00:25:52supervision does not mean creating obstacles in the way of these
00:25:56networks' activities. The goal of supervision is to create a balance
00:26:00between maintaining the efficiency of the trustee mechanism
00:26:03and preventing corruption and deviation. Ultimately, with
00:26:07intensified sanctions, the existence of trustees
00:26:10becomes essential. Supervision must also be more professional,
00:26:13smarter, and more precise. Because maintaining this
00:26:17mechanism without control is risky,
00:26:20and control without understanding its necessity can also
00:26:23lead to disruption in the country's foreign trade. Go
00:26:27for it.
00:28:02Leader, go for broke! Grab the sea
00:28:06by its mouth, grab me, don't
00:28:09let go. Grab the stone
00:28:13firmly. Manage the straits.
00:28:16Take our absolute right.
00:28:19Take it.
00:28:22The streets are in our hands, in our hands,
00:28:25in God's hands. Our enemy is shameless.
00:28:28Don't underestimate your enemy.
00:30:35Livelihood support for the people and addressing the demands of
00:30:38retirees are on the government's agenda. The President said that the
00:30:41value of commodity coupons will soon
00:30:43increase.
00:30:47We will increase the prices of commodity coupons
00:30:50and their money. With empathy and cooperation
00:30:53with you and all the people of Iran, we will solve our
00:30:57problems and we will not bow down to them, by
00:31:01the grace of God.