Persian → English transcript

Mr... Now, Mr. Kharatian's arguments are coded, but anyway, the audience

understands what is being discussed. The topic is very broad.

And now, I agree with the core

of the argument. I mean, Iran's security- building...

That point, that sentence was very important. Iran is not a militia.

Iran is a... that we should accept in its essence that, for example,

a specific type of continuous compliance with security protocols might be from its

very beginning, meaning Imad Mughniyeh,

from the day he joined Fatah until the day he was, for example,

the chief of staff of Hezbollah, he had to observe security measures and so on.

No, this is a normal country, and security

must be provided at much higher levels for everyone,

including for the country's officials. In this... not as an individual,

or because the individual is dear to us, but regardless of that, as an Iranian...

No, Mr. Kharatian, I want to emphasize,

how many more Imad Mughniyehs can we tolerate? Well said, yes.

He turned 160 children into smoke, that bastard.

If it were any other country, I swear to God, any country other than us,

the next day they would have done what they shouldn't have.

We are really very thick- skinned, we have so much patience. This goes back to our

being Iranian, Our nature is not bad.

But I say, the time has come to think seriously about fundamental issues.

Now, regarding changing the nuclear doctrine, which is also a spectrum.

Suppose its initial level

is withdrawing from the NPT.

Withdrawing from the NPT, I think, whether as a bargaining tool or as a

first step to go

in another direction,

for it I don't think there is much doubt. Except for those who say,'

Under international law, you can't do such things,' and those people say,'

Under international law, you cannot close the Strait of Hormuz.' Well, I mean...

look, the problem is that they only see international law from one side.

Under international law,

you cannot strike the Shajareh Tayyibah school.

You cannot attack Iran at all. According to international law, you cannot...

wage a" war of aggression," an aggressive war for interests. This was one of the

charges the Nazis were tried and executed for in Nuremberg, they were hanged.

Meaning a" war of aggression," an aggressive war. Let me say that you cannot

target the leader,

officials, and authorities of a legitimate member of the United Nations

without warning in a surprise attack.

Look, when it comes to international law, either this pot is boiling for us

or it isn't. It's a complete package.

Meaning they come and say you cannot close the Strait of Hormuz right now.

Look, you are taking defensive action. That's what you can do. First of all,

from a certain angle, according to international law, it is possible to close it,

but overall, this is not working for us at all. Let me emphasize again,

as we said before,

the German Chancellor has the audacity to come

and say that international laws do not apply to Iranians at all.

So why on earth are we

respecting this international law and these international regulations?

When this pot for us... No, now from the perspective...

Let me also tell you, even that same international law supports us now.

I am saying this. We paid the cost of war. Yes. To tell the world,

look, we have the right to use Article 51.

Well, the Russian side and the Chinese side, these two nuclear powers,

members of the Security

Council, two powers that have nuclear weapons, atomic bombs, have the veto power.

And they also have the veto power, what stance would they likely take, for example,

against this change in our doctrine? Mr....

One of the high- ranking colleagues in the organization, who himself

had been kind enough to speak with Mr. Lavrov recently, I asked him

to, you know, as they say,

since he had done an interview and about this change in nuclear

doctrine and a bit of

stuff, he had asked questions. Then he had said that...