Ali Larijani, Iran’s Slain Top Security Chief, Spoke to FRONTLINE in 2025

Ali Larijani, who was killed in airstrikes this week, was one of the most powerful leaders in Iran and seen as a central figure in the country’s response to the U.S.-Israeli attacks that began on Feb. 28, 2026.

He was secretary of the Supreme National Security Council in charge of Iran’s nuclear policy — appointed to the role following the 12-day war with the U.S. and Israel in 2025. This was Larijani’s last on-camera interview with an American news outlet before he was killed.

In the months preceding the current U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, Larijani was reportedly tasked with shoring up the Islamic Republic’s existence in case of war.

Larijani spoke through an interpreter to FRONTLINE’s Sebastian Walker on Sept. 22, 2025, for our documentary, Strike on Iran: The Nuclear Question. Following is a transcript of that conversation.

Mr. Larijani, thank you for doing this. We appreciate your time. So over the past two weeks we’ve been traveling across Iran. We’ve been to the locations where scientists were assassinated; we’ve spoken to relatives of those killed; we’ve been to energy infrastructure sites that were hit. How would you describe the overall toll of the 12-day war on Iran?

Well, the number of casualties has already been announced, around 1,000 of our countrymen were martyred in this war which was waged by the U.S. and Israel. And the main concern is, why did this happen?

Since we were in the middle of negotiations with the U.S., why would a great country like the U.S. act as a puppet for the Zionist regime? And, from an ethical perspective, this was wrong.

For a country like the U.S. to announce its intentions to meet with us on a Sunday and then pursue military operations against us by Friday, this is deception. And that is why trust in the U.S. has plummeted internationally.

Their issue was not with Iran’s nuclear program, since our nuclear program was something that we were in active negotiations about. From what I can see, Mr. Trump himself was deceived by Netanyahu, and forced to enter the stage of war.

On the second day of the war, Netanyahu announced that Israel would destroy the Iranian regime. This was repeated numerous times. Although Mr. Trump, I think, around the fifth or sixth day [of the war] said this as well. So now, after you have seen different parts of the country, the question is, were they successful in their mission? Were they able to destroy the Iranian regime with this war? Or was it a war which did not achieve their goal?

They tried to turn the people against the Islamic Republic of Iran but they were not successful. They wanted to create chaos, they were not successful.

So from a strategic perspective, they did not achieve any of their goals. They caused some amount of destruction, but they also experienced destruction themselves.

On the timing of these strikes, the U.S. says these actions were necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. What’s your response to that?

Well the United States didn’t say this, Mr. Trump said this.

Since the U.S. intelligence community had stated that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons. But Mr. Trump did not care what his intelligence team has reported and presented this as an issue.

As I’m sure you’re well aware, the U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly reported that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. But the president of the United States instead criticized his own intelligence specialists for reporting this. And the [Atomic Energy] Agency has also confirmed this, that Iran has not pursued nuclear weapons. So, therefore, we must ask Mr. Trump why he claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

An interesting point is, if the Americans are so worried about nuclear weapons, why haven’t they pursued Israel for this? Why aren’t they worried about that?

As far as Iran goes, the nuclear program was started under the Shah — under the Shah’s regime, a friend of the U.S. and Israel. At that time, the U.S. had no complaints. But since an Islamic government came to power here, and given the existing tensions, it is clear that concerns about the nuclear program are merely a front for other forms of interference.

I want you to know that the Iranian nuclear program was started during the Shah’s era. The late Dr. [Akbar] Etemad, who was the previous head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization once recounted the reasons why we started our nuclear and enrichment programs. Since Iran also first began developing some of the technologies for uranium enrichment at that time as well.

Can you say definitively here, now, after the strikes, that Iran has no intention of developing a nuclear weapon?

We never had those intentions, as we have repeatedly stated. And the International Atomic Energy Agency, likewise, investigated several times and found that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons.

And in the future, is that out of the question?

It is not the policy of the Islamic Republic to pursue nuclear weapons.

With the negotiations, you’ve recently taken this new position leading negotiations. Are you worried about being attacked again and does that impact how you can negotiate?

Diplomatic negotiations and military attack are two separate strategies. In fact, one of the issues that we have is that we consider a negotiation genuine only when the other side has no intention of pursuing war. But the U.S. appears to want to pursue military attack and diplomatic negotiations at the same time. But those are two mutually exclusive strategies.

When they tire of war, they can enter negotiations with us. We have never shied away from diplomatic negotiations. It is the U.S. who has abandoned them. We were in the middle of diplomatic negotiations when they started this war.

We cannot make any sense of their attempt to mix warfare and negotiations. And even now, we have said we are prepared to enter negotiations. But a negotiation whose result has been pre-determined by one side is not a negotiation, it is a farce that is being called a negotiation.

The Americans say, “We want to negotiate with you, and here is what the result must be.” They just broadcast a supposed negotiation without consulting or discussing with us, as if our role is only to accept or reject.

The next point is, we’ve always said that we have no issues entering negotiations so long as pre-conditions are not imposed. They impose pre-conditions which themselves should be rightfully up for negotiation and debate between the two sides.

Lately, the Europeans have made their offer regarding the “snapback” sanctions. As have the Russians and Iranians ourselves. But they chose a different path, because they never truly wanted to negotiate. Since with the cooperation of the EU, we were willing to discuss and create a framework for future negotiations, but apparently they changed course.

What will be the consequences for these sanctions being reimposed? And why not let U.N. inspectors into the sites requested?

A war broke out. They decided to leave by themselves. We haven’t kicked anyone out. War broke out and they felt threatened, so they left.

Therefore you have to accept that when a nuclear facility is bombed, something that is unprecedented in history, there needs to be an organized and systematic response. It isn’t possible to inspect such an area the way you could in an unbombed area. That was our offer to the IAEA in Cairo, that they were free to come and inspect the areas that had not been bombed, according to normal procedures. But for the bombed areas, new safety guidelines need to be developed for inspecting the areas that have been bombed, since the IAEA itself has never dealt with something like this in its history.

And that is what we told them, that they are free to come inspect the areas which were unaffected and could be safely inspected. We had no issue with that.

With the sites that were hit by American strikes, President Trump has said that the enrichment facilities targeted were completely and totally obliterated. Is he right?

You need to ask him. He announced that his forces were brave and powerful, that they bombed us and were successful. You shouldn’t discount his words.

What’s your assessment of the extent to which these sites have been damaged, and how much this has set back Iran’s nuclear program?

I don’t have any specific information to share. But in my opinion, Iran’s nuclear program can never be destroyed. Because, once you have discovered a technology, they can’t take the discovery away. It’s as if you are the inventor of some machine, and the machine is stolen from you. You have the knowledge needed to make another one.

In my opinion, that is the strategic error in their attack. Although, we don’t know exactly what has happened yet. But the important thing is, they will never be able to destroy Iran’s nuclear program through such actions.

There are questions over what has happened to the more than 400kg of highly enriched uranium. What can you tell us about where it is right now? We’ve heard it’s buried under rubble. Is it in one site or several different sites?

In my opinion, you should trust Mr. Trump when he says that it has been destroyed.

In the days leading up to the strike, there was unusual activity observed outside of Fordow with trucks lined up. There’s speculation that materials may have been carried out. What’s your response to those claims?

I don’t think it’s an important matter whether those enriched materials exist or not. What does it change? The real issue at hand is the illegal actions taken by the U.S. and Israel. And Iran didn’t have any [nuclear] bombs.

You yourself have mentioned enriched materials, but enriched materials are not a bomb. And it is not illegal to enrich it even up to 60%. We haven’t had any issues following the IAEA’s laws. But still, why did they bomb us?

Whether we have them or not, it doesn’t change it. The question that should be asked is, “What justification did the U.S. have for bombing us?” Did the U.N. Security Council tell them to bomb us? Why did Israel bomb us?

Why haven’t there been any consequences from the IAEA or U.N. justice council? Why hasn’t the Security Council imposed any consequences?

These are the important questions whose answers the international community is looking for, not whether [enriched] materials exist or not. What does that matter?

What kind of impact does it have for Iran to have so many leading scientists eliminated in these strikes? How does that set the program back?

It won’t have any effect, since there are hundreds of outstanding researchers just like them doing this work. When a discovery is made, that discovery is shared. And this supports the work of others doing that work in the country.

So, I think the Israelis did an idiotic thing by killing a handful of researchers. And the international community, and the West, have remained silent about these murders instead of questioning the motivation for these murders.

This is an issue that lies at the heart of international politics.

Someone in the government once told me this. I asked him, why doesn’t the Security Council pursue international human rights violations? He said because international human rights is a meaningless term. A concept that is only enforced through force.

So, it is very disheartening to see the international stage right now. If someone thinks that the international governments involved in the IAEA, justice council, or Security Council can be relied on for their judgment, they are only fooling themselves.

Their behavior shows that they don’t care at all about international law, that these are meaningless terms for them.

Now, let’s put aside the nuclear issue for now. Why is Israel allowed to kill so many as they are doing in Gaza? Why are they forcing a famine on these people? Israel’s behavior in Gaza — well, [the Palestinians] don’t have a nuclear bomb. So why are they killing them like this?

All of those children, mothers, elderly people. What have they done that they should be the targets of such mass murder, while the U.S. keeps vetoing to block even limited amounts of food [into Gaza].

It is a prime example of the state of the world today. After the World War, the U.N. was created with the goal of fostering peace, but Gaza is exemplary of the type of peace that is being offered.

What would you say to those who would argue the scientists who have involvement with the military apparatus of Iran could be considered legitimate military targets?

Those researchers were not government affiliated, they were university professors. They only make such claims in order to justify their methods and push their agenda.

Which one was government affiliated? Not a single one.

I mean these are scientists who’ve been sanctioned by the U.S. for their role, so doesn’t that denote some involvement in activities which would make them targets?

Well, right now, the U.S. is sanctioning everyone regardless of government affiliation. There are even a certain number of business owners who have been sanctioned. One of them, they even sanctioned his entire company. But they aren’t affiliated with the government like that.

None of the nuclear researchers were affiliated with the government beyond the scope of their involvement with the Iranian Nuclear Energy Organization.

Have strikes like these changed the calculation for Iran in any way, in terms of whether the nuclear program should have a military dimension to it?

Iran has no intentions to develop [nuclear weapons], and their development is forbidden under the supreme leader’s religious ruling. But this is a point that should be emphasized.

Do the American people — are they aware of how many nuclear warheads Israel has and aren’t they concerned about this?

There’s a site south of Natanz where international observers have seen new reinforcements of the entrance; there’s been some activity noticed there. It’s known as Pickaxe Mountain. Is there any new activity that these strikes have created? Is there anything you can tell us about that site?

No, nothing in particular. We haven’t removed the rubble from any of those locations. But in the future we may remove the rubble and continue the regular activities we had before.

But I want to return to one point. We have made several offers towards creating a solution, as have the Europeans, and either could be a good solution. However if they make use of the “snapback” mechanism, it will be like we said before. If “snapback” mechanisms are enforced, we will end our participation with the IAEA. This is what our parliament has decided.

We have pursued every option and mechanism available for solving this conflict in a peaceful way.

One of the European countries, I think France, stated that if the nuclear agreement is coordinated through IAEA that they would not use the “snapback” mechanism. Our minister of foreign affairs agreed to these terms. And an agreement was reached, so why have you pursued these mechanisms?

And then they said we will give a layout and plan, which we reviewed and said is possible with some adjustments. We were fully pursuing a peaceful resolution to this matter through diplomatic negotiations. But they did not like that. Every day they had a new condition.

And the issue is that we all entered into this nuclear agreement, Europe, Iran and the U.S. Then the U.S. exited the deal unilaterally and began imposing sanctions.

So who is the one who violated the agreement? Us or the Americans? And the Europeans copied the Americans and imposed sanctions again.

So again, were we the ones to violate the agreement or was Europe?

And then they came and bombed our nuclear research centers. So who is the one who has the right to complain?

It’s a funny thing. Under the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), if one of the members fails to abide by the deal then it is the responsibility of the other members to hold them accountable. Which is to say, we are the ones who should be complaining, not the U.S. and Europe, who started the war. They are the ones in violation of the agreements made under the nuclear deal.

What’s your message to the Trump administration if there are more attacks? What would be the consequence of that?

I don’t have a message for the Trump administration. I would only say that they should be mindful of their words and the insulting way they speak to Iranians. When he says “Iran must surrender,” it is clear he’s not familiar with the Iranian people.

He should have paid more attention to the words of Mr. [Henry] Kissinger, who was a Republican. Mr. Kissinger said that after the World War, we divided the [Middle East] region into a number of made-up countries with different names. Except for two countries. One is Iran, the other is Egypt.

These two countries each have a long and decorated past that spans for thousands of years, which still exists and will continue to exist. You should not address such a people in this way.

Mr. Trump should pay his respects to the honorable people of Iran, not attempt to order them to surrender. There is no possibility or chance that we will surrender.

Trump appeared to make a threat to the supreme leader. What do you make of that?

He has made these types of threats often, but clearly he wasn’t able to accomplish this. If he could do it, he would have already done so.

But they should understand that the Islamic Revolution is well rooted. It is perhaps one of the most important revolutions in human history. Seventy-seven percent of Iranians took part in the Iranian Revolution. In the French Revolution, it was only 20%. Or 30% in the Russian Revolution.

This is a well-supported movement. And these types of threats have no effect on the movement. The people of Iran are deeply rooted, pure-intentioned, and in support of this movement. And this movement addresses the conditions of every human being.

There is a philosopher who wrote a book called “Meaningless Words.” It is filled with

examples of how many meaningless things we say every day. I think that such meaningless words have flourished here in the political domain.

What do you want Americans to understand about Iran’s nuclear program?

That they understand we are deserving of the same human rights, which they proclaim for themselves. That they should act with justice and morals. Their behaviors will cause the world to descend into chaos. And that affects them negatively as well.

When the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq, was it able to keep its dignity when it withdrew? Such warmongering won’t serve the U.S. well either. The American people did not wish to elect people who will send their soldiers to the grave. They should act correctly and desire for others what they want for themselves.

How long do you think it will be before inspectors are allowed into the bombed sites. How much time before that happens?

The issue of the “snapback” mechanism must be addressed first before this can be answered.

It’s conditional?

Well, yes, when they stand against us, like so, and try to enforce resolutions against us using might, then we have the right to pursue a different relationship with the IAEA. We will act in accordance with what the parliament has decided. If the IAEA addresses their behavior and corrects it, then we have no issue cooperating with them.

Does that show a change of strategy with Iran?

No, our strategy has always been the same. Iran’s position has always been that issues should be resolved peacefully and diplomatically, whether they are regional issues or international ones.