“They Thought Iran Would Collapse”

— Ambassador Ali Robatjazi Discusses the Nation’s Resilience

The exclusive interview granted to CityNEWS by Seyed Mohammad Ali Robatjazi was not merely a diplomatic conversation. It was a forceful articulation of how the Islamic Republic of Iran perceives itself within the violent architecture of modern geopolitics. Beneath the ambassador’s calm and deliberate language lay a broader accusation directed at Washington and Tel Aviv. Iran, in this interpretation of history, is not simply confronting a dispute over nuclear enrichment or regional influence. It is confronting a century-long struggle against foreign domination, strategic encirclement and repeated attempts to subordinate an independent Persian power to Western geopolitical interests.

That perspective matters because it explains why the current confrontation between Iran, the United States and Israel cannot be reduced to newspaper headlines about uranium centrifuges or missile exchanges. To Tehran, the conflict is historical, civilisational and existential.

The ambassador repeatedly returned to themes of independence, sovereignty and resistance. These are not abstract slogans in Iranian political thought. They are deeply rooted in national memory. Any serious understanding of present tensions must revisit the 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, the democratically elected nationalist leader whose government was toppled through a British and American backed coup after he nationalised Iranian oil resources. That moment remains one of the great traumas in modern Iranian consciousness. It established, in Iranian eyes, a pattern in which Western powers tolerated democracy only when it aligned with their strategic and economic interests.

From that point onward, distrust became institutionalised. Washington’s later support for the Shah’s authoritarian rule reinforced the perception that human rights and democratic values were selectively applied. The 1979 Islamic Revolution did not emerge in a vacuum. It emerged from decades of resentment against foreign interference, resource exploitation and political humiliation.

The interview also highlighted another chapter frequently omitted from Western political discourse. During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, Saddam Hussein received varying degrees of support from Western governments and regional Arab monarchies despite Baghdad’s documented use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and civilians. For many Iranians, that war confirmed that international law was subordinate to geopolitical convenience. Iran was expected to absorb bombardment, sanctions and isolation without meaningful sympathy from the same powers that today lecture it about stability and security.

This historical backdrop explains why contemporary Iranian leaders view the current US-Israeli campaign through the prism of continuity rather than exception. The assassinations of Iranian scientists, military officials and negotiators are interpreted not as isolated operations but as components of a sustained effort to weaken the Iranian state from within. The ambassador’s insistence that these killings only deepen the Iranian “spirit of resistance” reflects a political culture shaped by siege psychology and historical endurance.

Equally significant was his portrayal of Israel. Tehran does not merely oppose Israeli policies. It rejects what it describes as a regional order built on occupation, apartheid and military coercion. Iran’s support for Palestinians, according to the ambassador, is rooted in both Islamic solidarity and an older Persian civilisational tradition opposing domination. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this framing, it is undeniable that the Palestinian issue has become central to Iran’s self-definition as a revolutionary state challenging Western backed regional hierarchies.

The interview arrives at a moment when tensions around the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf have again placed Iran at the centre of global anxieties. Analysts such as John Mearsheimer and former US military officer David T. Pyne have recently argued that the United States and Israel underestimated Iran’s capacity to impose strategic costs in the Gulf. Their discussions about naval blockades, missile strikes and fragile ceasefires reveal a broader truth. Iran is not Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan. It is a geographically enormous state sitting astride one of the world’s most vital energy corridors. Any attempt to corner or destabilise it carries global economic consequences.

This is where the ambassador’s remarks about multipolarity become especially revealing. Tehran increasingly views itself as part of an emerging international order resisting American unipolar dominance. In that worldview, sanctions, military pressure and diplomatic isolation are not defensive measures but instruments designed to preserve a fading Western hegemony over the Middle East and global energy routes.

It is difficult to ignore the role personalities now play in escalating this crisis. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appear, from Tehran’s perspective, less interested in sustainable diplomacy than in displays of force and political spectacle. The ambassador openly accused Netanyahu of sabotaging the nuclear agreement and undermining peace efforts. Even American commentators increasingly acknowledge the erratic and contradictory nature of Washington’s approach, oscillating between negotiations and military escalation within the span of days.

The collapse of the JCPOA nuclear agreement remains central to this distrust. Iran argues that it complied with the deal while the United States withdrew unilaterally under Trump’s administration. That episode severely damaged the credibility of Western guarantees in Iranian eyes. When Iranian officials say they no longer trust Washington, they are speaking from the experience of a signed agreement abandoned by one of its principal architects.

Yet perhaps the most striking aspect of the ambassador’s remarks was not hostility but endurance. He projected the confidence of a state convinced that history is on its side. Iran, in this telling, has survived invasions, sanctions, coups, isolation and assassination campaigns for decades because it possesses a civilisational depth transcending temporary geopolitical storms.

Whether one accepts Tehran’s narrative entirely or not, the interview exposes an uncomfortable reality often missing from Western discussions. Iran’s behaviour cannot be understood solely through the lens of ideology or religious radicalism. It is also the product of historical memory, strategic geography and repeated confrontations with foreign powers seeking influence over the Persian Gulf and the wider Middle East.

The danger today is that both Washington and Tel Aviv continue to underestimate how deeply that memory shapes Iranian resistance. History suggests that nations convinced they are fighting for sovereignty rarely capitulate under pressure alone.

David Danisa and Bitjoka Étienne Alexandre

Photo – CityNews with Ambassador Ali Robatjazi (© CiityNEWS, 2026)