this is all very true and everything, but iranian sovereignty is not merely under attack from the west. i suppose the recent events in ukraine have magnified this, but it's not something recent.
iran was an important part of the great game. the anglo-sovet invasion of iran (which wasn't solely about german influence) is a largely forgotten part of the second world war. bluntly put, the russians and anglos have been fighting over the country for centuries. it's really remarkable how many global conflicts ought to be understood in these terms, isn't it? yet, this narrative is almost entirely lost in the west.
it's true that american pressure has and will continue to draw iran closer to russia and china (there's been an acceleration of russian policy on the issue over the last few months), but it is only at iran's peril of becoming a satellite to an alliance that it does not share basic values with. iran doesn't want this at all.
hence, it's attempt to come out to the americans with smiling faces.
i don't have any criticism of the topics discussed in the interview. i think it's all very true. but you have to get this in context of a struggle for influence in iran that iran has agency over, rather than a hostile takeover without outside parties (excluding israel and the saudis).
but, when you take out the other explanations about military opposition and what not, there is a very simple reason that the military option is off the table in iran: they are a russian ally.