Interviews

مصاحبه کریسشین امانپور-سی.ان.ان با موسویان:استراتژی ترور مقامات ایران موجب فروپاشی ایران نمیشود

Posted on

مصاحبه با سی.ان. ان

19 مارس 2026

 امانپور: سیاست ترامپ در مورد تسلیم ایران به کجا خواهد کشید؟ نتبجه ابن درگیری چه خواهد بود؟

موسویان: مقامات آمریکا هدف تغییر رژیم را علنی مطرح کرده اند. مدیر انرژی کاخ سفید رسما گفت که هدف آمریکا از حمله به ایران، سلطه بر ذخائر نفت ایران است. سناتور لیندسی گراهام هم فاش کرد که با تغییر رژیم، آمریکا ثروت ایران را بدست خواهد آورد. اما هدف اسرائیل بالاتر از این است. نتانیاهو رسما اعلام کرد که هدفش خاورمیانه بزرگ است. سفیر آمریکا در اسرائیل هم گفت که اسرائیل حق دارد کشورهای خاورمیانه را ضمیمه خاک خود کند. آلن آیر سخنگوی فارسی زبان سابق وزارت خارجه آمریکا هم گفت که هدف اسرائیل نه تنها تغییررژیم وتجزیه بلکه نابودی کامل ایران است.  اگر هدف تغییر رژیم و نفت و ثروت و نابودی ایران باشد، یک جنگ بی پایان خواهیم داشت

امانپور: سقف تاب آوری ایران چه حد است؟ عالیترین مقامات ایران از رهبر تا لاریجانی تا فرماندهان عالی نظامی کشته شده اند؟ تا کجا این حکومت میتواند تحمل کند؟

موسویان: ظرف 20 روز گذشته ایران مقاومت چشمگیری از خود نشان داده است. تصور آمریکا و اسرائیل این بود که با کشتن رهبری و حدود پنجاه فرمانده ارشد، حکومت ظرف دوسه روز سقوط خواهد کرد. منتهی دیدید که تنها چند ساعت بعد از حمله به مقر رهبری ایران، نیروهای نظامی ایران،  اسرائیل و پایگاههای آمریکا در منطقه با موشک مورد حمله قرار دادند. بنظرم آمریکا و اسرائیل باید دوران جنگ هشت ساله عراق علیه ایران را مطالعه کنند. در آن دوران همه قدرتهای شرق و غرب و عرب منطقه از صدام متجاوز حمایت کردند و ایران تنها بود اما هشت سال مقاومت کرد و الان بیش از بیست سال است که صدام مرده است

 لذا من معتقدم ایران در این جنگ برای ماهها قادر به مقاومت خواهد بود. در مورد ترور شخصیت ها هم از ابتدای انقلاب هزاران تن از شخصیتها از رئیس جمهور و نخست وزیر گرفته تا وزراء و نماینده گان مجلس ترور شدند اما نه حکومت سقوط کرد و نه ایران.  بعد از حمله نظامی گذشته آمریکا تا کنون هم حدود 200 تن ازمقامات ایران ترور شده اند. باز هم این ترورها موجب فروپاشی حکومت و کشور نمیشود. لذا استراتژی ترور مسئولین بجایی نمیرسد بلکه تاثیر معکوس هم داشته چون مردم ایران امروز نگران امنیت و ثبات کشورشان شده اند. چون آنها میبینند که آمریکا و اسرائیل صدها منزل مسکونی و مدرسه و بیمارستان و حتی آثار تاریخی ایران را تخریب کرده اند  و لذا برای دفاع از کشورشان متحد شده اند. البته این بدان معنی نیست که مردم از عملکرد حکومت راضی هستند. اکثر مردم از اوضاع اقتصادی و اجتماعی ناراضی هستند 

امانپور: دقیقا میخواستم همین را بپرسم. حکومت با اعتراضات مردم در چند ماه گذشته با خشونت برخورد کرد و هزاران معترض کشته شدند.این را چگونه میتوان توجیه کرد؟ چنین حاکمیتی هیچگاه نمیتواند پاسخگوی خواست مردم باشد.

موسویان: این دو مطلب را از هم تفکیک کنید. اکثر مردم از گرانی و تورم و ناکارآمدی حکومت و فساد در کشور ناراضی هستند و خواهان اصلاحات وسیع در حکمرانی کشور و بهبود زندگیشان هستند. اما وقتی موضوع تجاوز خارجی به کشورشان رخ دهد، برای دفاع از تمامیت ارضی و حاکمیت ملی کشورشان متحد میشوند

امانپور: بفرض اینکه جنگ تمام شود و حکومت ساقط نشود، چنین حکومتی چگونه خواهد توانست مشکلات را حل کند و خواستهای مردم را تامین کند؟

موسویان: اگرامروز جنگ تمام شود، واقعیت این است که حکومت با مشکلاتی چند برابر مشکلات قبل از جنگ روبرو خواهد بود چون علاوه بر مشکلات قبل از جنگ، خسارات وسیع دوران جنگ هم بار جدیدی بر دوش حکومت خواهد بود. لذا حاکمیت ایران نیاز دارد بعد از اتمام جنگ اصلاحات ساختاری کلانی در سیاستهای داخلی و در روابط خارجی داشته باشد. از جمله اینکه بهبود روابط با همسایگان، رفع تشنجات با آمریکا برای رفع تحریمها لازمه بهبود شرایط اقتصادی و اجتماعی کشوراست. آمریکا هم باید تحریمهای ایران را بردارد و به خصومتهای گذشته خاتمه دهد

امانپور: این حرف بزرگی است. شما مرتبط با حکومت هستید. اگر حکومت بخواهد به همان سیاستهای گذشته ادامه دهد و محدودیتها از جمله قطع اینترنت و برخوردهای خشن اجتماعی را ادامه دهد، چگونه ممکن است اصلاحات ساختاری را بتواند انجام دهد؟

موسویان: شاید شما بخاطر داشته باشید که من در دوران ریاست جمهوری آقای احمدی نژاد بازداشت و زندانی شدم. شاید شما اطلاع نداشته باشید که چند سال قبل هم برایم حکم زندان صادر کردند و قادر به سفر به کشورم نبوده ام. مشکلات من با حکومت بیشتر از خیلی از ایرانیهای مقیم خارج است. آنچه که من میگویم اعتقاد شخصی خودم هست. استمرار وضع فعلی نه به نفع ایران است و نه به نفع منطقه و آمریکا. باید یک واسطه معتبری پادرمیانی کند تا به این جنگ خاتمه داده شود. ما نیازمند دیپلماسی هستیم و نه جنگ. من نمیدانم که آیا این جنگ بزودی خاتمه خواهد یافت یانه. اگر خاتمه یابد هم نمیدانم حاکمیت ایران دست به اصلاحات ساختاری بزرگ خواهد زد یانه. منتهی بفرض ختم سریع جنگ، حاکمیت ایران نیازمند اصلاحات کلان درحکمرانی، در سیاستهای داخلی ودر روابط خارجی است

CNN: ‘The assassination strategy won’t bring regime collapse,’ says former Iranian diplomat

Amanpour

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/18/tv/video/iran-assassinations-seyed-hossein-mousavian-amanpour

As Israel assassinates Iran’s intelligence minister in the latest string of slain Iranian officials, Christiane Amanpour speaks to former Iranian diplomat and nuclear negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian about whether the regime can withstand continued attacks.

Interviews

Interview with Christiane Amanpour. CNN: ‘The assassination strategy won’t bring regime collapse,’ says former Iranian diplomat

Posted on

March 19, 2026

As Israel assassinates Iran’s intelligence minister in the latest string of slain Iranian officials, Christiane Amanpour speaks to former Iranian diplomat and nuclear negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian about whether the regime can withstand continued attacks.

http://Amanpour https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/18/tv/video/iran-assassinations-seyed-hossein-mousavian-amanpour

Interviews

Interview with Asia Sentinel: the nuclear issue was the public pretext for war; The true strategic objectives of war on Iran were regime change and the control of Iran’s oil reserves.

Posted on

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian

March 17, 2026

In this exclusive interview with Asia Sentinel, Mousavian says that while the nuclear issue was the public pretext for war, the true strategic objectives were regime change and the control of Iran’s oil reserves. He also warns that by attacking a compliant NPT member, the U.S. and Israel have sent a dangerous message that security is better found through the nuclear-deterrence model of North Korea. He also emphasizes that ultimately military force can’t suppress intellectual capital, adding that “technical know-how cannot be bombed or destroyed.”


Edited Excerpts

How do you view the recent military actions taken by the U.S. and Israel against Iran, particularly in the legal frameworks of the international community and United Nations?


The prevailing view among many UN officials and the majority of nations is that the U.S.–Israeli military campaign constitutes a clear violation of international law and the fundamental principles of the United Nations. Specifically, the conflict breaches the prohibition on the use of force without explicit authorization from the UN Security Council or a verifiable claim of self-defense. For that reason, much of the international community has regarded the conflict and these strikes illegal.

In your view, what were the real strategic motivations behind the American-Israeli decision to attack Iran while nuclear program was given as a public justification for the air strikes?

While the nuclear issue was presented as the primary public justification, subsequent statements by American officials suggest the war was driven by broader geopolitical and economic objectives. For instance, a senior White House official responsible for energy policy indicated that a central goal was to gain control over Iran’s vast oil reserves. At the same time, Senator Lindsey Graham openly argued that the outcome of the war should be political change in Iran, saying that after such a development there will be tons of money to be made. Other American political figures and commentators likewise framed the conflict in terms of pursuing regime change rather than strictly addressing nuclear concerns. These statements suggest that, like the US war on Iraq,  while the nuclear issue was presented as the primary public justification, the main US goal was regime change, controlling Iran’s oil reserve like Venezuela, and other geopolitical, economic, and political considerations—along with the influence of regional allies, particularly Israel—played a key role in shaping Washington’s decision to launch the attack. 

From a non-proliferation perspective, what are the long-term consequences of attacking a country that is a member of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)?

The U.S.–Israeli strikes undoubtedly destroyed or seriously damaged some major Iranian nuclear facilities. However, military attacks cannot eliminate scientific knowledge. Iranian scientists have already mastered the nuclear fuel-cycle technology and the technical know-how cannot be bombed or destroyed. Despite this, two nuclear-armed states—the United States and Israel—attacked a non-nuclear-weapon state that remains a member of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons and whose nuclear activities were under IAEA safeguard inspections. 

What is the lesson from these strikes to the international community and other countries regarding the future of NPT?

In practice, such actions risk sending a dangerous lesson to the international community and Iran: that membership in the NPT and compliance with safeguard agreements do not necessarily guarantee security. Instead, some may conclude that the Israeli, India, Pakistan and North Korea Model—remaining outside the NPT while possessing nuclear weapons—provides a real deterrent.

What specific steps can the United States take to move beyond its nearly five-decade-long hostility with Iran and instead establish a stable relationship?

To end forty-seven years of hostility and establish a healthy relationship, the United States must commit to a framework built on mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs. This requires a profound respect for each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and regional interests to end ongoing confrontations. A lasting peace would necessitate ending existential military threats between Israel and Iran and securing a nuclear agreement based on the NPT. This agreement must balance Iran’s commitment never to build a bomb with the international recognition of its nuclear rights, including the principle of enrichment. Finally, there must be a mechanism for compensation regarding the damages caused by recent illegal military attacks against Iran.

https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/seyed-hossein-mousavian-interview-iran-attacks-scientific-knowledge

Interviews, مصاحبه ها

Interview With TRT on Principles which can end the US-Israel war on Iran

Posted on

موسویان: اصولی که ترامپ می‌تواند با پذیرش آنها به جنگ و خصومت ۴۷ساله آمریکا با ایران خاتمه دهد

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian

March 13, 2026

Summary of Seyed Hossein Mousavian’s main points in that interview:

  • He argues that the nuclear issue is largely a pretext, and the real objectives of the U.S. and Israel are broader—weakening Iran, reshaping the regional order, and pursuing strategic dominance.
  • He stresses that military strikes cannot eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, because the country has already mastered the scientific knowledge and technology.
  • He warns that such attacks actually increase incentives for nuclear deterrence, pushing states toward models like North Korea rather than nonproliferation.
  • He frames the conflict as part of a larger geopolitical confrontation, not a narrow nuclear dispute, with long-term consequences for regional stability and global nonproliferation norms.

In one sentence:
He contends that the war is strategically driven beyond the nuclear issue, and that military force will neither eliminate Iran’s capabilities nor strengthen nonproliferation—in fact, it risks the opposite.

موسویان: اصولی که ترامپ می‌تواند با پذیرش آنها به جنگ و خصومت ۴۷ ساله آمریکا با ایران خاتمه دهد

مجری: پرزیدنت ترامپ مدعی شده که جنگ را برده و ایران را شکست داده است. آیا شما قبول دارید

موسویان: طرفین مدعی هستند که پیروز شده اند و طرف مقابل را شکست داده اند. حقیقت این است که تا این مرحله نه آمریکا و اسرائیل توانسته اند ایران را شکست دهند و نه ایران توانسته آنها را شکست دهد. هر دو طرف تا این مرحله مقاومت کرده و هنوز توان و ظرفیت ادامه جنگ را دارند

مجری: برای چه مدت میتوانند جنگ را ادامه دهند؟

موسویان: هیچکس نمیداند. اما هرچه زودتر تمام شود، بهتر است چون این دیگرتنها یک جنگ محدود به آمریکا و اسرائیل با ایران باقی نمانده بلکه با یک جنگ منطقه ای مواجه هستیم که نه تنها اقتصاد و بازارهای مالی و انرژی جهان را تحت تاثیر قرار داده بلکه صلح و امنیت منطقه و بین المللی را هم به خطر انداخته است. متاسفانه این جنگ انتخاب آمریکا و اسرائیل بود و نه ایران. آنها جنگ علیه ایران را درزمانی آغاز کردند که مذاکرات دیپلماتیک در جریان بود، پیشرفت خوبی داشت و به توافق نزدیک شده بودند. لذا آمریکا امکان توافق را داشت اما متاسفانه جنگ را انتخاب کرد

مجری: چگونه میتوان به این جنگ خاتمه داده داد؟ آیا دیپلماسی میتواند موفق شود یا اینکه آمریکا نیروی زمینی وارد ایران خواهد کرد تا پیروز شود

موسویان: من نمیتوانم تصور کنم که آمریکا نیروی زمینی به ایران اعزام کند. آنها تجربه شکست های ارتش آمریکا در افغانستان وعراق را فراموش نکرده اند. آنها بعد از 17 سال اشغال افغانستان و هزاران میلیارد دلار هزینه، از طالبان شکست خوردند و نهایتا مجبور به ترک افغانستان شدند. لشگر کشی آمریکا به این کشورها هیچ خاصیتی نداشت و تنها انبوهی از بی ثباتی در منطقه بجای گذاشتند

اما راه حل وجود دارد. این بستگی به آمریکا دارد که چه نوع رابطه ای با ایران میخواهد. رئیس جمهور آمریکا علنا اعلام کرده اند که دنبال تغییر رژیم در ایران هستند. مسئول امور انرژی کاخ سفید رسما اعلام کرد که هدف آمریکا از حمله نظامی به ایران، سلطه بر نفت ایران است. سناتور لینسی گراهام از جمهوریخواهان برجسته و از نزدیکان ترامپ اعلام کرد که بعد ازاین جنگ، ثروت هنگفت ایران را بدست خواهیم آورد. اگر سیاست آمریکا این باشد که برای بدست آوردن ثروت ایران، یک حکومت دست نشانده در ایران روی کار بیاورد مشابه آنچه که در ونزوئلا رخ داد، این اتفاق نخواهد افتاد و ممکن است ما با یک جنگ بی پایان مواجه شویم. اما اگر آمریکا خواهان یک رابطه بر اساس اصول منشور سازمان ملل باشد، شانس وجود دارد. اگر آمریکا یک رابطه سالم با ایران بخواهد، سه اصل را باید بپذیرد: 1- احترام متقابل، 2- عدم مداخله در امورد داخلی، و 3- احترام به حاکمیت و تمامیت ارضی ایران است

مجری: ایا درخواست ایران برای پرداخت خسارت و پذیرش حقوق ایران هم شامل میشود؟

موسویان: بله البته شامل این دو هم میشود. اگرتوافقی صورت بگیرد باید شامل حقوق ایران در بهره مندی از تکنولوژی صلح آمیز هسته ای باشد. ملاک توافق هسته ای باید معاهده ان پی تی باشد. طبق این معاهده ایران حق غنی سازی و تولید آب سنگین برای مصارف صلح آمیز را دارد. متقابلا ایران همیشه آمادگی همکاری با آژانس بین المللی در مورد راستی آزمایی و بازرسی و دادن تضمینهای لازم مبنی بر عدم ساخت بمب هسته را داشته است. ایران تحت هیچ شرایطی نخواهد پذیرفت که نسبت به سایر کشورهای عضو ان پی تی؛ مورد تبعیض قرار گرفته و از حقوق مشروعش پایمال شود

در مورد حل و فصل تخاصمات هم به این نکته اشاره کنم که هر دو رهبر قبلی ایران، صراحتا گفته بودند که اگر آمریکا خواهان رابطه سالم باشد، آنها مخالفتی ندارند. رابطه سالم یعنی احترام متقابل، عدم مداخله و احترام به تمامیت ارضی و حاکمیت ملی. این “معامله بزرگی” است که آقای ترامپ باید دنبال کند و به 47 سال خصومت با ایران خاتمه دهد. البته من معتقدم که برای یک صلح پایدار دو فاکتور دیگر هم مهم است

 اول:  اینکه آمریکا و ایران هر دو و متقابلا به منافع یکدیگر در منطقه احترام بگذارند تا تقابلات منطقه ای خاتمه یابد. دوم: آمریکا میتواند برای ختم تهدیدات متقابل نظامی و امنیتی و موجودیتی بین اسرائیل و ایران، وساطت کند تا در آینده شاهد تکرار این نوع منازعات نظامی نباشیم

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4Hio3TxhB4

Interviews, Media, مصاحبه ها

Interview with The Open: “Khamenei was not only a politician, but a religious leader. Trump has miscalculated; he risks a long war”

Posted on

The Open, Italy

Interview with Seyed Hossein Mousavian

March 4 2026

According to the diplomat, who led nuclear negotiations in the past, the killing of the ayatollah risks responses from other Muslim countries as well. A Venezuelan-style solution is impossible

“History teaches us that interventions designed to ensure stability often produce decades of unpredictable consequences.” Hossein Mousavian led the Iranian delegation in the nuclear negotiations in the 2000s. Today, he tells Open, he is very worried about what he calls “an existential war” for his country. Sixty-nine years old, former ambassador of Tehran to Germany, for twenty years a trusted man of the regime, Mousavian arrived in the United States in 2009 with a conviction for espionage on his head. In America he found a home at Princeton University, where he taught until last June when a campaign carried out by some colleagues and politicians – who accuse him of still being close to the regime – pushed him to retire. Accusations that the former diplomat has always rejected, stating that he is working “for dialogue between the two countries”.

Professor, what do you mean by “existential war”?
“By declaring that the goal is the collapse of the regime, it was the United States that framed the conflict as existential. Iran’s response is experienced internally by many as a defense of national survival. But there is more. With the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the United States and Israel have crossed a red line. The consequences go far beyond the killing of a political leader: Khamenei was one of the main religious authorities in the Shiite world. His figure has theological importance, not only political. Some Shiite leaders have already launched calls for retaliation. Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi, in Qom, declared that avenging Khamenei is a religious duty for all Muslims in the world, to eliminate the evil of these criminals from the face of the earth.

Why did Trump decide to attack right now?
“Many American officials have confirmed that it was Netanyahu who pushed Trump. But the timing is significant: both the June 2025 attacks and the February 28, 2026 attack took place at a time when nuclear negotiations – according to Oman’s foreign minister, who acted as mediator – had achieved significant progress. It was then Trump himself who admitted that the goal is regime change in Iran.”

Many have thought of a “Venezuelan” solution: cooperation with the apparatus in exchange for an end to the nuclear program and reforms for the oppressed population. Do you see it as possible?
“With Iran’s counter-attack on Israel and American bases in the region, I believe that the United States has already realized that a Venezuelan solution is impossible.”

Has the Trump administration underestimated Iran’s ability to respond?
“He made three errors of judgment. First: they underestimated the consequences of the killing of Khamenei, a Shiite religious leader worldwide. This will have repercussions far beyond Iran’s borders. Second: the Iranian military response. For the first time since World War II, major U.S. military bases in the region have been the subject of sustained attacks. The impact on American prestige could even outweigh the symbolic damage of the 1979 hostage crisis. Third: they believed that military force was enough. But force can destroy infrastructure and eliminate individuals, it cannot erase national identity, religious conviction or historical memory. The lessons of 1953, the US-backed coup, still resonate in Iran today.”

Netanyahu has always described Iran as the “existential threat” to Israel.
“Israel is facing the most intense attacks on the territory since its founding in 1948. Iran’s missile counter-offensive is threatening Israel’s security architecture, despite advanced defense systems. The perception of invulnerability – central to Israeli deterrence – has been shaken. Iran has suffered considerable military damage, but both sides have found themselves more fragile than they thought.”

How long can Iran resist? And how likely is it that the conflict will spread further?


“The war has already spread to the regional level and the trajectory is alarming: escalation generates counter-escalation because each side justifies its actions as defensive. The risks of miscalculation grow with each trade. Markets are on alert, regional players are being dragged in, diplomatic space is shrinking. It would be wiser for Trump to push for an immediate ceasefire, before it becomes impossible to contain the conflict. The longer it continues, the harder it will be to stop it.”

https://www.open.online/2026/03/03/khamenei-non-solo-politico-leader-religioso-trump-rischia-guerra-lunga-intervista-open-mousavian/

Articles, Interviews, Media, Publications, مقاله ها

Op-ed: US-Israeli strikes can raze buildings, but they cannot extinguish Iranian identity 

Posted on

Middle East Eye, March 3nd 2026

* Military force can destroy infrastructure and eliminate individuals, but it cannot extinguish national identity, religious conviction or historical memory. The lessons of 1953 still resonate. If history teaches anything, it is that interventions intended to secure stability often produce decades of unintended consequences.

* Both the US-Israeli military strikes on Iran in June 2025, and the attack in February 2026 occurred at moments when negotiations had achieved significant progress, according to Oman’s foreign minister.

* By officially declaring that its objective is regime collapse, the US framed the conflict as existential. Iran’s response is thus perceived domestically as a defence of national survival. 

* The choice now is stark: continue down a path of open-ended confrontation, or halt the escalation and return to diplomacy – before the damage becomes irreversible

* It would be wiser for US President Donald Trump to push now for an immediate ceasefire, to prevent further catastrophe. The longer this conflict continues, the harder it will be to contain.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/us-israeli-strikes-can-raze-buildings-they-cannot-extinguish-iranian-identity

Interviews, Interviews, Media

Of Bombs and Regime Change: Experts Weigh the Israel-U.S. Strategy on Iran – The Cairo Review of Global Affairs

Posted on

Interview with Mousavian

Cairo review, March 1, 2026

As of now, most countries around the world believe that the military attack by the United States and Israel constitutes a clear violation of the UN Charter and the norms and regulations of international law.

In 2018, the United States undermined a UNSC-Resolution 2231 by withdrawing from the JCPOA; in 2025-2026, through direct military strikes against Iran, it has been accused of violating core principles of the UN Charter, particularly those related to sovereignty, the prohibition of the use of force, and non-interference in internal affairs of other countries.

According to Oman’s foreign minister, both the U.S.–Israeli military strike on Iran in June 2025 and the subsequent attack in February 2026 occurred at moments when negotiations had reportedly achieved significant progress. As Oman served as a mediator, this statement implies that Washington bombed diplomacy at critical junctures. From this perspective, diplomacy has effectively been placed in the critical care unit, perhaps for an indefinite period, as many countries now believe that the negotiations were conducted not as a genuine path to compromise but as a strategic instrument.

The consequences of assassinating Ayatollah Khamenei could go beyond the killing of a head of state. He was one of the leading religious authorities (marajiʿ) in the Shiite world, and the U.S. action could be interpreted as a declaration of war against Shiite religious authorities. Consequently, some Shiite clerics have already issued fatwas of jihad and have called on Muslims around the world to avenge the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei by targeting the United States and Israel. Attacks have taken place against U.S. diplomatic missions in Pakistan and Iraq, and dozens of Shiites have been killed or injured. Washington must therefore be concerned about a long-term ideological hostility from religious Shiites across the globe.

The collapse of the government in Iran as a result of military attack is not a simple matter. Even assuming that the United States and Israel succeed in bringing about regime change, they would still be the losers. Because:

  1. For the first time since World War II, the most important U.S. military bases have come under attack—a reputational blow to the United States’s prestige far greater than the hostage-taking of American diplomats in Iran.
  2. Israel and Iran have entered an existential phase of conflict. Iran has sustained severe military blows, while Israel has faced the most intense military attacks on its territory since World War II. Iran’s heavy missile strikes against Israel have exposed the fragility of Israel’s military and security structures.

Following the assassination of Iran’s leader, within less than 48 hours a three-member leadership council was formed in accordance with the constitution, and the next leader of Iran will be appointed by the Assembly of Experts.

With the second U.S. and Israeli military attack, several significant and troubling developments have occurred. First, by assassinating Iran’s leader, the United States crossed a red line of Iran’s current system of governance. Second, the United States officially declared that its objective is the collapse of the Iranian government; therefore, Iran’s response is framed as a defense of its very existence. Third, it was already clear that the conflict would become regional—which it has—and Iran has launched missile attacks against U.S. facilities in the region.

Ultimately, it would be better for President Trump to take the initiative for an immediate ceasefire in order to prevent further catastrophes.

https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/of-bombs-and-regime-change/

Events, Lectures, Media

Princeton University host Seyed Hossein Mousavian public lecture on the June 2025 US attacks on Iran and future of US-Iran relations

Posted on

December 8, 2025

Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security (SGS) together with the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA) hosted a public lecture Reflections on the June 2025 US Attacks on Iran: Causes, Consequences, and the Future of US-Iran Relations by Seyed Hossein Mousavian.

The lecture was introduced by Frank von Hippel, who co-founded SGS in 1974 and served as its co-director for its first 30 years, and is now a professor emeritus at Princeton University. von Hippel recruited Seyed Hossein Mousavian to join SGS in 2010. Mousavian was on the SGS research staff for 15 years as a Middle East Security and Nuclear Policy Specialist before he retired in May 2025.

In the lecture, Mousavian took as his starting point the Twelve Day War of June 2025 in which Israel and U.S. attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, and which led to relations between Washington and Tehran entering their most dangerous and decisive period since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The lecture explored three central questions: why did the U.S.–Iran relationship reach this crisis point, what have been the consequences so far, and what steps can be taken to prevent further war and lay a foundation for peace. As Washington and Tehran reassess their strategies amid a shifting balance of power in the Middle East, Mousavian offered his view on whether a new US-Iran nuclear deal was possible and the regional and global implications if no deal could be reached. 

Mousavian is the author of six books, including “A Middle East Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction” (2020), “Iran and the United States, An Insider’s View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace” (2014), and “Iranian Nuclear Crisis, A Memoir” (2012). He is currently working on a book on the rise and fall of the Iran nuclear deal.

Mousavian originally trained as an industrial engineer in Iran and later earned a PhD in international relations from the University of Kent, United Kingdom and went on to have career as an Iranian government official and a scholar. As a diplomat, he served as Iran’s Ambassador to Germany (1990-1997), and as Head of the Foreign Relations Committee of Iran’s National Security Council (1997-2005), Spokesman for Iran in its nuclear negotiations with the international community (2003-2005), Foreign Policy Advisor to the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council (2005-2007), Vice President of the Center for Strategic Research for International Affairs (2005-2009), General Director of Foreign Ministry for West Europe (1987-1990), He was Chief of Parliament Administration (1984-1986) and the editor-in-chief of the English-language international newspaper Tehran Times.

https://sgs.princeton.edu/news-announcements/news-2025-12-08