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.”
