Interview with John Kerry and Hossein Mousavian, by Christian Amanpour, 24.2025
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you though, because Iran had to make a decision, obviously, we’ve spoken in depth about how it has been weakened, both with its military capacity at home and with its proxies who are its foreign shock troops abroad. It’s been very, very you know, disadvantaged in that level. But the supreme leader, Khomeini, had to decide, right, exactly what to do so that he didn’t, he hopes, invite an even stronger U.S. response and that the regime survives. Is that a calculation that was going on, do you think, in the establishment as they made this response?
MOUSAVIAN: Christiane, I think always there has been a miscalculation on both parties and also western countries all they — frequently have made and have had miscalculations. We remember the eight years’ war when the U.S., Europe, Soviet Union, all Arab countries, were united to support invasion of Saddam, and provided money, weapon, the most sophisticated weapons for the aggressor. Even that time, Iran did not have missile. And the narrative was
that oh, Shah is gone and Iranian army is in disorder, this is the best time to attack and disintegrate Iran. And then, despite of the consensus internationally from the Eastern Bloc to Western Bloc, Arab countries, everybody supported with hundreds of millions of dollars, sophisticated weapons and everything. At the end, Iranian resisted 8 years and did not give a millimeter of the land. And Saddam is gone and the Islamic Republic is there. I mean, this is always the wrong narrative hearing —
AMANPOUR: OK. OK. So, let me ask you then to follow up on that. I mean, we’re talking about the 1980s. And at that time the leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, said that, I will have to drink reluctantly from the poison chalice, right, the cup of poison in order to end this war. Is that what
Khamenei is going to have to do? Because Trump has said, you know, surrender or else, or we need to, you know, make peace or else. Is there a calculation beyond this response that the supreme leader has to make?
MOUSAVIAN: When in 1988, Ayatollah Khomeini said about the poison, it was because before this statement, he said he’s going to fight until Saddam is removed. The only decision he made, he decided not to continue the war until Saddam is removed. Otherwise, he could save the
country with his leadership.
But about the current crisis, what is the most important issue on the table? Is it about nuclear or beyond? I personally believe Prime Minister Netanyahu, his objective is not nuclear, is regime change is even this disintegration of Iran.
Whether this is American objective or not, this is the big question, whether President Trump only does not want nuclear bomb and his issue is only nuclear, or he is after regime change. If he is after regime change, then you can thing about a further escalation, regional war, transregional war, and a total disaster.
But if his issue is about Iranian nuclear bomb, they have three major issue on the table.
One is about Iran cooperation with the IAEA to resolve technical ambiguities, technical questions, or possible military dimension issues.
As secretary Kerry said the 2015 nuclear deal contains the highest level of transparency and verification and inspection measures. Therefore, on this issue, they can exactly implement the transparency parameters of the same deal because the deal was already implemented and all IAEA technical ambiguity were removed.
The second big issue is about the Iranian stockpile. First of all, as John Kerry said, Iran was not going to have such a big stockpile. President Trump withdrew from the deal while Iran was in full compliance with the deal, then and in return, Iranians also minimized their commitment within the JCPOA and try to increase the level and capacity of the nuclear program as a bargaining chip.
AMANPOUR: I understand what you’re saying, as a bargaining chip. But clearly, they misjudged, they misread the room, they misread Israel after October 7th. They misread Trump. And they — this bargaining chip clearly backfired against them. So, the real question is, if they want to get back to a table, are they going to, as Kerry suggested, remove — I mean, I’m extrapolating, remove this commitment to the destruction of Israel and actually go to some consortium, which you, I think were involved with, which involves basically threading the enrichment needle, what they need for nuclear program that’s civilian, but of formal Iranian territory. Is that going to be what they might do?
MOUSAVIAN: I really don’t know what would be the final position of Iranian government because I’m not in the government, but I believe and have written for two years that there is a need for ceasefire between Iran and Israel. Iran and Israel should go back to the U.N. charter and respect the U.N. Charter, not to threaten each other. They should respect the U.N. charter.
The second is about the nuclear deal, about the stockpile. I heard Araghchi actually told Steve Witkoff during the first three random negotiations that if there is a deal, Iran would be ready to export or to dilute the 400- kilogram of stockpile. Therefore, there would be no worry about Iran to make 10 nuclear bombs. And finally, the concern is about whether Iranian enrichment would be about military enrichment or civilian enrichment. If Iran enriches below 5 percent, definitely this is civilian.
And in mid-term and long-term, as I have already written, there could be a regional consortium between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Emirate, Qatar and other countries supervised by International Atomic and Agency, like European Urenco Consortium. This would be multilateral supervised by International Community.
AMANPOUR: And then, last thing then is, because you’re a former nuclear negotiator I, asked the deputy foreign minister, Mr. Ravanchi, before the U.S. entered this war, whether if the regime survives. because you have said, you know, you think the Israeli position is regime change, that they would ghosts in — you know, in secret and actually take a decision to make a bomb because of what’s happened. And he said, no, never. We never have, we never will, et cetera. Do you think they might if this doesn’t get back to a negotiating table? Is that an option like North Korea that’s left on the table?
MOUSAVIAN: It depends to the end state of the current situation. If the U.S. and Israel would stop attacking Iran, Iran will stop. If the U.S. comes back to negotiation table, Iran would come. If the U.S. would respect international rules, laws, regulations, which is NPT, Iran would be ready to make a deal and accept the highest level of transparency, open nuclear program, and then go to consortium. But if the objective is regime change and they are using the nuclear just as an instrument to bring this country to a total collapse, I think Iranians ultimately would go for nuclear bomb.
AMANPOUR: Gosh. All right. Well, we’ve been warned Seyed Hossein Mousavian, thank you very much indeed.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/24/Tv/video/amanpour-iran-nuclear-seyed-hossein-mousavian
Full Transcript:
https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/ampr/date/2025-06-23/segment/01