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