Interview-CTGN with Mousavian-April 15, 2026
Welcome to another edition of PointCast with me, Liu Xin, coming to you from Beijing.
My guest today is a visiting research collaborator at Princeton University and former Iranian nuclear negotiator, Seyed Hossein Mousavian. He joins us from Princeton in the United States. We will discuss the recent U.S.–Iran talks in Islamabad, Pakistan, and what may come next.
Mr. Mousavian, welcome to PointCast.
Thank you for having me.
The latest news suggests that the talks ended without a positive outcome. Some even say they collapsed. What is your assessment of what happened in Islamabad after 21 hours of negotiations? Do you expect talks to resume?
I believe no one realistically expected a final agreement after 40 days of war and 48 years of hostility. However, there were important positive developments. For the first time in nearly five decades, Iran and the United States held direct negotiations at the highest level—higher even than during the Obama administration.
Another significant point is that both sides brought large expert teams covering security, political, legal, and economic issues. For the first time, these experts had the opportunity to engage directly and discuss mutual concerns and grievances.
Trust between the two sides remains extremely low. Why, then, did both Washington and Tehran send such high-level delegations?
First, mistrust is mutual and longstanding. Despite this, Iran has consistently demonstrated willingness to engage in diplomacy—whether direct or indirect. Over the past three decades, Iran has never abandoned negotiations.
This time, however, the context is different. The initial assumption behind the 2025 U.S.–Israeli attack was that Iran would collapse within days. That did not happen. Iran resisted for 12 days and imposed significant pressure on Israel, prompting a ceasefire.
A similar miscalculation occurred in 2026. Negotiations were making progress in Europe and a deal was within reach, but again, military action disrupted diplomacy. The war lasted 38 days, causing massive destruction, including thousands of casualties and widespread damage to civilian infrastructure.
At the same time, Iran demonstrated its capacity to retaliate, including strikes on U.S. military bases and large-scale missile and drone attacks against Israel. This created a broader regional crisis, including an energy shock, ultimately pushing Washington back toward negotiations.
Another noteworthy development in Islamabad was that, despite mutual terrorist designations, senior officials from U.S. Central Command and Iran’s IRGC engaged in direct discussions. This was unprecedented and significant.
Although no final agreement was reached, the door to diplomacy remains open, and further talks are likely.
What gives Iran confidence that any future agreement would be reliable?
The core issue is whether the United States is willing to pursue a deal based on international law. The central framework should be the NPT, which balances rights and obligations.
Iran’s obligations are clear: no nuclear weapons and remaining a non-nuclear-weapon state. In return, Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear technology, including enrichment, without discrimination under Article IV of the NPT.
A viable agreement must include maximum transparency, full IAEA oversight, and, in return, recognition of Iran’s nuclear rights—similar to other NPT members like Japan, Brazil, and Germany.
This was essentially the basis of the 2015 JCPOA, which functioned successfully until the United States withdrew.
Looking ahead, a “JCPOA Plus” framework could include a regional enrichment consortium involving Middle Eastern countries and international partners under IAEA supervision. This would reduce proliferation risks and create a sustainable solution.
At the same time, double standards must end. Israel remains outside the NPT with nuclear weapons and faces no restrictions, while pressure is placed on Iran, which is an NPT member without nuclear weapons.
Do you believe the United States is willing to pursue such a framework?
The U.S. demand for zero enrichment reflects Israeli policy more than an independent American position. This issue extends beyond Iran’s nuclear program and relates to broader regional strategies.
Unless there is a shift toward respecting international law and addressing core regional conflicts—especially the Palestinian issue—lasting stability will remain elusive.
Another major issue is the Strait of Hormuz. Historically, it has remained open, even during conflicts. However, recent tensions have led Iran to reconsider its position due to perceived existential threats.
Under international law, the strait must remain open to navigation. Iran has indicated it would return to full compliance if a broader agreement is reached that removes these threats.
In Islamabad, both sides presented maximalist proposals—a U.S. 15-point plan and an Iranian 10-point plan. Progress was made by negotiating both frameworks simultaneously, but key disagreements remain, particularly on nuclear issues and the Strait of Hormuz.
A deal will require flexibility from both sides. Insisting on maximal demands will only prolong conflict.
Do you expect negotiations to resume?
If decisions are made independently by Iran and the United States, yes. However, external pressures—particularly from Israel—could complicate the process.
Ultimately, the United States must decide whether it seeks continued confrontation or a path toward normalization and cooperation with Iran.
You were recently criticized after an interview with CNN. What happened?
This is not unusual. Advocating peace between Iran and the United States often leads to accusations from hardliners on both sides. In the U.S., one may be labeled sympathetic to Iran; in Iran, one may be accused of being aligned with the U.S.
This reflects a broader reality: there are powerful groups in both countries that oppose reconciliation.
Why does Iran continue to pursue diplomacy despite these challenges?
Because diplomacy has been a consistent strategy. Iran keeps the door open, even amid deep mistrust. However, after two wars, trust has declined significantly, and there is concern that negotiations could again be used as a prelude to military action.
Finally, what should the global audience understand about Iran today?
Iranians feel they have repeatedly been deceived and targeted. This has strengthened their resolve to defend their independence and sovereignty.
At the same time, this crisis is not just regional—it has global implications. It requires greater involvement from major international actors, particularly permanent members of the UN Security Council, to help mediate and stabilize the situation.
https://youtu.be/p_a6J_ZFEYI?si=hayQeuUZP8bIwDvx