Zeteo Interview with Mousavian
June 30, 2025
In this interview, he raised the most pressing and challenging issues, including:
- Who won the war, Israel or Iran?
- What is the status of Iran’s nuclear program after the U.S. and Israeli attacks?
- Is a new war between the U.S./Israel and Iran likely?
- Why does Iran use slogans like “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” that provide justification for attacks against it?
- Is an Iran-U.S. agreement possible under current circumstances?
- Will Iran stop threatening Israel’s existence?
- Why has Iran stockpiled 400 kg of 60% enriched uranium, which is almost exclusively for military use?
- Can Iran maintain its nuclear program despite the assassination of dozens of its scientists?
- What are the risks and consequences if Iran’s Supreme Leader is assassinated?
- How will Iran’s government and people relate to each other after this war?
- Will Iran leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
- Will Iran cooperate with IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi?
- Will Iran accept the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine?
- Will Iran continue supporting proxy groups in the region?
Interview Transcript:
Mehdi Hasan: What is the current state of Iran’s nuclear program? Trump claims the recent military attack destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities. U.S. intelligence agencies say it wasn’t completely destroyed. What’s the truth?
Mousavian: If the goal was to damage nuclear facilities, then yes, the U.S. caused serious and extensive damage. But if the aim was to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, they failed—because Iran has mastered nuclear know-how. Scientific knowledge can’t be bombed out of existence. Facilities, buildings, even centrifuges can be destroyed—but they can be rebuilt.
Mehdi Hasan: Israelis claim they killed many Iranian nuclear scientists and thus crippled the program.
Mousavian: Israel started assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists in 2010. Back then, Iran only had first-generation IR-1 centrifuges. In the past 15 years, Israel has assassinated 40–50 Iranian scientists, but Iran’s nuclear capabilities have advanced. Today, Iran has IR-2, IR-4, IR-6, IR-8, and IR-9 centrifuges—which are much more advanced. So, ironically, the more scientists Israel has killed, the more Iran’s program has progressed. You can’t assassinate knowledge. Iranians become more determined.
Mehdi Hasan: Iran has 400 kg of 60% enriched uranium, which most experts say has military use. Isn’t that clear evidence that Iran wants a bomb?
Mousavian: Let’s assume the claim is true—60% enriched uranium has military applications. But look at Iran’s intent. In 2015, under the JCPOA deal with world powers, Iran exported or converted its enriched uranium. It had zero 60% or 20% stockpiles. Iran fully cooperated with the IAEA and resolved all ambiguities. The IAEA confirmed the peaceful nature of Iran’s program. Iran accepted numerous restrictions.
But in 2018, Trump withdrew from the JCPOA even though Iran was fully compliant. Worse, he imposed the harshest sanctions while Iran was allowing the most inspections in the world. So Iran increased enrichment levels to show it wouldn’t surrender under pressure. I believe the enrichment was a negotiating tactic. When Steve Witkoff (Trump’s envoy) met with Iran’s deputy FM Araghchi, Iran offered to export or convert its 60% stockpile. So Iran’s intent was negotiation, not a bomb.
Mehdi Hasan: But by enriching to 60%, Iran gave Israel an excuse to attack. So the strategy backfired, no?
Mousavian: Netanyahu has been lying about Iran’s nuclear program for 30 years. In 1996, he told the U.S. Congress Iran was months from a bomb. At that time, Iran had no enrichment program or centrifuges. He’s always wanted a military strike. In early rounds of Trump-era talks, Witkoff and Araghchi agreed on four points: Iran-IAEA cooperation, exporting/converting 60% uranium, reducing enrichment to below 5%, and a verification regime. But Netanyahu opposed any deal and pushed Trump to back out and attack.
Mehdi Hasan: Where were you during Israel’s attack on Iran? Were you shocked?
Mousavian: I was on a flight to China. When I landed, my host informed me, and I was shocked.
Mehdi Hasan: Did you expect a U.S. attack?
Mousavian: No. Trump had a real chance at a deal. He had a majority in Congress and wanted to make history. Iran’s President had said the country was open to U.S. investment. The negotiators had reached general agreements. Iran had accepted maximum transparency and monitoring. Over 100 IAEA reports since 2003 confirm no diversion toward weapons. Even two months ago, the latest IAEA report confirmed that. All U.S. intelligence since 2007 says Iran has no bomb-making intention. I saw no reason for Trump to launch a military strike. Israel? Yes. But Israel couldn’t have done it without U.S. backing.
Mehdi Hasan: Will the U.S.-Israel strike push Iran toward making a bomb?
Mousavian: Trump still has a chance. If he offers a balanced deal respecting Iran’s NPT rights, Iran won’t pursue a bomb. Countries like Germany, Brazil, Argentina, and Japan have peaceful enrichment. Trump shouldn’t discriminate. But if the U.S. continues hostile policies, it sends Iran a clear message: build a bomb to avoid being attacked. The message becomes: look at North Korea, India, and Pakistan—no one dares attack them. Iranians now ask: what’s the point of the NPT? The more Iran cooperated, the more it got sanctioned—and now attacked.
Mehdi Hasan: How worried are you that this crisis will escalate, especially if Iran’s Supreme Leader is assassinated?
Mousavian: If the U.S. wants real talks, it shouldn’t be planning assassinations or enabling Israel to do so. Continued hostile policies—sanctions, killings, and war—will escalate the conflict regionally and beyond.
Mehdi Hasan: Even Western critics of Trump are uncomfortable with Iran’s slogans like “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” Aren’t these slogans harmful?
Mousavian: I’ve always opposed death slogans and flag burning. But the U.S. has used similar rhetoric. It calls Iran a “rogue state” or “terror sponsor.” Trump just called Iran “the most dangerous country” and demanded “total surrender.” Both sides should stop using such language.
Mehdi Hasan: Let’s turn to audience questions. One asks: Does Iran have enough missiles to punish Israel? I believe both Israel and Iran proved to be paper tigers. Israel, despite U.S. support, couldn’t stop Iran’s massive missile attacks. And Iran, despite its bluster, failed to stop Israeli airstrikes or mobilize its allies.
Mousavian: A few key points:
- The war’s goal wasn’t just to hit nuclear sites but to destroy Iran’s missile power, cause regime change, and turn Iran into a failed state like Libya or Syria.
- This war was long planned.
- It wasn’t just Israel—it was a NATO-coordinated attack, with Israel acting under U.S./NATO green light.
- Over 30 NATO countries supported Israel, but Iran stood alone.
- Planners assumed Iran’s people would rise up amid the chaos and overthrow the regime.
Israel had the upper hand for four days, but from day five, Iran gained the upper hand. Netanyahu realized he couldn’t continue and asked Trump to stop the war.
In the end, Israel and NATO failed in their objectives to destroy Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities or collapse its government. The Iranian people united.
Mehdi Hasan: Another attendee asks: Has a wave of arrests started in Iran? Israel clearly infiltrated Iran’s top military/security ranks.
Mousavian: No doubt recent events exposed deep foreign intelligence infiltration. It was shocking. But this wasn’t just Mossad—it was the result of 20+ years of joint operations by NATO intelligence, Israel, and allies. Their massive data was handed to Israel for this operation. The plan was to decapitate Iran’s leadership and bomb major sites, collapsing the regime within 24 hours. Iranians were shocked. So post-ceasefire arrests are to dismantle this network. Some innocent people may be caught, but such is the nature of wartime.
Mehdi Hasan: The Economist says young radical commanders now dominate Iran, and the IRGC has become more powerful. Is Iran becoming more radical?
Mousavian: It doesn’t matter what I personally believe. I’ve long called for stopping the shadow war between Israel and Iran and improving U.S.-Iran relations. But facts matter: for the first time, nuclear-armed U.S. and Israel attacked Iran—a non-nuclear NPT member. This violates the UN Charter and IAEA rules. The UN Security Council didn’t even issue a basic condemnation. The IAEA—meant to protect nuclear sites—did nothing. So Iranians see they’ve been attacked while the world stood silent. Naturally, they support their military, including the IRGC. The future depends on U.S. policy. If hostility stops, Iran’s domestic politics could change too.
Mehdi Hasan: One question asks: what is the basis of Iran’s “destroy Israel” slogan? U.S. hardliners and Netanyahu cite this to justify attacks on Iran.
Mousavian: U.S.-Iran relations must be fixed first. Israel couldn’t have attacked Iran without U.S. consent. If the U.S. engages Iran honestly, a nuclear deal is possible. After that, other issues can be discussed—like both Iran and Israel agreeing to stop existential threats with U.S. mediation.
Mehdi Hasan: Who asked for the ceasefire—Iran or Israel?
Mousavian: Trump contacted Qatar’s Emir to ask Iran to agree to a ceasefire. That’s now public. Trump said he did it at Netanyahu’s request. The original plan was to collapse Iran within days. But after Iran’s massive missile retaliation, Netanyahu couldn’t handle a prolonged war and asked for help.
Mehdi Hasan: Will Iran now stop supporting proxies, especially in Sunni Arab countries?
Mousavian: Take Hezbollah: it acts within Lebanon’s national framework. Iran doesn’t interfere. The recent Lebanon-Israel ceasefire was accepted by Hezbollah, per the Lebanese government’s decision. As Iran-Saudi and broader Arab relations improve, proxy tensions will ease too.
Mehdi Hasan: If U.S.-Iran relations improve, will Iran stop supporting Hamas and Palestine? In the West, Iran is accused of backing a terrorist group.
Mousavian: Iran supports Palestinian rights. The obstacle to peace is not Iran but Israel and Netanyahu’s government. The UN has issued about 400 resolutions on Palestine, including a two-state solution. Israel has ignored them. If Israel had complied, Gaza’s crisis wouldn’t exist. The root problem is Israel’s refusal to recognize a Palestinian state.
Mehdi Hasan: But Iran also opposes the two-state solution.
Mousavian: Yes, but Iran has stated that if Palestinians accept any formula, Iran will respect it. Even the Supreme Leader has said that Iran will honor Palestinian decisions.
Mehdi Hasan: The U.S. built bunker-buster bombs specifically for Iran’s Fordow site—and now it has been bombed. If Iran continues, won’t the U.S. bomb again?
Mousavian: I don’t know. But if the U.S. continues Trump-style hostility—maximum pressure, then war—the next conflict could be far worse. Before Iran struck the U.S. base in Qatar, it warned both Qatar and the U.S. to evacuate personnel. Iran didn’t want to kill Americans. But if there’s another attack, do you think Iran will warn again? I don’t.
Mehdi Hasan: When Israel attacked, Saudi Arabia condemned it. But when Iran struck the U.S. base in Qatar, Saudi Arabia condemned Iran. What is the current state of Iran–Saudi relations?
Mousavian: Relations are relatively good. The two countries are in regular contact on regional issues. But there’s a broader concern in the Muslim world. You may recall Gen. Wesley Clark (former NATO commander) said in 2000 that the U.S. planned to attack seven countries—including Iran. That plan has been implemented. The concern in the Islamic world is that the bigger project is “Greater Israel,” dominating the Middle East. If Iran falls, Israel and the U.S. will go after others—like Egypt or Turkey. So the Muslim world doesn’t want Iran to fall, fearing they’re next.
Mehdi Hasan: Will Iran stop using “Destroy Israel” slogans? You personally oppose existential threats, but what about the government?
Mousavian: Existential threats have been mutual. Israel constantly threatens Iran—and acts on it. Israel attacked Iran, not the reverse. Iran has no nukes; Israel has about 100. Iran is an NPT member with IAEA inspections; Israel is not. Israel has defied hundreds of UN resolutions. That’s why Iranians see Israel as a threat. A grand U.S.-Iran deal could include a mutual non-aggression pact. Better yet, the UN Security Council could draft a regional non-aggression treaty for the Middle East and implement WMD-free zone resolutions.
Mehdi Hasan: One final question: Will the recent war increase Iran’s human rights violations, or will the government improve relations with its people?
Mousavian: Realistically, most Iranian dissatisfaction is economic. But now the nation is united in defending the country. This is a golden opportunity for the government to win back public trust.