“Time Running Out for Iran Nuclear Deal,” Interview with Hossein Mousavian, John Hockenberry, Public Radio International, June 29, 2015.
Tag: Iran
Too much at stake to walk away from Iran talks
“Too much at stake to walk away from Iran talks,” Interview with Hossein Mousavian, Michael Knigge, Deutsche Welle, June 29, 2015.
Iran & the US: The Way Forward
Ambassador Mousavian presented a speech to approximately 380 US military personnel, including colonels, at the US Army War College on June 18, 2015. In his speech, he discusses the following:
- Iran’s major national security threats and priorities
- 19 reasons why Iran distrusts the US
- The the origins of the Iranian nuclear program and current status of Iran’s nuclear talks
- 10 suggestions as a way forward for better US-Iran relations
“Iran & the US: The Way Forward,” The US Army War College, June 18, 2015.
Why doesn’t Iran trust the US?
Top-ranking diplomats from Iran and the world powers are currently engaging in intensive talks to narrow their differences and reach a comprehensive nuclear deal by July 1. The main obstacle to attaining such an agreement is the fundamental lack of trust that exists between the two sides. If there was trust, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would have been enough to quell any concerns regarding the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Currently, all sticking points are related to measures beyond the NPT. The sustainable solution is for both sides to take confidence-building measures to ease the suspicions they have of each other. While US qualms with Iran are well known in the West, it is vital for the US public to gain a better understanding of the reasons for Iranian antipathy toward the US government.
“Why doesn’t Iran trust the US?” Hossein Mousavian, Al Monitor, June 23, 2015.
Building confidence, implications of the nuclear deal with Iran
On April 2, 2015, Iran and the P5+1 reached a framework agreement that ensures intrusive transparency and confidence building measures on Iran’s nuclear program in return for a lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions and respecting the legitimate rights of Iran for enrichment, with continued talks until the June 30 deadline toward a comprehensive deal. This initial agreement is a positive step toward ending 12 years of contention over Iran’s nuclear program. The next few weeks will be particularly difficult, as thorny technical issues are negotiated and specific phasing out of sanctions is agreed upon. While the drama over the nuclear talks will continue for the next few weeks until the comprehensive agreement is reached and goes into effect, we have to look at the post-deal environment. This includes the implications for Iran’s nuclear program for the next ten to 25 years; confidence building and nuclear non-proliferation; and Iran’s relations with the West and the region.
“Building confidence, implications of the nuclear deal with Iran,” Hossein Mousavian, Security Times, June 1, 2015.
How do we solve the Iran talks’ verification dilemma?
After Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, expressed his opposition to the inspection of Iranian military facilities and the interrogation of Iranian scientists as part of any would-be nuclear deal, the issue quickly became the most controversial aspect of the nuclear negotiations in Iran. It is only natural that allowing foreign inspectors access to Iranian military facilities and making Iranian scientists vulnerable to such questioning would damage Iranian national pride, as it would in any country. In fact, this is a matter that threatens to scuttle the entire negotiating process.
This unprecedentedly invasive type of inspections hearkens back to the issue of possible military dimensions (PMD) to the Iranian nuclear program. Western concerns over PMD go back to even before 2003, when the Iranian nuclear program first came under international spotlight. In his 2006 book “State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration,” The New York Times journalist James Risen revealed that the CIA had attempted to plant evidence in Iran that would make it seem the country was pursuing nuclear weapons in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Such “evidence” could feasibly have been used as a pretext for military intervention against Iran. With that said, in 2011 the United States and its NATO allies released thousands of pages of documents and pictures to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that allegedly revealed there had been military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.
“How do we solve the Iran talks’ verification dilemma?” Hossein Mousavian, Al Monitor, June 6, 2015.
Will Nuclear Deal Boost Iran Moderates or Hard-Liners?
“Will Nuclear Deal Boost Iran Moderates or Hard-Liners?” Interview with Hossein Mousavian, WSJ, May 28, 2015.
Quote:
“The nuclear issue would be the first step for testing whether the engagement policy is successful. If the U.S. continues the policy of engagement rather than confrontation, you would find Iran much more flexible and much more ready to cooperate on regional issues,” said Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who headed the foreign relations committee at Iran’s National Security Council until 2005 and is now a visiting scholar at Princeton University.
“But if the West and the regional powers push for more coercion policies against Iran, this would strengthen radicalism in Iran. The equation is clear.”
Will Camp David spur regional cooperation?
President Barack Obama’s meeting with the Gulf Cooperation Council leaders at Camp David on May 14 looks by all accounts like a face-saving attempt by Washington. A well-publicized, high-wire meeting, verbal reassurances, perhaps promises of more political support and some advanced military hardware, that’s all. Nothing more can and should be expected; they simply cannot prevent the nuclear deal between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) from going through.
The invitation to Washington, in the statement right before the nuclear framework agreement with Iran was announced in Lausanne April 2, was apparently meant to reassure the Arab states in the Persian Gulf that the deal with Tehran did not mean their abandonment. The psychological-emotional aspect of the suggestion was more than obvious. Initial expressions of Arab dissatisfaction with the expected deal — and more importantly, its longer term implications of a possible Iran-US rapprochement — signaled knee-jerk reactions to the development, bound to have quite serious repercussions for everybody: the United States, Iran and its Arab neighbors on the southern shore of the strategic Persian Gulf and on a larger scale, the greater Middle East. That much is certain, even if the exact nature of future developments have yet to unfold and the emerging regional power calculus is inevitably different from what it has been since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the onset of tension and animosity between Tehran and Washington.
“Will Camp David spur regional cooperation?” Hossein Mousavian, Al Monitor, May 14, 2015.
Is Iran really to blame for Yemen conflict?
The deaths of at least 1,000 Yemenis, including 115 children, and over 3,500 injuries has seemingly been the main result of the Saudi-led military strikes against the country. The conventional wisdom of these attacks on Yemen has been that it is the latest battlefield in a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Such portrayals of the conflict often frame Iran as the aggressor, parroting claims that Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen was somehow forced due to Iranian meddling in its backyard. However, such assertions ignore not just the realities of Yemen’s internal politics, but also more than a little bit of history.
As the Yemen attack shows, Saudi Arabia’s regional strategy is bent on using Iran as a scapegoat to justify its ownaggressive policies. These policies appear geared at maintaining and expanding uncompromising Saudi hegemony across the Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East. However, by aiming to preserve authoritarian governance in Yemen and further marginalizing vast segments of Yemeni society, Saudi Arabia is only damaging its own interests and opening the door for violence to spill over into its own territory. The Saudis should be cognizant that, just as it is with other crises in the Middle East, the only solution to the Yemeni conflict is a political solution based on addressing the concerns of all parties involved.
“Is Iran really to blame for Yemen conflict?” Hossein Mousavian, Al Monitor, May 8, 2015.
Iran, a Deal Based on Dialogue Will be a Win-Win for Everyone
“Iran, a Deal Based on Dialogue Will be a Win-Win for Everyone,” interview with Hossein Mousavian, Marina Forti, Reset-Dialogues On Civilizations, April 17, 2015.
