In today’s world, sober political analysts now agree that possession of nuclear weapons—once an assurance of security—barely does anything to protect countries from threats and insecurities. Hence, further modernization of nuclear armaments will only serve to undermine the peace and stability of this planet.
Disarmament: The Forgotten Premises of Non-Proliferation; Seyed Hossein Mousavian, December 4, 2018.
“This article examines the major factors that brought Iran and the EU3+3 to the negotiating table and led to a successful deal. Those factors included each side’s willingness to cash in its main bargaining chips (a short breakout time for Iran and sanctions for the U.S.), a change in leadership in each country, and a shifting geopolitical context. Foremost, however, was the U.S. willingness to change its demands of Iran from no nuclear enrichment to no nuclear bomb.”
Read More (Tandfonline)
“Building on the Iran Nuclear Deal for International Peace and Security,” Seyed Hossein Mousavian and Mohammad Mehdi Mousavian, Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, January 2, 2018.
MEDAYS FORUM 2016 in Tangiers, Morocco. Panel Discussion on “US-Islamic World Relations: What’s Next After the Failure of the Obama Administration?”
“US-Islamic World Relations: What’s Next?” MEDays 2016, Avec Manuel Hassassian, Philip J. Crowley, Hossein Mousavian, Mouafac Harb, Hasni Abidi, Olivier Kempf and Ramadan Abu Jazar. Moderated by Anas El Gomati, December 10, 2016.
Full Video of Panel Discussion
The United States, along with France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia, reached a historic deal with Iran last July that lifts most sanctions in return for curbs on Iran’s nuclear program. The deal, codified in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, specifically includes allowing non-American banks to operate in Iran.
“Obama Needs to Protect the Iran Deal,” Seyed Hossein Mousavian and Reza Nasri, The New York Times, June 20, 2016.
After more than a decade of roller-coaster talks, mostly marked with failure, both sides have finally arrived at a formula that would assure the international community of the strictly peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities, and terminate all unilateral and multilateral economic and financial nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran.
While the political framework reflects the commitment, hard work, sound judgment and, above all, political will of all the parties involved — Iran as well as and the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany — it has been the direct interaction between Iran and the United States, the main two protagonists, particularly since September 2013, that has helped steer the process of negotiation toward the positive outcome. In a detailed discussion in my book “Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace” — covering more than 30 years of deeply felt and entrenched mutual distrust, hostility, name-calling, tension, tit-for-tat negative policies, measures and actions aimed at harming the other side — I have tried to depict an objective picture of the state of relations, or lack thereof, between the two capitals, including the numerous missed opportunities at rapprochement and ultimate detente between them. This particular aspect of the matter has not escaped the attention and eyes of pundits and keen Iran observers, including William Burns who has been personally involved in the nuclear talks for years.
“After nuclear deal, what’s next for Iran?” Hossein Mousavian, Al Monitor, April 14, 2015.
“Point of No Return: Top Iran Negotiator Says Nuke Deal Will Happen,” interview with Hossein Mousavian, John Hockenberry, WNYC Radio, March 31, 2015.
“Deadline for Iran nuclear deal extended,” interview with Hossein Mousavian, Michael Vincent, ABC Radio, April 1, 2015. (Audio)
“Prospects of a deal? Assessing the Iranian Nuclear Talk,” Presentation at the European Council on Foreign Relations, November 25, 2014.
An understanding of the critical role and mind-set of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is essential for anyone wishing to assess the prospects of a rapprochement between Tehran and Washington. It is important to note that the aims and policy choices espoused by the Supreme Leader have to be understood within the context of the immediate political circumstances at the time of his appointment as Supreme Leader and the evolution of global geopolitics since the end of the Cold War. Under the rule of the Shah of Iran, throughout most of the Cold War period, Iran’s role had been that of a client state under Western (U. S. ) hegemony. In fact, this had been Iran’s position in the world order for most of the last two centuries. This subservience was caused by its dependence on the rising Imperial powers of Great Britain and Russia and later the United States.
“Iranian Perceptions of U.S. Policy toward Iran: Ayatollah Khamenei’s Mind-Set,” Hossein Mousavian in A. Maleki & J. Tirman (Eds.). U.S.-Iran Misperceptions: A Dialogue (pp. 37–56). Published by Bloomsbury Academic (10/2014).
Although the nuclear issue has priority in Kerry and Zarif’s mandates, the foreign ministers should also discuss other critical issues, such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and extremism in the region. The key to success is to discuss areas of dispute while pressing ahead with practical measures on areas of mutual interest. During my tenure as Iranian ambassador to Germany, Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani held periodic phone conversations that had positive impacts on bilateral, regional and international issues. The Middle East is in turmoil and on the verge of regionwide sectarian and civil war. The United States, as a major international player, and Iran, as a major regional player, have historical responsibilities to bring about peace, stability and security to the Middle East and beyond.
Obama and Rouhani have the capacity for much-needed cooperation. They both must stay firm and focused, concentrating on creating the context for positive negotiations. Obama stating on Sept. 30 that “we take no options off the table, including military options” was poorly received in Tehran and raised unfortunate questions about the United States’ good faith in negotiating. The two presidents should have periodic phone conversations and approve routine meetings of their foreign ministers to consult on bilateral, regional and international issues. They must also recognize the necessity of engaging the other regional and international players, including Europe, Russia, China, India, Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt. In the process, it is imperative that they avoid the traps and negativity of the skeptics, in the United States, Iran and elsewhere, who remain stuck in the old thinking — full of distrust and recrimination and still invested in hostility and confrontation — and would therefore miss the opportunity presented to resolve the nuclear issue.
“Obama and Rouhani Should Talk More Often,” Hossein Mousavian, Al-Monitor, October 3, 2013.
