Interview-Mousavian – TRT – May 11, 2026
US media outlet Axios reported that US and Tehran were on the verge of agreeing on a one-page memorandum of understanding, raising hopes for potential de-escalation. However, the US president dismissed Iran’s response to the proposal, calling it ‘totally unacceptable’. Among its key points, Tehran’s latest proposal included an end to the war on all fronts, the lifting of the US blockade on Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz, and guarantees against any further attacks on Iran. Washington’s swift rejection led to a spike in oil prices, while the traffic through Hormuz remains highly limited. Meanwhile, in an interview with CBS News, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the war with Iran is not ‘over’, as Tel Aviv is also stepping up its attacks on Lebanon.
Guests: Seyed Hossein Mousavian Visiting Research Collaborator at Princeton University
Fawaz Gerges Professor of International Relations at LSE
Daniel Levy President of the US/Middle East Project
Liam Collins Retired US Army Colonel
Q1: President Trump has said the war would end soon, but we are now in week 10. How do you assess the current situation, especially after he called Iran’s latest peace proposal “totally unacceptable”?
A: There are three major obstacles preventing an agreement between Iran and the United States. First, the U.S. is seeking an agreement that effectively signals Iran’s capitulation or submission, which Tehran firmly rejects.
Second, Iran insists that any nuclear agreement must be based on the NPT, to which both countries are parties. However, the United States is pushing for terms beyond the NPT framework, such as dismantling Iran’s nuclear facilities—similar to the Libya model—or requiring Iran to export its enriched uranium. From Iran’s perspective, these demands constitute clear violations of international law, as there is no legal basis for forcing an NPT member to dismantle its peaceful nuclear program.
Third, Iran seeks an agreement that would effectively end the war, whereas the United States appears to favor an arrangement that leaves the option open for future military action. This includes allowing Israel to continue its operations in Lebanon. These three issues remain the core barriers to any deal.
Q2: Reports suggest that the situation inside Iran is placing severe economic pressure on the population. How long can Iranians endure these conditions, and what does it mean for the system?
A: The economic pressures are real—high inflation, unemployment, and damage to industrial infrastructure have significantly affected daily life. However, if we look at the past 47 years, Iran has endured continuous sanctions, external pressures, cyber operations, and even an eight-year war following Saddam Hussein’s invasion. Despite these challenges, the country has shown a high level of resilience. That said, the longer the current situation continues, the more severe the economic and social consequences will become.
Q3: You have previously argued that the United States cannot be trusted in diplomacy. Given recent developments, why should Iran still believe negotiations can work?
A: Iran has consistently maintained that it cannot fully trust the United States, yet it has never abandoned diplomacy. The distrust stems from concrete experience. There was a comprehensive agreement—the JCPOA—endorsed by the United Nations Security Council through Resolution 2231, and verified by the IAEA, with Iran in full compliance. Nevertheless, the United States withdrew and imposed a “maximum pressure” policy.
This pattern has repeated itself. In 2025, negotiations were reportedly close to success, according to the Omani foreign minister, yet the United States resorted to military action. In 2026, again, diplomacy was advancing with significant progress, but was interrupted by renewed U.S. attacks. These episodes reinforce Iran’s perception that Washington is not committed to sustained diplomacy.
At the same time, many countries—including Oman, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia—continue to encourage diplomatic engagement and actively push for a negotiated solution. However, as long as the three core issues I mentioned remain unresolved, reaching an agreement will remain difficult.