Report from Tehran: Iranians View U.S. Strikes on Key Nuclear Sites as “Act of War”
JUNE 23, 2025
[https://www.democracynow.org/2025/6/23/iran_united_states]
AMY GOODMAN: Seyed Hossein Mousavian is Visiting Research Collaborator with Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security. From 2003 to ’05, he served as spokesperson for Iran in its nuclear negotiations of the European Union, author of The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir, and most recently, _Iran and the United States, An Insider’s View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace_. His new op-ed for _Middle East Eye_ headlined, “After U.S. Attack, Iran Could Reconsider its Nuclear Strategy.” Thanks so much for joining us from Brussels, Ambassador Hossein Mousavian. If you can respond to what the U.S. has done. It’s interesting to have both of you on because Mohammad Marandi was involved with the Iran deal negotiations in 2015, and you, back a decade before.
SEYED HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: It is obvious, Amy, that the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran is in a clear violation of international law and regulations. It is a clear violation of United Nations security, United Nations charter. It is in a clear violation of the International Atomic Energy Agency rules and regulations. And many experts now are talking that the current attacks are not only attacks on Iran, they are attacks on non-proliferation treaty. It is – it would have definitely a counterproductive result. The fact is, Amy, that Israel is the only country in the region with 100 to 400 nuclear bombs, and Iran is a member NPT. Israel is not. Iran does not have nuclear bomb. Israel does have nuclear bomb. And Iran has given the highest – the most inspections to the IAEA during the history of IAEA, and Israel has never given such access to IAEA.
And now, Iran is the most-sanctioned country, and the U.S. is supporting Israel with nuclear bombs. And they both are claiming that they are fighting proliferation in the Middle East. Practically, the U.S. is supporting a country with nuclear bomb attacking a country with no nuclear bomb, claiming that the U.S. is fighting for proliferation in the Middle East. Therefore, Iranians are now looking for key as being member of non-proliferation treaty, giving every access to the IAEA, and now they have been attacked. Before, they have been sanctioned. And countries like North Korea, Israel, India, Pakistan, which they have never accepted non-proliferation treaty, they have never been attacked. That’s why they are now thinking perhaps having nuclear bomb is much better deterrent compared to being member of NPT.
AMY GOODMAN: This is an extremely important point you’re making, Ambassador. The issue of whether this would encourage nuclear proliferation, that you have Iran, a non-nuclear nation at this point being attacked by two nuclear nations, the U.S. and Israel. So, the lesson learned is, you need to a nuclear bomb-armed nation not to be attacked. For example, the U.S. isn’t attacking North Korea. So, if you can talk about what this means and the idea that you can come up with a military solution to what’s happening in Iran. It now may be well that the nuclear material has been moved from the place that the U.S. bombed, from Fordow. And so, in the end, it’s going to take diplomacy anyway.
SEYED HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: First of all, from the day one, when Israelis, they attacked Iran, I publicly said, “This is not Israeli strike. Israel has coordinated this military invasion of Iran by the NATO countries, by the U.S., and it is fully supported by NATO, and Iran is confronting NATO, not only Israel. And it is now about 12 days passed, everybody understands that the NATO countries, they are fully supporting Israel, and the U.S. also attacked Iran by the demand of Israelis. This is number one.
Number two, if President Trump really wanted a nuclear deal, he could get it easily. Because in his first term, he chaired the JCPOA. You remember. JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal was agreed between Iran, and the U.S. and the world powers, the United Nations Security Council passed the Resolution 2231, the IAEA adopted many resolutions. It was working very well. Iran gave the highest level of access inspection, transparency measures to the IAEA. Every technical issue with the IAEA was resolved. Even IAEA publicly said, “All possible military dimension issues are resolved.” The deal was working very well. Even beyond the nuclear, Iran and the U.S., they agreed that Iran would buy 100 American passenger planes, the Boeing planes. Even when 16 American sailors, they entered Iranian water territory illegally, Iran released them in less than 48 hours. Everything was going in the right direction until President Trump withdrew and imposed the most comprehensive sanctions. This is about the first term of President Trump.
In the second term, when he was elected, he actually put an option on the Iranian table, “Deal under my terms and condition, or you would be attacked.” This was not and is not the language of diplomacy. This is the language of threat and bullying. And then, we have Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi with Steve Witkoff. They had three rounds of talks in Oman and Rome, and they agreed on the principles. They really agreed. Then, they agreed that the technical team would sit, and they would draft it to be signed. Suddenly, Prime Minister Netanyahu called President Trump, and President Trump backed down. And then, Israel attacked Iran. When Israel attacked Iran, then President Trump publicly said to Iranians, “Unconditional surrender.” And then, the U.S. attacked. And now, after the U.S. attacked, now he’s saying “regime change”! Therefore, now, everybody, I think, has a correct understanding, well understanding that unfortunately, President Trump is not really for diplomacy and a solution.
Otherwise, if really, they want a solution on the nuclear, it is easy because we have three major issues. One is about Iran cooperation with the IAEA. We have the model. The model worked for three years very well. All technical issues were resolved. The nuclear deal, they can agree that all transparency measures, verification measures can be revived based on the deal, and all technical issues can be resolved between Iran and the IAEA. The second issue is about whether Iranian enrichment would be military or civilian. If it is below 5%, definitely would be civilian. Iran is ready to go back to – like the JCPOA, to go back to enrichment below 5%, to stop 20%, to stop 60%. And the third issue is about the Iranian stockpile of enriched 400-kilogram of 60% enriched uranium. I think if there is a comprehensive, fair and balanced deal, Iran would be ready either to export or to dilute this stockpile. Therefore, every concern would be removed. It is really within the reach if President Trump is going to have diplomacy succeed.
AMY GOODMAN: We’ve just spoken with Ambassador Mohammad Marandi in Brussels, who helped to negotiate an Iran nuclear deal back in 2005.
Seyed Hossein Mousavian
Visiting Research Collaborator
Program on Science and Global Security.
Princeton University