Guests

After the first round of ceasefire negotiations in Pakistan collapsed over the weekend, we speak to two former nuclear negotiators about prospects for ending the ongoing U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, including what another nuclear deal might look like. Robert Malley, a U.S. negotiator for the 2015 nuclear deal (which President Trump withdrew from in his first term), says Trump’s “mercurial” behavior makes it difficult to predict his objectives and the course of any future talks. “Iran was in full compliance with the JCPOA” and was blindsided by the U.S.'s decision to pull out of the deal, says Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who served as spokesperson for Iran's nuclear negotiation team from 2003 to 2005. Now its leaders “don’t know whether the U.S. is really for diplomacy or not.”

Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: We begin today’s show looking at the state of negotiations between the United States and Iran. Delegates from both countries could soon return to Pakistan for another round of peace talks, after negotiations in Islamabad failed to reach a long-term deal. Reuters and the Associated Press report a date has not yet been decided, but negotiations could resume as early as the end of the week.

The New York Times reports the U.S. and Iran have traded proposals for a suspension of Iranian nuclear activities, with Iran proposing a five-year suspension, after the U.S. sought a 20-year moratorium.

After talks collapsed Sunday, Vice President JD Vance declared that Iran, quote, “chose not to accept our terms,” unquote, while Iranian state media blamed, quote, “excessive demands,” unquote, from Washington for the talks’ collapse. President Trump then announced a naval blockade of Iranian ports, which Iran has called an “act of piracy.”

Speaking on Fox News, Vance, who led the U.S. negotiations, said the Iranians are engaged in “economic terrorism” by blocking the strait and that, quote, “two can play at that game.” Vance also said the ball is in the Iranian court.

VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: They basically threatened any ship that’s moving through the Straits of Hormuz. Well, as the president of the United States showed, two can play at that game. And if the Iranians are going to try to engage in economic terrorism, we’re going to abide by a simple principle, that no Iranian ships are getting out, either. We know that’s a big deal to them. We know that applies additional economic leverage.

AMY GOODMAN: The maneuvers intensify fears globally for a prolonged economic shock. China’s Foreign Ministry has condemned the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports as “dangerous and irresponsible,” warning against any effort to obstruct Chinese vessels. On Monday, the Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun said in a statement, quote, “We have trade and energy agreements with Iran; we expect others not to interfere in our affairs. The Strait of Hormuz is open to us,” unquote. His warning came as at least four Iran-linked ships crossed the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday after the Trump administration declared the start of its blockade.

We’re joined now in the studio by two former negotiators for the U.S. and Iran in this Democracy Now! exclusive.

Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian served as spokesperson for Iran in its nuclear negotiations with the European Union from 2003 to 2005. He also served as Iran’s ambassador to Germany. He’s author of two books, 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.

And we’re joined by Rob Malley. He was one of the negotiators on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. He served as a senior Middle East official under Presidents Clinton, Obama and Biden. Under Biden, he served as the special envoy for Iran. He is now a lecturer at Yale University, former president of the International Crisis Group, co-author with Hussein Agha of a new book, Tomorrow Is Yesterday: Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine.

Why don’t we start off, in this exclusive we have with the two of you at the table, American and Iranian negotiator, with your assessment of what’s taken place? It can be right through to this week, the failed negotiations, and before that, the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran. Why don’t we begin with you, Rob Malley?

ROBERT MALLEY: Well, first, I think — thanks for having me.

You know, we can’t ignore the fact that this war was unlawful, unjustified, unnecessary. And I think even if we’re now going to talk about negotiations, even if the negotiations are to succeed, none of that could let us forget or excuse how we got here. So, I do want to insist on that, because, you know, if negotiations succeed, it’s going to be too quick for the administration to say, “You see? We were right.”

But I think the real question now is whether the U.S. and Iran are engaging in these negotiations, trying to find a solution that will meet both their sides’ core needs, or whether, in this case, the U.S. takes the attitude that “we won the war because we’re stronger, and if you’re not accepting the war, then you’re going to — we’re going to inflict more pain.” That won’t work. And it won’t work because Iran believes, and with some justification, that it has inflicted pain on the U.S. and that every day that goes by, it’s going to inflict more. So, they’re not in a position right now where Iran is sort of begging for a deal because it wants to avoid an escalation. They believe, again, rightly or wrongly, that they could sustain the pain longer than the U.S. can.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, as you talk about what Iran believes, let’s go to the Iranian ambassador, Hossein Mousavian. Your assessment of what has taken place? Now it seems to be coming down to the nuclear negotiations, around, well, Iran saying they’ll do a moratorium for five years and the United States demanding 20. But, overall, the picture?

SEYED HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: I think Iranians now they’re coming to negotiation table with mistrust more than ever, because once the deal was agreed in 2015, Iran was in full compliance, and the U.S. withdrew. The second, there was a nuclear negotiation between Iran and the U.S. in 2025. Negotiation, as the foreign minister of Oman said, had significant progress. Deal was within reach. The U.S. withdrew and attacked Iran. We had negotiation in 2026. Again, as Oman foreign minister said, negotiations had significant progress, deal was within reach. Again, the U.S. attacked. Then we had the latest in Islamabad. They had just one-day negotiation. It was the highest level after revolution, after 48 years. And the U.S. side said there was progress. Only nuclear was not agreed. We agreed on everything, as President Trump said. Iranian foreign minister also said we were very close to a final deal. And then immediately the U.S. imposed a blockade, I mean, sea blockade there. That’s why they have — they really don’t know whether the U.S. is really for diplomacy or not.

If you’re talking now about nuclear, first of all, every assessment of all U.S. intelligence establishments since 2007, every year, they have insisted no evidence of weaponization and no evidence of decision of Iranians, even in ’25, even in ’26 — this is the U.S. security assessment — no decision to go to nuclear and no evidence of weaponization. Every IAEA report since 2003 says there is no evidence of weaponization. Therefore, there was no imminent threat. And I believe it was really illegal war, no doubt. Overwhelming majority of international community, they have insisted the war was illegal. How — now we are coming to the negotiations.

The biggest issue you have heard during the last two years is about Iran 450 kilogram of enriched uranium, 60%. They say Iran can make 10 nuclear bombs if they decide to do. And even you hear from every American officials, they are insisting on this stockpile. But I don’t know whether the people, they know, in negotiation 2025, Iran said we are ready to dilute all 60% to below 5%. In negotiation during 2026, Iran public officially told Americans we are ready to dilute. This was said by the Omani foreign minister in his interview with the Face the Nation officially, that Iran was and is ready to dilute all stockpile to below 5%. Iran accepted to suspend enrichment for some years. Iran accepted to have zero stockpile. Therefore, there is no worry, and there was no worry, about the high-level enriched uranium stockpile.

And the other issue is about the IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency. They have ambiguities. They have questions about technical issues with Iranian nuclear program. Iran was in full compliance with the JCPOA. JCPOA was the most comprehensive agreement during the history of nonproliferation, with measures, Iranian commitments far beyond NPT. But Iran accepted. And then, in talks 2025, in nuclear talks 2026 in Islamabad, Iranians, they said, “We are ready to go to the highest level of transparency and cooperation with the IAEA to address every technical ambiguities.” Therefore, when Iran was ready to dilute the whole stockpile, when Iran was ready to go to the maximum level of cooperation with the IAEA, to leave no concern about possible military dimension issues, and when Iran was ready also to suspend enrichment for some years, when Iran was ready for zero stockpile, then why the blockade?

I mean, I really don’t understand whether the issue is nuclear or not, because we heard from American officials. Officially, publicly, they said the aim was controlling Iranian oil reserve. And we heard from American officials. They said the aim was regime change. If the aim is controlling Iranian oil reserve like Venezuela, if the aim is regime change, using nuclear as pretext, we are not going to have any deal.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ambassador, I wanted to ask you precisely about this issue of how the Trump administration often tries to confuse in the American public the difference between enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes versus — which Iran, like all signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, have a right to do — and the actual development of bombs, of a nuclear bomb, and also the fact that the former Ayatollah Khamenei specifically had a fatwa against Iran developing a nuclear bomb. Could you explain that position of the leader who was killed by the United States?

SEYED HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: Actually, what Iranians are saying is about their legitimate legal rights under NPT. Argentina, they have enrichment. Brazil has enrichment. Germany has enrichment. Japan has enrichment. And they don’t have nuclear bomb, and they are member of NPT. Iran does not accept any deal that to be the only member of NPT to be discriminized from its legitimate legal rights under NPT. Therefore, respecting the rights of Iran, like any other member of NPT, for enrichment is one issue. Executing the rights is another issue.

Iran was ready, as a confidence-building measures, not to execute the rights for a period, specific period of confidence-building measures. What the U.S. is saying is zero enrichment, is a clear violation of Non-Proliferation Treaty. Therefore, of course, Ayatollah Khamenei insisted on all weapons of mass destruction, religiously, is haram, is forbidden. Iran is member of NPT. And the important issue is that despite the fact Iran has been the most sanctioned country worldwide, Iran never diverted its nuclear program toward weaponization, confirmed by all U.S. security establishment and the IAEA.

Therefore, we need to understand, respecting the rights of Iran, like other members of NPT, for peaceful nuclear technology is one issue. Confidence-building measures by Iran to go for transparency measures, suspending enrichment, zero stockpile, just as a confidence-building measures, is another issue. I think we need to have a distinction between these two.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I’d like to ask Rob Malley — the negotiators for the Trump administration in the latest round have continued to include Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, two people who would have, some would say, virtually no knowledge of the complexity of negotiations over nuclear enrichment and the development of nuclear bombs. Your assessment of their role in all of this, and also why, in all of this talk about Iran coming under some kind of international control, there is no mention of the fact that there’s one power that does have nuclear weapons in the Middle East — Israel — and it is not a party to the NPT?

ROBERT MALLEY: So, first, allow me to — you won’t be surprised that I have a little bit of a different appreciation from Hossein in terms of Iran’s nuclear program. I think there is some evidence, certainly at some point, that they did have a military program. And my view is that they’ve always — their view was “We’re going to hedge. We’re going to have a nuclear program, so that if we do want to develop a weapon, we can.” I think that’s — you know, one could understand why they did. But I think it’s pretty clear that they did have that. So, I don’t think that there was anything — that there was anything — and that’s why, by the way, President Obama negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was a way to contain — and, I think, successfully — Iran’s nuclear program, to make sure that if they were tempted to try to dash for a bomb, they couldn’t do it in a quick way, and it would be immediately verified. I think one of the dramatically tragic mistakes of the first Trump administration was to tear that deal up. So, I don’t think one has to be naive about what Iran was doing, and still see that in what Trump was doing was — produced exactly the wrong effects.

Now, in terms of the current negotiations, no, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are not nuclear experts — by the way, nor am I. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether they’re surrounded by nuclear experts. And everything — all the reports that I’ve received is that when they negotiated with the Iranians in the past — I don’t know what happened in Islamabad, but in the past, they didn’t have nuclear experts. And so, there was — and I think this has been well documented, that they misunderstood Iranian positions. They couldn’t appreciate what they were actually trying to convey.

And part of it, I think, is because of the oddity of this administration, where so many of the decisions seem to rely and reside in one person, not the most reliable of all people. It’s the president of the United States. And he is very mercurial, and he’s very unpredictable, and he changes his mind, and he changes his objectives. We don’t really know what his objectives are in this conflict.

And so, I think what Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner did is they relayed what they heard from the Iranians. They didn’t really fully understand them. And then, depending on the president’s mood, he varied on whether he was in the mood to accept a negotiated deal or was more eager for confrontation. And my assessment is that, in this case, a bit emboldened by Venezuela — and we just saw the clip of where things are with that country — he felt he could not fail at a military endeavor. He was going to win. He was going to bring Iran to knees and then be able to dictate the terms of a settlement. That’s not what happened.

AMY GOODMAN: When the U.S. attacked and Israel attacked Iran, I thought it was very interesting that the Omani foreign minister, who was negotiating, who was mediating, actually took a plane to Washington, because he didn’t feel that Kushner and Witkoff were conveying what Iran was agreeing to. And he went on all the U.S. media he could, so that he could get President Trump’s attention, particularly on Fox. But I want to go to what he said on Face the Nation. This is Badr bin Hamad Albusaidi. He said Iran had agreed to abandon its nuclear enrichment and stockpiling program.

BADR BIN HAMAD ALBUSAIDI: If the ultimate objective is to ensure forever that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, I think we have cracked that problem through these negotiations by agreeing a very important breakthrough that has never been achieved anytime before. And I think if we can capture that and build on it, I think a deal is within our reach.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was the Omani foreign minister. He actually kept repeating in all these interviews — he had a phrase — “This is better than Obama.” You know, someone had trained — it’s like they had said to him, “This is what Trump needs to hear,” because that’s Trump’s main motivating factor, “better than Obama.” You are, Rob Malley, one of the lead negotiators for the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. If you can explain why you — if you think this was better than what you achieved, and why, anyway, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu attacked the very next day? And what happened that very next day, the Iranian girls’ school in Minab was taken out, it looks like with a U.S. missile, and 175 people, about, died, overwhelmingly primary school girls.

ROBERT MALLEY: So, I mean, I said it at the same time, either before or after the Omani foreign minister, because based on the reports, and Hossein just said that, Iran was agreeing to suspend enrichment for a period of years. That is beyond anything that either President Obama achieved or President Biden was — could have achieved. I mean, at that time, Iran was not talking about suspending; it was accepting limits. I think those limits were sufficient to contain Iran’s nuclear program. But if what President Trump wanted was to be able to say at the end of these negotiations, “I beat President Obama,” I would have granted him that, if it could have spared us a war, because it was — you know, it was a truism. Suspension is better than the limited enrichment that Iran had.

Now, again, I want to emphasize that marginal gain between suspension of enrichment or very low enrichment does not justify in any way, does not excuse, an illegal war that has caused the deaths that you mentioned, far more than that, destruction and now disruptions of the world economy, that then hurt the poorest nations first and foremost. And that’s, of course, also because of Iran’s reaction, but the trigger was the war that was launched by the United States and Israel.

So, if that was his goal — but I think it goes back to the point that I was making earlier. I think the war was launched by President Trump because he felt he could and he felt that he was on a roll, was on a roll after Venezuela, after the attack on Iran a year ago, that he could be the president who finally deals with this issue. He’s changed, in his view, the regime in Venezuela. He thought he could change the regime in Iran, and then, next, Cuba, and that he would go down in history as this person. The details didn’t matter. And I think he really felt unstoppable. And he felt that the experts who were warning him didn’t know what they were talking about; he knew better.

AMY GOODMAN: In his gut.

ROBERT MALLEY: In his gut, whatever gut he has, yes.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’d like to ask Ambassador Mousavian: Where do we go from here? Especially now that — after Trump announced this blockade of Iranian ports, and yet he’s getting no support from the European Union on this. And, of course, China has made it very clear that they are going to continue to expect to be able to get through, have their ships go through the Strait of Hormuz and to trade with Iran. What is the — what are the options for the United States? And also, can Iran survive a long-term blockade, economic blockade, by the United States?

SEYED HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: The naval blockade, based on United Nation Resolution 1974, is act of war, is aggression. Therefore, internationally, legally, what the U.S. is doing is a clear aggression or act of war, because suffering a 90 million nation, and the fear of famine, hunger against a nation. This is not about just state.

Nevertheless, about Strait of Hormuz, the reality is that this strait was open, free for navigation for 48 years, 47 years. Never there was any problem. Even after the first U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, 2025, Iran did not put any limit on navigation. But when the U.S. and Israel, they attacked for the second time, in 2026, Iranians, they really felt this is an existential threat. This was really the difference. That’s why they tried to use all cards they have. One of them was Strait of Hormuz. Nevertheless, they did not close the strait. They put some limits. Internationally, this strait should be open for free, with free navigation. There should not be any limit. And Iranians, legally, internationally, they cannot put limits or close it. But also, there is international regulations that during war, a country which is attacked by another country can put some calculated limits on navigation, not broad, and they cannot close it.

For the future, if the U.S. is looking for a nuclear deal as what we have been already discussed, and Rob said they already got what they wanted, more than Obama period, more than JCPOA, but even they can have one big more achievement on the nuclear issue, because President Trump can offer for Iran to go for a multilateral enrichment mechanism in the Persian Gulf. What we — I mean, I and the nuclear scientists at Princeton University, we published multiple articles. The last one was 10 days before 2025 war. We said, rather than national enrichment — because Saudi Arabia also is looking for enrichment. If Saudi gets, Egyptians, they will get. If Egypt get, Turkish will get it. Therefore, we will have many countries with enrichment. Rather than this trend risking nonproliferation in the region, a multilateral enrichment nuclear arrangement in this region would be the best way out, where it would be fully under the control of International Atomic Energy Agency. And even the U.S., Russia, China, the world powers, they can participate. This would be international, like Urenco enrichment in Europe, where Germany, Spain, U.K., Netherlands, they have multilateral enrichment. Therefore, beyond of what already the nuclear negotiators during President Trump have achieved already, which is more than JCPOA during President Obama, they can have one more big deal on nuclear, which is regional, which will free the whole Persian Gulf from nuclear weapon.

And on the Strait of Hormuz, Iranians, they have not closed it. They say, if there is a deal, if the U.S. will accept not to attack Iran or to end the war, they will open it. Therefore, the U.S. can say, “OK, we will continue negotiations, but we are committed not to attack Iran for the fourth time maybe,” I mean, because once the U.S. indirectly cooperated with Saddam attacking Iran, providing material technology for Saddam to use chemical weapons in 1980s. The second war was in 2025. The third war was in 2026. And now the blockade is act of war again in 2026. If the U.S. is really serious for diplomacy, they can achieve diplomacy, but they should promise Iran not to attack Iran again. Then Iran will open the Hormuz issue. I mean, that would be a good solution.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I’d also like to ask Rob Malley the situation with Israel, which is not — which has been attacking Iran but is not part of the current negotiations. What do you feel has happened between Israel and the Trump administration? Is there a divergence occurring between the two?

ROBERT MALLEY: So, I think they have different objectives. I mean, first of all, we don’t know what President Trump’s objectives are, so it’s hard to say how they’re different or they’re similar to Israel’s. But I think Israel has been consistent in its actions. What it wants is to weaken its neighbors, whoever they are. I mean, it’s happened in Gaza, which they destroyed. The West Bank, you just saw — we just saw what they’re doing there. Lebanon, which we could talk about, which is — they’ve devastated the country. A million people now have fled the south. They’ve killed hundreds of people even since the recent ceasefire, which apparently didn’t apply to Lebanon. And they would like to weaken, fragment Iran as much as possible, because they have this view that this is their opportunity to extinguish any threat, real or pretextual, imminent or into the future.

That’s not really, I think, President Trump’s view. Again, it’s hard to define it. But what that means is, Israel would prefer to prolong this war as long as possible. I don’t think that that’s President Trump’s ambition. And I think the day President Trump says it’s it, I think he will — that Prime Minister Netanyahu will not be able to do anything but acquiesce. So, we have to wait for that moment to happen, for the president to tell the Israelis it’s over, it’s over both in Iran and in Lebanon. I’m not sure what he’ll say about Lebanon, but at least in Iran. I don’t think Prime Minister Netanyahu could afford to stand in his way.

AMY GOODMAN: And I wanted to ask you, finally, Ambassador Mousavian, about — we’ve talked to so many Iranian professors, dissidents, you know, the thousands of Iranians who were killed in the streets recently. And, I mean, we haven’t talked to them, but noting that. I wanted to ask you about the — my surprise at how many of those, even people who have been on death row in the Evin Prison, have condemned the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran. They say it will make the regime more right-wing, that this does not accomplish their ends. I’m wondering your thoughts on all of these people who are coming out now and saying they want to be in charge of their own country; they don’t want these outside forces, because they’re destroying Iran.

SEYED HOSSEIN MOUSAVIAN: I think what Americans, they need to understand is to have a clear distinction between Iranian unsatisfaction with the current governing system in Iran — I would say 80% of Iranians, they are not happy with the governing system. They have problem with economic inflation, poverty, corruption, I mean, mismanagement, dysfunctionality of the system, no doubt about it. I’m sure majority of Iranians, they want major reforms. They want — their main issue is about economic issue and corruption and mismanagement and dysfunctionality of the system.

Having said that, when they are attacked by the U.S., or specifically Israel more, I mean, the whole nation, they will be united to defend their integrity, independence, identity, especially when they are — they have been said, I mean, by the U.S. president, that he will eradicate the civilization of Iran, when the U.S. is saying Iranians are animal, when they said “bastard,” Iranian “bastards,” I mean such a wording, humiliation, threats, bullying, attacking. I mean, Iranians, we have had about 30,000 Iranians either killed or injured during the two wars, hundreds of millions of damages. Over 100,000 buildings, nonmilitary buildings, have been destroyed. And then it’s normal the nation would be united to defend its country.

AMY GOODMAN: I’m going to leave it there, but, of course, we will not leave the discussions about what’s happening there, as we continue to cover them every day on Democracy Now! Ambassador Hossein Mousavian served as spokesperson for Iran in its nuclear negotiations with the European Union from 2003 to 2005, also served as Iran’s ambassador to Germany. And Robert Malley served as the special envoy for Iran under President Biden, also served as one of the negotiators on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal under President Obama.

Coming up, the president versus the pope. We’ll speak with Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: “Rican Beach” by Alynda Segarra and Hurray for the Riff Raff, performing in our Democracy Now! studio. To see her performance at our 30th anniversary, along with Bruce Springsteen and Patti Smith and Michael Stipe, you can go to democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.