Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a Princeton University researcher and former Iranian ambassador, says U.S. President Donald Trump “has gone beyond threatening Iran”.

“Trump publicly has announced economic war, political war with Iran, short of military war,” Mousavian tells Democracy Now.

Following is a rush transcript of the interview sent to the Tehran Times:

Q: On Sunday, the U.S. Ambassador to Britain Woody Johnson wrote an op-ed in The Telegraph urging Britain to withdraw its support of the landmark 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Ambassador Johnson wrote, “America is turning up the pressure and we want the UK by our side.” Your answer please.

A: As you know, the Iranian nuclear deal was the result of 13 years of negotiation between Iran and the world powers. The U.S. engaged in negotiation in 2013 and had also bilateral meetings—intrusive, frequent bilateral meetings—from 2013 to 2015. Ultimately, Iran and the U.S., Iran, the world powers, agreed on the nuclear deal. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution approving the deal. And two years after deal, Iran has fully complied with all its commitments. The IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the sole agency responsible for supervising the nuclear program of member states, has 11 times since 2016 confirmed Iran’s full compliance with the nuclear deal.

Trump would not be able to create international consensus to reimpose new sanctions on Iran.Now, the U.S. is the only UN Security Council member who withdrew from the deal, who violated the deal. This is bad. This is a big mistake. This is a violation of international law and regulations by the United States of America. However, what you mentioned, the U.S. ambassador wrote an op-ed in London pressuring the UK to join the U.S. to violate the United Nations Security Council, and to withdraw from the deal. The U.S. is doing such a move with every European member. The U.S. is pushing all international community, all other countries, and this is really something very strange and perhaps unprecedented.
The United States is the most powerful country in the world and the most powerful member of the United Nations Security Council, which all five permanent members are responsible for full implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions passed by themselves. Now, not only the U.S. is violating the deal itself, but pushing the other international—other countries, other members of permanent Security Council, to violate the UN Security Council. This is really something unprecedented and very, very strange, and at the same time very dangerous for international peace, order and security.

Q:  Can you talk about the effects of the sanctions reimposed last week by President Trump against Iran?

A: I would say there would be an effect on Iranian economy. Iranians definitely would be harmed. I have no doubt about it. Already we have seen some negative consequences on the Iranian economy. However, I need to mention perhaps three points. The first point is the fact that Iran has been under U.S. sanctions for 40 years.

Therefore, I can say Iranians are the most experienced country and nation on the U.S. sanctions. They have been able to handle the U.S. sanctions, international sanctions, multilateral sanctions and survive and continue their strategies, domestically or regionally or internationally.

The second point is that during the first term of President Obama, the U.S. was able to create international consensus to bring UN Security Council sanction Iran. It means it was international consensus. Russia agreed. China agreed. It was because there were six UN resolutions on the Iranian nuclear program which Iran was not ready to accept. However, this time, while the deal has been achieved, while Iran has signed, the U.S. signed, the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council signed, the UN passed resolution and Iran has fully complied with every commitment.

Now the U.S. is practically isolated to bringing new sanctions or re-imposing the sanctions, and therefore the other countries like Russia, China, Europe, India, they are not going to violate the United Nations Security Council and they are going to continue business with Iran. Therefore, I believe President Trump would not be able to create international consensus reimposing the new sanctions. This is the second issue.

President Trump would fail to capitulate Iran to come to negotiations under sanctions and pressures.The third issue, which is I believe is more important—Iranian economy is under many, many difficulties like corruption, like dysfunctionality, like smuggling, like inflation and they have a lot of problems. This has been problem since 1979 when Saddam invaded Iran, Iran had eight years of war, and after war, the U.S. pushed for many, many sanctions against Iran. However, I believe at least 50 percent of the Iranian domestic economic problem is not because of the sanctions. They are because of the domestic dysfunctionality of different system, but this is the government or other system.

Therefore, if Iran is going to resist the sanctions, they would need to address the dysfunctionalities of their own system. Therefore, this is one reality about dysfunctionality of Iranian domestic economic system. The other reality is that the U.S. is not going to be able to create international consensus, and therefore, I believe Iran would be harmed, but President Trump would fail to capitulate Iran to come to negotiations under sanctions and pressures.

Q: Let me ask you about President Trump and his increasing threats against Iran in all caps tweet. Later, National Security Advisor John Bolton doubled down, saying, “President Trump told me that if Iran does anything at all to the negative, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid before.” This comes after, in May, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo using his first policy address as secretary of state to threaten Iran with the strongest sanctions in history. Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian, talk about what this means and also the possibility that Trump might meet with Rouhani in a kind of side meeting in New York at the UN General Assembly when world leaders come.

A: Let me respond to your questions. You have two questions. The first one is about threatening. I believe threatening is really bad, is against the United Nations charter. Whether if Iran is threatening the U.S. or the U.S. is threatening the Iranians, this is a clear violation of the UN charter. However, the fact is that President Trump has started to threaten Iran.

The first threatening was violation of the nuclear deal, violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution, violation of 11 resolutions of the IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency. The second threat came by President Trump administration was the official statement by John Bolton and Pompeo for regime change in Iran. They frequently mention that they are after regime change in Iran.

The third threat from the U.S. side was when the U.S. said they are going to bring Iranian oil export to zero. Therefore, I think already President Trump started, clicked the trend of threatening by regime change strategy, by all options on the table, including literally a strike on Iran by sanctioning Iran, by violating the nuclear deal, and by, for the first time it was a statement from the United States of America to say that they are going to bring Iranian oil export to zero. Even during the war, Saddam’s invasion of Iran, 1980 to 1988, when the U.S. was supporting Saddam in war against Iran, never the U.S. said that “I’m going to bring Iranian oil export to zero.”

That’s why I believe President Trump has gone beyond threatening Iran. President Trump publicly has announced economic war, political war with Iran, short of military war. Therefore, Iranians also they would respond and they would threaten the U.S. by closing the Strait of Hormuz in order not to let any other country to export oil if Iran is not permitted to export oil. That is why a threat is [inaudible] came for the first time from the U.S. side.

Now, about your second question, whether any negotiation would be possible or not. My first response is that while Iran and the U.S. already agreed on a deal and the U.S. violated it, how can Iranians trust the U.S. to enter a new negotiation? Let’s say there would be a new negotiation. Let’s say there would be an agreement with President Trump. Who can guarantee the next U.S. president would not come and would not violate it? President Obama agreed. It was not bilateral agreement; it was an international agreement.

It had UN resolution. Despite of all this, President Trump, after Obama, publicly said it was a bad mistake and, “Oh, I am going to kill it.” How the U.S. can assure Iranians if there is a negotiation, if there is an agreement, the next U.S. president is not going to do what President Trump did with Obama’s negotiation? This is the first question.

I can say Iranians are the most experienced country and nation on the U.S. sanctions. They have been able to handle the U.S. sanctions, international sanctions, multilateral sanctions and survive and continue their strategies, domestically or regionally or internationally.Second, what is the base? President Trump, if he really wants a normal relation with Iran, then we have three criteria. The first criteria is a Treaty of Amity between Iran and the U.S. signed 1955, which is for economic relations and consular rights. Yes, Iran and the U.S., they have many problems about their citizens in Iran, in the U.S., and there is already a treaty between Iran and the U.S. resolving all consular and citizen issues. Yes, President Trump is willing to have a share of the nuclear deal, to have economic share, to have some share for the U.S., but 1955 treaty has defined excellent economic relations between Iran and the U.S.

Iran recently has filed a lawsuit against the new sanctions imposed by the U.S. at the International Court in Hague, based on Treaty of Amity, 1955. When Iran is filing a lawsuit against the U.S. based on this amity treaty, it means Iran practically recognizes this amity. Now, this can be a criteria number one for President Trump to go back to the Treaty of Amity 1955 between Iran and the U.S.

The second is 1981 accord between Iran and the U.S. After 25 years of U.S. support for shah in Iran, dictatorship dominating Iran, there was a revolution. Iranians took some Americans as hostages in Iran. There was a big problem. Ultimately, Iran and the U.S. in 1981 met each other in Algeria and they signed an accord defining how Iran and the U.S. can have normal relations based on mutual respect and noninterference. This accord was signed between Iran and the U.S. Right after the signature, Iran freed the hostages and the U.S., rather than implementing this accord for a normal relation with Iran, the U.S. cut the relation with Iran and went to support Saddam Hussein invading Iran, participated in a war against Iran.

The third criteria is the nuclear deal, signed by the U.S., approved by the United Nations Security Council. President Trump should tell Iranian which of these treaties, agreements, accords, are going to be criteria for the future of Iran and the U.S. I think Iran and the U.S. already have two major accords, which really can create a new relation, can be foundation for a new relation between Iran and the U.S., but President Trump should assure Iran about the basis, about the foundation, about the criteria. The U.S. violated 1955 Treaty of Amity, the U.S. violated 1985 accord, and the U.S. violated the 2015 nuclear deal. Then what?

Q: What about President Trump threatening any country that does business with Iran, saying the U.S. won’t do business with them?

A: This is exactly what I said, a new and unprecedented phenomenon in international relations, because the nuclear deal has—it clearly states in the nuclear—I mean, you would see in the nuclear deal stating that all member, all signatories are committed to facilitate normal economic relation with Iran. Therefore, based on the nuclear deal, all signatories—Germany, Europeans, UK, France, Russia, China, and all other countries, including the U.S.-which is the signatory of the deal, is responsible for facilitating normal economic relation of other countries, between other countries and Iran.

Now, the U.S. withdrew from the deal, violated that agreement, imposed new sanctions. This is one big issue. The United Nations Security Council is violating its own resolution, the UN resolution. And the second unprecedented phenomenon is that the U.S. is pushing the other member states of United Nations Security Council to violate United Nations Security Council resolution to stop business with Iran. Therefore, the U.S. also should say, should tell its own people, international community—is really the United States of America responsible for implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution or blocking of implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions?

Q: As you teach at Princeton University, what do you think is the greatest misconception Americans have about Iran?

A: Iran and the U.S., they’ve had no relation for 40 years. Therefore, it is normal, it is natural that there are many misunderstandings, miscalculations, misperceptions on the American side and even on the Iranian side, to be fair. Iranians also they really cannot understand exactly what is going on in the U.S. The realities of United States is not well-known to Iranians. And more, the realities of Iranian domestic situation, political situation is not known to Americans.

Unfortunately, the President Trump administration has relied on enemies of Iran like terrorist groups of MEK, in Washington, getting their agenda from these terrorist groups. They are a terrorist group like ISIS, like Al-Qaeda. The biggest I think misperception and misunderstanding is that they think Iran is after destabilizing the region, while Iran is really after stabilizing the region because a dis-stable region, Iran would be the first or among the most important countries to suffer.

Iran really has invested in Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS in order to bring stability. Iran cooperated with the United States of America 2005 after the U.S. announced the War on Terror and attacked Afghanistan. Iran shaked hands with the United States to cooperate with the U.S. to fight [inaudible] and Taliban in Afghanistan. And after the fall of Saddam, practically Iranian allies, they supported, they cooperated with the U.S. to bring a new structure in Iraq which was based on the rule of majority, power-sharing, free election, new constitution. It was exactly what Iran and the U.S. experienced in Afghanistan in a joint cooperation, Iran and the U.S. experienced in Iraq, in a joint cooperation, and they have been fighting ISIS together, despite of all animosities and hostilities. Therefore, this is very important for the United States of America to understand what a real, legitimate security concern Iran has in the region in order to understand Iranian regional behavior.

The second big misunderstanding on the U.S. policy is that all administrations of the United States of America, they had the dual track policy, pressure and sanction, coercion strategy, and at the same time, asking for negotiation. They were thinking Iran would capitulate under pressures and sanctions and they would come to the negotiation table and they would accept whatever the United States is asking. This has been experience for 40 years by every administration, by the Democrat and Republican, and all have failed. And now the main U.S. concern today, after 40 years of military war, economic war, political war, intelligence war, covert war, cyber war against Iran—now the main U.S. complaint is that why Iran is the most powerful, most influential country in the region?

Now I am telling President Trump, if the United States has experienced every coercion strategy against Iran and failed after 40 years, now why you are going to experience again the policies which already has failed? Therefore, it is better to go back to the treaties already signed between Iran and the U.S.