In a wide-ranging CBS News interview, the Iranian president discusses reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the breakdown of agreements with Washington, nuclear inspections, the new Supreme Leader, economic sanctions, domestic protests and the possibility of meeting Donald Trump.
By Mohammed Talha Siddi Bapa
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has said that his country remains prepared to negotiate with the United States and implement an agreement for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, but insists that Washington must first honour its previous commitments and restore the trust damaged by successive military confrontations and failed negotiations.
In an extensive interview with Margaret Brennan for CBS News’ Face the Nation, recorded in New York on September 25 and broadcast on September 27, Pezeshkian addressed some of the most difficult questions facing Iran during its continuing conflict with the United States and Israel. The conversation covered the proposed reopening of the strategic waterway, Iran’s nuclear programme, relations with the new Supreme Leader, economic hardships, allegations of human rights violations and the detention of American citizens.
A Proposal to Reopen the Strait of Hormuz
The interview began with Iran’s latest diplomatic proposal, communicated to Washington through intermediaries. Under the proposal described by Brennan, the Strait of Hormuz could reopen after seven days if Tehran’s conditions were fulfilled, creating an opportunity for discussions on ending the war and potentially addressing the nuclear dispute.
Pezeshkian said implementation could begin once the United States accepted the proposal. He referred to an earlier memorandum of understanding signed in Pakistan by himself and President Donald Trump, maintaining that both governments had initially agreed to proceed according to its provisions.
According to the Iranian president, the latest proposal follows the objectives of that earlier understanding but divides the obligations into stages. He argued that both countries had imposed restrictions and that reciprocal steps were necessary before broader negotiations could resume.
Brennan pressed him on the circumstances in which the previous arrangement collapsed. She referred to disagreements over shipping routes and incidents involving vessels travelling through passages that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) considered unauthorised. She also asked whether Iran intended to charge ships for transit through the strait.
Pezeshkian did not directly answer the question about transit charges. Instead, he maintained that disputes over the agreed shipping arrangements could have been settled through further discussions rather than allowing the understanding to collapse. He said that Iran and Oman were supposed to coordinate designated transit routes and that vessels using other routes were expected to seek coordination.
Asked whether he could guarantee that Iran’s military would respect a renewed agreement, he affirmed that Iran would honour its commitments, provided the agreed framework was observed. His responses placed the responsibility for the earlier breakdown largely on Washington and on failures to observe the agreed procedures.
Why Tehran Says It No Longer Trusts Washington
The discussion turned to the possibility of direct contact between Pezeshkian and Trump. Brennan pointed out that the American president had expressed willingness to meet his Iranian counterpart during his visit to the United States, but no meeting had taken place.
Pezeshkian responded by reviewing what he described as a succession of broken agreements and military attacks during periods of diplomacy. He recalled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear agreement reached after prolonged negotiations, from which the United States withdrew during Trump’s first presidency. He then referred to subsequent negotiations that, according to his account, were interrupted by military strikes against Iran. He accused the United States and Israel of attacking Iranian military commanders, scientists and officials during diplomatic processes. He also referred to the killing of Iran’s former Supreme Leader and to the deadly attack on a school in which approximately 168 children were killed. For Pezeshkian, these events formed the background against which any new negotiations would have to take place. He argued that signed commitments would have little value unless both parties were prepared to implement them.
He also said Washington needed to demonstrate that it was not seeking to overthrow Iran’s government. The president portrayed the fear of further attacks and political destabilisation as central obstacles to rebuilding confidence.
Brennan repeatedly sought a direct answer on whether he would meet Trump. Pezeshkian did not categorically exclude such a meeting, but continued to insist that trust and compliance with existing agreements had to come first.
The distinction was important. The Iranian president was not announcing an end to diplomatic engagement. He was making renewed engagement conditional on steps that, in Tehran’s view, would establish the credibility of American commitments.
Nuclear Programme and International Inspections
The nuclear dispute occupied another substantial part of the conversation. Brennan asked whether Iran’s latest diplomatic offer involved accepting limits on its nuclear programme without abandoning the programme altogether.
Pezeshkian indicated that restrictions could be negotiated within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other international arrangements. He reiterated Iran’s position that it was not seeking nuclear weapons and maintained that the country possessed rights under international law that should be respected.
Brennan challenged him over international verification. She cited the International Atomic Energy Agency’s concerns about insufficient access and its inability to provide assurances regarding the exclusively peaceful character of Iran’s nuclear activities. She also referred to an estimated 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 per cent, a level significantly above that ordinarily required for civilian nuclear power generation.
The interviewer asked whether Iran would permit inspectors to enter and verify that the material would not be used for weapons.
Pezeshkian responded by arguing that nuclear facilities operating under international safeguards should not have been subjected to military attacks. He criticised the IAEA’s response to strikes on Iranian nuclear installations and disputed the suggestion that Tehran alone was responsible for the breakdown of inspection arrangements.
He traced the deterioration of the nuclear agreement to the American withdrawal and what he described as the failure of European parties to fulfil their obligations. He said Iran had waited for a year before changing its own approach.
On the immediate question of inspections, however, his answer left room for negotiations. He indicated that fresh agreements on verification could be reached as part of a broader diplomatic settlement, rather than simply restoring inspections under the previous arrangements without negotiation.
Brennan’s questions underscored the difference between Iran’s declared opposition to nuclear weapons and the international demand for independent verification of its nuclear activities. Pezeshkian maintained that the dispute could be resolved through negotiated arrangements, while declining to announce unconditional access for inspectors.
The New Supreme Leader and Decision-Making in Iran
Brennan also questioned the Iranian president about the country’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father following the latter’s killing during the conflict.
Pezeshkian said he had met the new leader twice. Asked why the public had seen little of him since his succession in March, he linked the limited visibility to security concerns arising from Israeli and American attacks against senior Iranian figures.
Brennan asked whether Pezeshkian had required the Supreme Leader’s permission to travel to the United States. He explained that the government had informed the leadership of the visit but that foreign travel undertaken in the course of presidential responsibilities did not necessarily require permission in the manner suggested.
The interviewer also raised questions about the new leader’s recovery from injuries sustained in the strikes that killed members of his family. Pezeshkian, who is a physician, said he had participated in a meeting lasting more than seven hours and described the leader as having no continuing medical difficulties.
When Brennan asked whether the Supreme Leader supported negotiations with Washington, Pezeshkian described a coordinated decision-making process involving a six-member group drawn from different institutions, including security bodies, parliament and government agencies.
He maintained that the diplomatic positions being presented had emerged through consultations among the relevant authorities. His explanation was intended to establish that the proposals communicated to Washington were not merely personal initiatives but reflected coordination within Iran’s governing structure.
Why Pezeshkian Travelled to America During the War
Brennan drew attention to the unusual circumstances of the interview itself. Iran and the United States were engaged in an armed conflict, yet the Iranian president was sitting in New York, having entered the country with an American visa and receiving security protection. She asked why he considered the visit worth the personal risk.
Pezeshkian rejected the suggestion that he had spent the earlier months of the war hiding in a shelter. He said he had continued visiting ministries, meeting officials and participating in the administration of the country, while taking precautions to avoid becoming a military target. He presented his visit to New York as consistent with his responsibility to represent Iran and pursue its interests despite the conflict.
His answer also returned to a recurring theme of the interview: Iran’s demand to be treated with dignity and according to international law.
Sanctions, Economic Hardship and Civilian Suffering
The interview then addressed the economic consequences of the war. Brennan pointed to restrictions on Iranian oil exports, frozen financial assets, rising inflation and the pressure imposed by international sanctions.
She reminded Pezeshkian that he had campaigned on improving the economic circumstances of ordinary Iranians and asked when the financial burden might compel his government to make concessions.
The president condemned the sanctions, particularly their consequences for access to essential goods and medical supplies. He argued that economic restrictions directed against a government inevitably affected vulnerable civilians, including the elderly, the sick and poorer sections of society. He acknowledged that Iranians were experiencing hardship but maintained that the country continued to resist external pressure. He also accused the United States and Israel of serious violations of international humanitarian principles.
Brennan challenged his position by pointing out that sanctions relief was connected to international demands for assurances that Iran would not pursue nuclear weapons.
Pezeshkian rejected the premise that Iran had ever declared an intention to develop such weapons. He invoked the religious prohibition Fatwa on nuclear weapons attributed to the former Supreme Leader and maintained that this prohibition was rooted in religious conviction.
He argued that military attacks conducted while negotiations were underway had deepened Tehran’s belief that Washington’s objectives extended beyond resolving the nuclear dispute.
When Brennan returned to the Iranian government’s responsibility to improve living conditions, Pezeshkian said his administration was attempting to meet that responsibility but would not accept what he regarded as coercive demands.
Difficult Questions About Protests and Human Rights
One of the more pointed exchanges concerned the Iranian government’s treatment of domestic protesters.
Brennan referred to findings presented through the United Nations Human Rights Council. She noted that a report had identified grounds for believing that American airstrikes were responsible for the deadly attack on a girls’ school in Minab. She then raised the same report’s allegations that Iranian authorities had committed crimes against humanity in their response to protests. She asked whether Pezeshkian accepted the findings in their entirety.
The Iranian president did not directly accept the allegations concerning the government’s treatment of protesters. Instead, he argued that foreign intervention, economic sanctions and armed groups had contributed to the violence.
He claimed that more than 500 members of Iran’s security and military forces had been killed during the unrest and characterised some of the violence as an attempted overthrow of the government.
The interviewer reminded him of an earlier public apology in which he had acknowledged the suffering of people affected by the disturbances.
Pezeshkian confirmed that he had made the apology. He distinguished between people who had participated in genuine protests and armed individuals who, according to his account, had joined the demonstrations.
He acknowledged that innocent people had died and that events had taken place which should not have occurred. At the same time, he continued to attribute much of the violence to armed participants and alleged attempts at destabilisation.
The exchange exposed a significant disagreement between the interviewer and the Iranian president. Brennan sought accountability for the treatment of protesters, while Pezeshkian framed the unrest primarily through the government’s security concerns, although he recognised that innocent people had suffered.
His acknowledgement of civilian deaths did not amount to acceptance of the full findings cited by Brennan.
Detained Americans and the Question of Goodwill
Brennan next raised the detention of two American citizens whom the United States considers wrongfully imprisoned in Iran. She specifically mentioned journalist Reza Valizadeh, held in Evin prison. She asked whether releasing the detainees could serve as a gesture of goodwill and help rebuild confidence between the two governments.
Pezeshkian questioned whether such a step would produce the desired result. He referred to an earlier prisoner exchange arrangement under which, he said, Iran had released detainees in expectation of gaining access to Iranian funds held abroad. According to his account, money transferred from South Korea through arrangements involving Qatar had not subsequently become available to Iran as anticipated. He argued that Iran had fulfilled its obligations in the earlier arrangement without receiving the corresponding benefits.
Brennan pressed him on whether another goodwill gesture might be worth attempting. Pezeshkian maintained that previous experiences had left Tehran doubtful about the effectiveness of unilateral concessions. He did not announce the release of the two Americans or provide a timetable for resolving their cases.
The exchange illustrated another unresolved issue in the relationship. Washington regards the detainees’ continued imprisonment as wrongful, while the Iranian president connected the possibility of further gestures to broader questions of reciprocity and trust.
Would He Invite Trump to Iran?
As the interview approached its conclusion, Brennan returned to the question that had remained unanswered since the beginning: whether Pezeshkian would meet President Trump, perhaps even inviting him to Iran, to find a way out of the conflict.
The Iranian president again described the anger in his country following the killing of senior officials, scientists and the former Supreme Leader. He asked the interviewer to consider how Americans might respond if comparable attacks had taken place against their own leadership. Nevertheless, he stressed that Iran was continuing diplomatic engagement and seeking to advance its demands through international legal frameworks.
Pezeshkian maintained that Tehran was not seeking war and that the conflict had been imposed upon it. He said the Iranian government wanted the agreements already reached to be implemented before moving into another round of negotiations.
Brennan also raised threats directed against Trump and his family that had been attributed to Iran.
Pezeshkian sought to distinguish between statements made by individuals angered by the conflict and the intentions of the Iranian government. He argued that a government planning such attacks would not simultaneously be pursuing diplomatic negotiations. He also referred to the religious importance of the former Supreme Leader for his followers and the strong emotions surrounding his killing.
Pressed once more on whether domestic political circumstances made a meeting with Trump too difficult, Pezeshkian returned to the absence of trust. He argued that continued sanctions, threats and military strikes made it difficult for Tehran to believe that another agreement would be implemented.
His position throughout the interview remained substantially unchanged: direct negotiations were possible, but Iran wanted evidence that Washington would honour commitments and end the actions Tehran regarded as hostile.
Peace and Regional Relations
In the closing moments, Brennan expressed the hope that an agreement might still be reached despite the considerable differences described during the conversation.
Pezeshkian said he hoped peace would return to the region. He called on the United States to change its approach towards Israel and to act according to principles of justice and fairness. He criticised attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure and referred again to the suffering caused by the wider regional conflict.
When Brennan observed that Iran’s regional neighbours and the United States would raise similar concerns about Iranian actions, Pezeshkian maintained that Tehran did not seek conflict with neighbouring countries. He concluded by expressing Iran’s willingness to cooperate with other countries in developing the region.
The interview ended without an announcement of a meeting between the two presidents, a confirmed agreement on reopening the Strait of Hormuz or a new arrangement for international nuclear inspections.
What emerged was a detailed statement of the Iranian government’s position at a time when military confrontation and diplomatic contact were continuing simultaneously. Pezeshkian presented Iran as willing to negotiate but unwilling to proceed on the basis of assurances alone. Brennan’s questioning brought into the discussion the unresolved concerns surrounding nuclear verification, the treatment of protesters, detained Americans and the practical guarantees needed for any agreement to hold.
Whether the latest proposal leads to further negotiations will depend on decisions and actions not established by the interview itself. For the moment, Tehran has publicly outlined the conditions it says are necessary for another diplomatic opening, while significant questions raised during the conversation remain unanswered.
