In a newly published interview with The Economist, Sherman provides one of the most forthright and revealing insights into the U.S. approach toward Iran and the complex diplomacy behind the nuclear agreement. Her remarks—ranging from admitting that the U.S. started the antagonism, to emphasizing Obama’s pivotal role, to expressing remorse over past disrespect toward Iranians—make this interview a remarkable document in the broader conversation between civilizations amid power struggles.

A Historic Admission: “We Were the Ones Who Started It”

Perhaps the most striking moment in the interview is Sherman’s statement, seldom heard in official Washington discourse: “The United States started the hostility with Iran.” This admission not only acknowledges the CIA’s role in the August 19, 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh, but also implicitly places moral and historical responsibility on the U.S. for the deep-seated mistrust that has since defined U.S.-Iran relations. Sherman makes the remark while recalling America’s unconditional support for the Shah and the bloody consequences that followed.

While expressed in a media interview, this position could open a new space for rethinking how the West views modern Iranian history.

Enrichment: Where Diplomacy Meets Sovereignty

Sherman emphasizes the centrality of Iran’s right to enrich uranium during the talks, describing it as a “persistent demand.” This reflects a deeper American recognition that, for Tehran, enrichment isn’t just a technical or scientific issue—it is tightly linked to national sovereignty.

Iran repeatedly stated in the negotiations that its nuclear program was not a tool of aggression, but rather a symbol of scientific independence and indigenous capability. Sherman admits that the U.S. couldn’t “erase the knowledge Iranians had,” and could only put in place a monitoring framework.

These admissions reinforce Iran’s longstanding claim to a legitimate, peaceful nuclear program under international law.

Obama and Kerry: Between Trust and Fragility

Sherman highlights the crucial roles of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, saying none of the diplomatic progress would have been possible without full presidential backing. This underscores that the JCPOA was not some marginal policy—it was the result of a high-level political commitment in Washington. Yet the deal collapsed swiftly under Trump. Sherman plainly says: “I knew Trump would walk away from the deal.” This foresight reveals just how fragile U.S. decision-making can be, and serves as a warning: Iran should not base its national security on American promises that may not last.

From “Deception Is in Their DNA” to an Apology

One of the more emotionally charged moments in the interview is Sherman’s acknowledgment of her past mistake in insulting the Iranian people. Her infamous 2013 Senate comment—“Deception is in the DNA of the Iranians”—sparked outrage across Iran. Sherman now says she regrets the statement and has since apologized to Iranians through an official Persian-language media outlet.

This moment is significant not only ethically but strategically. It demonstrates that in international diplomacy, respect for national dignity can become a source of soft power and real influence. For Iran, this was a cultural victory and a setback for the language of contempt and discrimination that had once shaped American diplomatic discourse.

Was the Military Threat Ever Real?

In another part of the interview, Sherman discusses the threat of U.S. military action. She admits she didn’t know whether Iranians had taken the threat seriously, but notes that the option was “on the table”—even though she personally was not comfortable with it and believed it carried grave consequences.

This dual stance—talking tough while fearing escalation—reflects a deep contradiction in U.S. strategy. While publicly beating the drums of war, the administration remained wary of the fallout. In this environment, Iran’s strategy of defensive deterrence helped neutralize the threat on its own terms.

Complex Diplomacy vs. Simplistic Rhetoric

Sherman describes the negotiation process as extremely complex, especially in coordinating between parties—China, Russia, France, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S. This stands in contrast to later claims by some American politicians who labeled the JCPOA as “the worst deal in history.”

Sherman makes clear that every step required technical precision and political finesse, and that building a multilateral consensus was no easy feat. This validates what Iranian negotiators had repeatedly said: the JCPOA was the result of “intelligent resistance” and “dignified diplomacy.”

JCPOA: Agreement or Tragedy? Sherman’s Perspective

In closing, Sherman recalls the moment of signing the JCPOA as an emotional scene—John Kerry with tear-filled eyes speaking of war and peace. That image lent a human face to one of the most intricate agreements of the century. But the reality played out differently. Less than three years later, Trump unilaterally abandoned the deal, once again shattering the fragile process of trust-building.

Despite the pressures, Iran stayed committed to its principles and succeeded in maintaining its legal and moral standing on the world stage.

From a political and diplomatic perspective, Sherman’s interview is an important document. On one hand, it reflects on the roots of American hostility toward Iran; on the other, it acknowledges the strength, logic, and resilience of Iran’s negotiating team in the face of Western overreach.

And while the current diplomatic climate remains dark, narratives like this remind us that the realities of geopolitics are often tougher—and more revealing—than the stories governments like to tell.