13 September 2007
For Personal Use Only

• Source: BBC Monitoring Middle East

The Secretary of Iran’s National Security Council, Ali Larijani said that 5+1 countries had urged Iran to resolve the issues with the Agency and considered Iran’s move as positive. Referring to recent agreements between Iran and IAEA, Larijani said that they were based on “modalities” and frameworks from previous agreements. Larijani made these remarks during a live interview on Iranian television. The following is the text of the interview as broadcast by IRTV2 at 1916gmt on 9 September. Subheads inserted editorially:

On Iran nuclear talks with IAEA and EU

[Enadi] Dr Larijani, discussions between Iran and the Agency [IAEA] are the most important development in Iran’s nuclear case. The discussions have led to many results. I think there were three rounds of talks. My question is: what agreements have precisely been reached between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency?

[Larijani] In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. I thank you for arranging this meeting. As you are aware, background to the issue that is being currently discussed with the Agency. During the several rounds of talks with [EU High Representative] Mr [Javier] Solana, this initiative was finally put forward as a new direction.

Subsequently, extensive talks were held with Mr Al-Baradi’i in two sessions. The general framework of the issue was agreed with him. Then his deputies came to Iran and held several rounds of discussions. Then the talks continued in Vienna and finally in Tehran. These talks in fact became the main framework within which the issues with the Agency will be resolved. First, let us see what it is.

If we go back a few years, some countries used to somewhat sensationalize Iran’s nuclear issue, causing problems and always stressing that Iran had issues with the Agency and refused to resolve them. This was the excuse. Of course, it was an excuse because we did extensive work with the Agency, and some of this work was above and beyond. Even the additional protocol was being implemented voluntarily, before this happened. No matter how much more Iran did, they became more finicky. They took the case to the Security Council and it ran up against the reaction of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Many of the 5+1 countries said: Let us sit down and resolve the few issues that exist with the Agency in order for the point to be made quite clearly that, if that is their problem, a formula can be found for it. This was done by Iran as a fundamental step. At the talks with Mr Solana, the point was raised that we were taking a big step. In that agreement, we said above all that they should put down on paper all the problems that they claimed still existed, so that they were made clear. We cannot go on indefinitely, with new problems being raised every day. They should make it clear how many problems still exist from the past, as past problems will not be repeated. They should tell us how many remain. This was specified. Secondly, it was clarified when and which issue should be looked into, and by means of what mechanism, and how the Agency should announce the results. Then we should move on to the next issue. This was all stipulated. It means that there is nothing ambiguous now. The timetable, method and modality of all the raised issues have all been specified.

Transparency in Iran’s nuclear Programme

[Larijani continues] In a further step, we even managed to resolve the issues that could be resolved during that period. For example, over a long period, several inspectors came over to check out plutonium. If you remember, the issue of plutonium was one of the issues they talked about a great deal. We asked: What new issues do you have that we can resolve for you? We coordinated information with them. We held talks with them. It was stated in Mr Al-Baradi’i’s report that the issue had been concluded in compliance with our investigations.

Even regarding some of the inspections, such as the supervision of the Arak heavy water plant, which they claimed was a very important matter, we said: Go ahead and inspect it. Therefore, considering the fact that its direction is peaceful, Iran allowed all such inspections in a very transparent manner.

An important point that was also raised was that they said: We are suspicious of Iran’s enrichment programme. They even stated during the talks that it was not clear for what purpose we wished to use the enrichment process. By the way, we set up supervision of that matter as the first phase in the issue of the specified modality, so that they would know exactly how it was being done. In addition, that has been done. In fact, the whole process was devised this way. The direction of the work, the timetable and the method of the arrangement of the process was specified, and our duty and that of the Agency was defined at every stage. Ultimately, it was clarified that if all this were done, Iran’s case would become routine. That was included in the agreement. That is the sum total of what has been done. In my opinion, if they had regarded the matter fairly they would have seen that Iran took a very important and fundamental step within the framework of the NPT and the safeguard. If they do not seek adventurism and wish to resolve the issue, this has actually rendered their claims null and void and can normalize the conditions for Iran’s nuclear activities.

[Enadi] Dr Larijani, the issue of plutonium or the containers in Karaj has been straightened out and clarified. However, regarding other issues such as the metal [? warheads] and the P2 centrifuges, do you think they will be straightened out and the ambiguities removed by November, or Aban, which is the deadline set by Mr Al-Baradi’i.

[Larijani] They had conducted a great deal of investigation into the P1 and P2 [centrifuges], and in our opinion there is nothing very important in it. However, we have not closed the door on it. We have said: If you have any questions, regarding this matter, you can put forward your questions and you will be given the answers, because in our view there is no ambiguity in this matter. Yes, I hope that it can be done in that period. There is no ambiguity.

The US is never satisfied

[Enadi] An issue, which is very interesting in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s dealings with the Agency, is the US stance. While Iran and the Agency embarked on positive and improving cooperation - and Mr Al-Baradi’i, himself, has said that - the Americans are totally opposed to it and do not even hide their stance, in such a way that Mr Al-Baradi’i reacted to it. He said: Let us be the driver in this matter.

[Larijani] Backseat drivers.

[Enadi] Yes, the backseat drivers. He said: Do not poke your noses or interfere. The question is why America really continues its opposition. What does it seek?

[Larijani] I should say that their being the spoilsports has somewhat damaged their reputation. That is the case, not only in the nuclear issue, but also in other regional issues. Of course, they create problems for themselves. That is, they will be isolated and they will face problems. I recently saw that in a private interview Mr Bush said: Whenever I feel there are too many problems in my job I have a shoulder to cry on. I put my head on God’s shoulder and cry. Why do you create problems for yourself and the people in the region, so that you have to put your head on God’s shoulder and cry? Regarding Iran’s nuclear issue the truth of the matter is that in the past this issue has been a political excuse. If you remember, the proof and evidence of it was in America’s unilateral action and theorizing about pre-emptive action. They thought that this was the way to put pressure on Iran. There was a kind of captiousness hidden in it. Iran had previously come to extensive agreements with three European countries in order to resolve this issue. At Sa’dabad, in Paris and in Brussels, they said: You should temporarily postpone and then voluntarily implement the additional protocol. Then, in Paris and Brussels, practically all of Iran’s activities were postponed. They said: We do not even accept the 10 or 20 research centrifuges. Iran accepted all of it. It was postponed for two years, while they had said at Sa’dabad that it would only be for a few weeks. That was to counteract those excuses. It seemed that they are never satisfied. Later, they proposed an empty proposal to Iran. Mr Al-Baradi’i and Mr Solana are now saying that the proposal was a mistake.

Why did they do this? In fact, their aim is not for the issue to be clarified. Whenever it was about to be clarified, they would create a problem. In the period between the Sa’dabad talks and the end, whenever the matter was progressing on a normal course they would create a problem. Even last year, if you remember, certain agreements were reached in Berlin in Aban [month beginning 21October] last year. They disrupted them. In Shahrivar [month beginning 21 November] while we were in the middle of the talks, when the Lebanon incident occurred, Mr Kissinger embarked on theorizing, saying that in the midst of this confusion a resolution should be issued against Iran. They rushed into it and issued a resolution within 24 hours. Because of their captiousness, they try to take advantage of every situation and create a problem. The excuse that they said there had been ambiguities in Iran’s past is no longer valid. The past is open to discussion, come and resolve it. They have nothing, so they make excuses. In fact, they do not wish this issue to be resolved easily. What we must do is that, with patience and perseverance, we should move forward in a sensible way. We are true to our vows. We carry out what we undertake. We will put a stop to excessive demands. It is not as if the door is open in the face of any action. If their behaviour is reasonable, they will definitely receive a proper answer from Iran. If they wish to engage in adventurism, Iran will act in the way to make Mr Bush have a greater need for that shoulder to cry on.

I think that, in the present circumstances, many other countries have realized that Iran wishes to pursue a sensible course. Some of them have taken a stance; they have spoken out. Some of them have raised these points to us at talks with opened and closed doors. I think that what the Americans are doing should be ignored, because they suffer from a case of strategic confusion, both in this issue and in regional issues. Of course, one senses that they have problems in Iraq and other places. Our course should be sensible and precise, so that it is understood by everybody, and transparent.

US is exploiting international organizations

[Enadi] Dr Larijani, Iran, America, the EU, the Agency and Mr Al-Baradi’i, himself, play a role in the nuclear issue. Regarding Mr Al-Baradi’i, because of his stances in recent days, he has come under a great deal of pressure from America. He raised an issue once again, which is, the timeout plan, or a breather, or simultaneous suspension, that is, for the Security Council to suspend our case and for Iran to suspend [its nuclear activities]. Was this because of pressure? That is one point. The other one is, if Al-Baradi’i really believes that our cooperation with the Agency is moving forward, why is he raising the issue of timeout again?

[Larijani] Of course, the issue of timeout, as Mr Al-Baradi’i has mentioned, is not the same as what others wish. After Iran entered a new phase in terms of nuclear technology in the beginning of the year, Mr Al-Baradi’i declared that the time for suspension has passed. When a country obtains nuclear knowledge, it cannot be taken away from it by force. Therefore, new measures should be taken. The issue of timeout, or suspension, is not the same as what they, that is, the Americans, are saying. For that reason, they are not that keen on pursuing that idea. Mr Al-Baradi’i is saying: You should stop where you are. That means stopping in your current position.

[Enadi] That means we should not enter the industrial enrichment stage.

[Larijani] We should not go any further. They [Security Council] should do that [suspend the case against Iran]. In my opinion, this is a more sensible route, and it has been discussed with Mr Al-Baradi’i. I think that he has put forward this proposal in order to convince others [USA] to shed their extremist stance. Perhaps there is pressure. I have heard recently that there is a great deal of pressure on him.

[Enadi] That can be gleaned from their reaction.

[Larijani] Yes. Your guess is not wrong, in my opinion. In any case, it is perfectly obvious that the behaviour of the Americans towards the Agency is somewhat amateurish. Since the Agency is the only professional, international institution for this purpose, and you have given this agency the responsibility for this matter, therefore, you should welcome the fact that the Agency is becoming active. Iran’s stance is that, if you accept this international institution, let it do its job. You have never let it do its job properly. Even when Iran’s dossier went from the Agency to the Security council Mr Al-Baradi’i said: This was not the right thing to do. He did not accept this action. The ruling council held a session and those big countries did this through political pressure. I think that a part of the one-sided theory of the Americans concerning international organizations is that they should be obedient. That means it [USA] is ruining the reputation of international organizations. For that reason, the issue of the Security Council is becoming an artificial issue. See how much the number of the approvals of the Security Council has increased in the period since the downfall of the Soviet Union. It was not like that before; it was balanced. It is not like that now. It [USA] thinks that exploiting international organizations is a part of international management. That includes the issue of the agency. That is, naturally, invoking a reaction in other countries. That means if a country is a member of an international organization and instead of letting it fulfil its commitments, you derail them through pressure, and many countries would prefer not to be members. This would ultimately be harmful for global peace. Yes, there is pressure on him. I think that he has said some sensible things. This shows that this professional institution has taken a stand against their oppressive behaviour.

Iran cannot be coerced into beating a retreat

[Enadi] Mr Larijani, you mentioned that you held talks with Mr Solana in Aban [Iranian month starts on 21 October]. I think it was in the year 1384 [year beginning 21 March 2005]. Then the Americans caused problems and the matter was referred to the Security Council. There was the declaration in Farvardin 1385 [Iranian month starts on 21 March 2006] and there were [Resolutions] 1696 and 1737 and 1747. Now that Iran has commenced its cooperation with the Agency and there are positive signs, is there a concern that the Americans may make trouble again and sabotage the relations between Iran and the agency? How serious is that?

[Larijani] In fact, it was in last Shahrivar, when the war between Israel and Lebanon broke out, that they suddenly changed the direction of the talks and issued a resolution. At the same time, Mr Solana telephoned me and said: I am sorry. The saboteurs have done their job. It was obviously unnatural, because we were arranging the date for the next session when this happened. Then, through the mediation of Mr Kofi Anan and others, we replied to their proposed package and the talks took form on that basis. They were good and serious talks, during which certain agreements were reached. As you have said, the Americans created obstacles. Some time ago one of the ministers of a European countries said to me: Let us go back to the Berlin agreements. I said: you discarded the Berlin agreements. How is it that it has now become a holy grail and you are relying on it? He said: Certain things have happened. I said: What was it? He said: The truth of the matter is that some countries thought that if they issue two resolutions against you, you would retreat. That was the conception. I said: Is Iran’s thirst for knowledge now clear you. Therefore, do not play with it. Iran is not a country without roots. It has a history of civilization. You should know which country you are dealing with. I think that the realization has now come about that Iran will not retreat with such methods.

Now the question arises: Let us assume that the Americans wish to engage in adventurism. What would they gain? They wanted to issue a resolution so that Iran would accept suspension [of its nuclear programme]. Iran did not accept it. Because of your behaviour, Iran took its next important step. The same thing will happen if you issue another resolution. Therefore, it would be better for you to choose a sensible course and not take a previous route again which was a mistake. Iran has great capacity. You have put yourselves in a hole and are thrashing about. Come out of that hole and then you can see the world from another angle. Then you can use the capacity of others and show a better view of your behaviour to the world. Their record is very ugly for the Americans. The people in the region consider them as stubborn and trouble makers. You can change that. Even in Iraq, and elsewhere, you know that the views of the people of Iraq have changed about the presence of America. Their record was not as black in the beginning.

Regarding the nuclear issue, some time ago I saw that the Americans had conducted an opinion poll in a number of countries in the region, such as Saudi Arabic, UAE, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, who are all friends of America; they are not our friends. One of the questions was about the nuclear energy and Iran’s nuclear technology. About 80 per cent of them said: We agree that Iran should have that expertise. This shows that in spite of extensive propaganda, you were not able to change the views of the people and that they recognize what is right. They will not gain anything from the course they are pursuing. I think that the important countries who are members of the 5+1 have realized that they should adopt new tactics and initiatives. We have left the door open for this and we hope that their conditions will be more logical.

Iran is not playing for time

[Enadi] Dr Larijani, the ruling council session will be held tomorrow. The representatives of 35 member countries of the council will start their seasonal session. We also have Mr Al-Baradi’i’s report that includes the agreements reached between Iran and the agency. The America envoy Mr Gregory Schulte has taken the position that the Iranians have deceived the Agency again. There is also the adverse atmosphere that is being created there. In your view what will happen in tomorrow’s session?

[Larijani] Of course, it was a very bad thing he said, that Iran has deceived the Agency. The Agency is a professional organization. Mr Al-Baradi’i defended his views. There were no secrets either. All our agreements are on the Agency’s web site. It has been published. They can have a look and see which part was deception.

[Enadi] Do they believe that it is time wasting and buying time?

[Larijani] In fact, the issue of time wasting has been constantly raised for the past one and a half years. Whenever Iran came up with an initiative for coming out of these conditions and reaching an agreement, they said it is time wasting. Now the question is: What is the reason for this time wasting? Meaning, what would we gain from it? We have not suspended [our operations]. Even if you issue two more resolutions, we will not suspend them. I say it, here and now, suspension is not possible.

[Enadi] You said once that it has been erased from our nuclear literature.

[Larijani] What is the gain? What would it mean if there were no suspension? Unless they are the ones stalling for time. It means, they are using words and phrases so amateurishly that is worthy of themselves. How are we wasting time here? Some time ago, I heard that Mr Bush said: We are creating a threat of nuclear holocaust. A nuclear holocaust applies to a person who has the atomic bomb. It applies more to you than to us.

[Enadi] One who has used it.

[Larijani] Yes. How and why does it apply to us? They just say things like that. However, the point is that, tomorrow - of course the ruling council session may last for two or three days - I think that the countries will naturally express their views and Mr Al-Baradi’i will present his report. He will make a speech. There will be a summing up. What is important, in fact, is that with their behaviour and words they do not ruin a sensible course that the Agency has taken, with the help of Mr Solana and others, with Iran’s goodwill. There is no better alternative for it. They could use. Time will tell that Iran is sincere in its work. Others are engaged in adventurism.

I have said that if we do not accept something we say it clearly and that we do not stand on ceremony with anybody. Right from the start, we told them that we do not accept this suspension option and so forth, but we are prepared to talk about all issues. The same thing is true today. They thought that they could achieve something with their empty threats. They created problems both for themselves and for Iran. Now they have realized that that is not the case. We say that we are committed, that as a Muslim country we are bound to honour our commitments. We have told them that if you behave sensibly Iran will take steps to resolve this issue. If you are spoil sports that is another matter.

Europe is experiencing America’s unilateralism

[Enadi] Dr Larijani, I want to review America’s issue one more time, because I think that America’s stance is the reason behind Iran’s nuclear issue having become politicized. After Mr Al-Baradi’i said that our relations with Iran are positive, and, in fact, admonished those who beat the drums of war, Tom Casey, the spokesman of the US State Department, took a stand. He said: We are in favour of diplomatic talks. That means he implicitly stated that they do not want war. In the meantime, the American representative in the Agency said: we are looking for allies to issue the next resolution to impose sanctions against Iran. My question is, what formula are the Americans after? The resolution of Iran’s nuclear issue based on their own design, or [consensus in] the international community? How far will they go?

[Larijani] There is a kind of confusion in their comments. Meaning, when one sees the samples of the work of their media, or the stances of their politicians, from various factions, one sees that there are several extreme points in them. This can be seen about other regional issues. They claim that they wish to act in line with the international community, but it is perfectly clear that they are following the unilateralist theory in this issue, too. Perhaps that has become much more clear in the recently issue. That is, the stance of many countries is reasonable, even the EU has adopted a reasonable stance. Although we may have certain differences of opinion - we are not saying that we have no differences of opinion with others - but they praise what has been done properly. That means, after the agency’s report was presented many countries adopted a sensible stance. In fact, in the past they said: Iran must suspend [its operations] before we, in the form of 5+1, discuss the nuclear issue with Iran, and there was that disgraceful message from their foreign minister. Well, this chapter is closed. Why do you live in the past? Time has passed and everything has changed. You have done a few things; we have done a few things.

The Al-Baradi’i solution can succeed

[Enadi] Do you mean if another resolution were passed, your stance would not change?

[Larijani] Yes. No one can ignore the nation’s rights in this case, but at the same time, we do not want others to have doubts about Iran. What we did was to remove doubts. We do not doubt ourselves. Others doubt us. We have tried to remove those doubts. Therefore, that sort of approach will not have the desired result for them either. They want to prove that whatever they say will go. That will have horrendous costs for the Americans. Their interaction with a country such as Iran with its capabilities can be much more comprehensive than this. They have entangled themselves in a Taboo whereby because Mrs Rice has mentioned suspension, they have to follow in that direction. It is ridiculous. A while ago Mr Gary Sick, one the American intellectuals, had responded to Mr Schulte from the IAEA that if Iran agrees to suspend its nuclear activities, then what is left to discuss? This is strange. We want to negotiate about enrichment and they want to remove the whole issue and then negotiate.

Therefore, I think this chapter is closed. We have to find new ways to solve this problem. Mr Al-Baradi’i’s action is in fact a response to today’s situation. I think this can be very successful. We have to go ahead with it and see what happens.

[Enadi] Tomorrow the foreign minister of the EU will have a meeting in Brussels. Iran’s nuclear case will not be on their agenda. My question is: Is the EU distancing itself from America by leaving Iran off its agenda. Is it a tactical move in order to find out where the IAEA-Iran negotiations will end, given that Mr Al-Baradi’i has announced that by November it will become clear how serious Iran.

[Larijani] At least, some of the European countries have told us in our talks that they consider this approach logical and have encouraged us. The same goes with some non-European countries such as Russia and China. They gave us the same advice in the past too. Mr Ivanov, who is in charge of this case in Russia, used to say during the negotiations: We have talked to Mr Al-Baradi’i and these few issues [change of thought].

Tolerance for American obstinacy is wearing thing

[Larijani continues] However, you look at it; I think the Europeans are fed up with the Americans’ obstinacy. The outcome of this [American approach] in the region has not been favourable. It was clear in the statement issued by the European countries about Palestine and Hamas, that America’s denial approach towards Iran and other regional countries was not acceptable for some countries.

They may keep silent under pressure from America or for example make a stance for appearance sake, but in private sessions, they say it explicitly. One day in one of the meeting with a European leader, we were discussing Iraq, the damages inflicted on that country and America’s failures in Iraq. He said something interesting. He said: It is right that America inflicted all these damages on Iraq and there is no doubt that the Americans failed in Iraq, but the occupation of Iraq had one advantage, and that is: from now on no one would dream of occupying another country.

You see, this thought entertains theirs minds. Even in the regional countries where there is a great deal of activities and there are talks of a coalition, you must sit down with the leaders of these countries and listen to what they say. They are worried. One of the high-ranking officials of the regional countries, whom I cannot name because he is good friends with the Americans and has good relations with us, said that the Americans have small heads over huge bodies, or act like a 15 year old but believe that they are very old. This is the image they have of the Americans.

There is not one country that does not ridicule the Greater Middle East theory. Well, your partners in the region are these countries. They may not say anything in front of you but when you turn around, they say what they want to say. When you put them under pressure, they have to change their words. The same goes for Europe. A great number of European countries believe that America’s extremism and unilateralism rubes them too of opportunities.

[Enadi] Do you mean that some of them have come to this conclusion and their stance is not just tactical?

[Larijani] Yes, they have certain interests in bilateral or regional issues. They feel that they [the Americans] are creating obstacles. For example on the issue of Lebanon, the European and regional countries repeatedly wanted to help the issue be resolved. Only one country did not want to play [presumably the US]. Everyone found it tiresome. During our meetings, they [European countries] used to tell us that they [the Americans] behaved audaciously. This has caused them [European countries] pay particular attention to the issue. I mean, they feel that they need to have their interest in mind; in the meantime they do not want to openly take a defensive shield against the US, but they are doing what they think is right.

[Enadi] Dr Larijani, on the nuclear issue, now, we do not seem to have open cooperation or active diplomacy with Russia and China and more attention is given to the cooperation between Iran and the Agency. What is the role of China and Russia in this issue [Iran’s nuclear case]? Are they purely watching the developments or we are actually continuing diplomacy with them?

[Larijani] No, we are definitely continuing diplomacy with them. I mean, many negotiations are taking place between Iran, Russia, China and European countries. In principle, the nuclear issue, as well as other collaboration that are taking place in various fields cannot be resolved unilaterally. The Agency is a place where the technical issues need to be resolved. Naturally, we need to continue consultation with others this is what diplomacy means. The Islamic Republic is paying costs for diplomats to go and consult with others. We had consultations with Russia and had extensive talks with the Chinese in our recent visit. Some delegations held talks with the Europeans. I also have contacts with them, some are unofficial and some are over the phone. We are continuing our talks and we think they are very useful. They help all parties reach a common understanding over the issue. Many of these measures were taken upon recommendations of other countries so that they are kept in the loop of what is happening. We are definitely continuing consultations with them.

On the Bushehr nuclear power plant

[Enadi] Dr Larijani, one of issue that is discussed in the media in the past few days is the Bushehr nuclear plant. Based on the agreements made previously, it was agreed that the plant will become operational on a trial run basis by Shahrivar [September] and fully operational by Aban [November]. The Russian company is talking about making the plant operational in 2008. On Thursday [6 September] you said that you had talks and made agreements in this regard. Does this mean that the plant will become operational by the end of this year or will there be further postponements?

[Larijani] As you just said, Bushehr nuclear plant was meant to become operation in another timeframe. Completion of Bushehr nuclear plant takes a long process. First, another country wanted to make the plant operational, and then it was handed over to Russia. We have had many difficulties in the process. Of course, we have had negotiations with Russia recently, certain agreements have been reached on the expert level, and senior officials of the two countries must hold meetings as soon as possible to finalize the issue. We have reached agreements on the outstanding issues.

[Enadi] They were supposed to deliver nuclear fuel to Iran in March, I mean six months ago.

[Larijani] Well, there have been delays. According to new agreements made on the expert level, the issue related to fuel, its delivery has been addressed, and certain framework has been set up. I believe if an agreement is signed and things are finalized within the next six months, things will progress.

[Enadi] This means that the plant will be completed in 2008.

[Larijani] Well, we do not have much time left until 2008, only two or three months until 2008. Two or three months are not a long timeframe. If completion takes place within a reasonable timescale of about six months, we will still be happy and we will pass this phase.

[Enadi] Dr Larijani, just to let you know that since we started the interview, many viewers have sent SMS messages thanking you and your colleagues for all your efforts and for not backing down on Iranian nation’s right to nuclear technology.

[Larijani] Thank you very much.

[Enadi] If you agree, I want to leave the nuclear issue aside now and talk about regional developments.

[Larijani] When we come here, we should follow your orders [says jokingly].

[Enadi] laughs.

The situation of the Americans in Iraq

[Larijani] On the issue of Iraq, you are aware that the rift between the Congress and the White House is widening and Democrats are putting a great pressure on Bush’s administration and Bush is due to submit the Petraeus and Crocker on Iraq to the Congress on 24 Shahrivar [15 September]. In the meanwhile, apart from the nuclear holocaust comment, Bush and other American officials are still making allegations against Iran. The question is: What is causing problems for the Americans in Iraq?

[Larijani] It is in fact clear for them what the root of the problem is. They have gone down a wrong path.

[Enadi] They think that others have created problems for them.

[Larijani] This attitude is really a flight forward. I heard reports a while ago that they [Americans] claimed they had arrested 50 IRGC personnel in Iraq. If one is lying, one should lie in a way that can be proved in the international scene. We asked them to disclose four or five of these names to us. Why have they not done so? If they announce, in an official statement, that they have arrested 50 people, why do they not give us four or five names? We have even asked the Swiss Embassy to provide us with those names.

If anyone thinks that the problems will be resolved by these actions, they are making a strategic mistake. Look, in the Iraq scene, the reality is that they have gone down a route and it is not easy for them to accept their mistakes. They want to cover their mistakes somehow and let the issue pass. We have no problems with them covering their mistakes but they need to behave properly in the field. We take no issue with them wanting to save face but they cannot take a different line in their deeds. If we want to make a brief and accurate comment, it would be this: The Americans are faced with two main challenges; terrorism and occupation. These two are interrelated. They [Americans] do not want to accept that they have occupied a country for four years and have a left a dark record - a very important factor that they do not want to understand. You [America] have sent 140,000 soldiers to Iraq. You insulted the Iraqi people, looted people’s property, left 700,000 Iraqis killed and injured. These are not minor damages. You have ruined Iraq. We must ask America: What have you done? What have you left in your records in Iraq? How many bridges have you built? How many roads, hospitals and schools have you built? What have you done?

When you see Baghdad, it looks like a bulldozed city where they have built their garrisons in. Well, the Iraqi people are very dignified. They see the situation. That is why they are furious. Besides, from the social psychological point of view, which occupied country do you know whose people and youth can be silent against the forces of an occupying country?

They came to Iraq under the pretext that they wanted to topple Saddam Husain and bring democracy to Iraq. You [America] are transgressing against the people why do not you leave them alone.

[Larijani] This resulted in the rise of terrorism there. This is their main entanglement.

Now they are taking about the report of their military commander and such thing. I think if they were to act logically then they would have to determine a process by which they hand the responsibility over to the Iraqi government. There is no other solution. These flights forward and shifting the responsibility to other people will have no actual benefits for them. They might be able to make some noise, but that will eventually recede, as was the case with the IRGC.

[Enadi] Dr Larijani there was a meeting in Baghdad today in which Iraq’s neighbours, the permanent members of the UNSC and the G8 participated. This was the second meeting of its kind. Do you think such meetings will affect a resolution to the Iraqi problem?

[Larijani] it will have little impact, such meetings are generally -

[Enadi] Diplomatic?

[Larijani] - political in nature. They are useful; I am not disputing their usefulness if there is follow up. Some of the countries that speak loudest about the security situation in Iraq push the terrorists there from their own countries. Some of the smaller countries in the region and in the future they must be identified. They are very small but they spend money in Iraq to foment a Shi’i vs. Sunni war. Then they come [to these meetings] and speak out. In my opinion, there are several messages in the Iraq situation. The first one is to the Americans. You should realize that with this kind of behaviour, the longer you stay, the deeper you sink. It is never too late to rectify a mistake. The solution is to have faith and relinquish control to the Iraqi government. This is a democratically elected government. Iran was the first nation in the region to support this process. The second message for some countries in the region that have erred in the past, they made huge mistakes for example during the Iraqi Intifada and in their support of Saddam. They should not fall into the same wasteland. Iraq is not a small country and the clock cannot be turned back on the awakening of the Iraqi people. Over the past few days, we have observed America’s contradictory behaviour. It appears that there was even diplomacy with other countries. What did they do? Mr Iyad Alawi announced Izzat Ebrahim, who was one of Saddam’s deputies, is a criminal of the first order and was an official of the Ba’th party, had met several times with the Americans both in Iraq and in another Arab country. The Americans are offering a 10m dollar reward for information leading to the apprehension of this very same Izzat Ebrahim. What is the meaning of such inconsistencies?

When you arrived in Iraq, you said you wanted to destroy the Ba’th party, then you put a 10m dollar reward on Izzat Ebrahim’s head, then you go and met with him so that Mr Iyad Alawi can say that this was a milestone event and some agreements were reached with the Americans. The message that the situation in Iraq is sending to America and some nations in the region is that your mistakes will come back to haunt you later. Of course, these meetings could be beneficial. More important than these meetings are deeds and I hope we will see a difference in Iraq.

Iran-US dialogue on Iraq is beneficial

[Enadi] There have been three rounds of talks between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States about Iraq. The firsts one was on 7 Khordad [28 May]. What is the most important outcome of these talks? Even today during the neighbours meeting there was a trading of accusations between Iranian and American representatives.

[Larijani] During these three rounds, a number of issues including the establishment of security in Iraq were discussed. They expressed their opinions, which were informed by the road they have taken. Iran proposed possible solutions. Iran presented a well-considered plan for establishing peace and assisting the Iraqi government. If they act logically that line of action could prove effective. It will also be good for them, as it will help them pass through this crisis. The evidence shows that they are acting with greater understanding, but the opposite is also true. I am not saying that all is going well. I have already said there is observable anxiety in their strategy. I mentioned Izzat Ebrahim; there is also the issue of the Mojahedin [MKO]. The Americans are saying that the MKO is a terrorist group. However, a while back we heard that some Pentagon officials had met with the MKO and asked to see their plan for Iran. The pitiful creatures went away and wrote an eighteen-month plan. Then, they [US] thought maybe they [MKO] are not made of the right stuff. They turned around and said no we are not looking for such plans. Give us a two-week plan. This is not a logical way to behave. Another example is Pezhak. Iran is an important country. These moths cannot do anything for Iran, this will become apparent very quickly and that will only tarnish your image. They are in error. However, there are examples of more reasonable behaviour. I noticed Mr Bush saying that we [the US] feel we need to reduce our troops. This is accurate - their benefit is in giving responsibility to the Iraqi government, in non-interference and in planned troop withdrawals. There are both things and we have to see how they behave.

[Enadi] Do you think continued negotiations will benefit the Islamic Republic?

[Larijani] Certainly, a sustainable and democratic government in Iraq, one that has solved security issues and has allowed people to taste development and reconstruction is to the region’s benefit. Iran does not hold the people of Iraq responsible for the damage we sustained at the hand of Saddam. The Iraqi people are honourable. Security there means security in Iran. Therefore, assisting them will not hurt us.

[Reporter] thank you very much, I have more questions but we are out of time.

[Larijani] good luck to you.

Source: Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 2, Tehran, in Persian 1916 gmt 9 Sep 07

Filed by Ivana Jankovic under Energy and Nuclear Safety, Arms Control, Proliferation and WMD, Conflict Prevention and Human Security