welcome to RWFRWF home pageall documentariesprint this pagecontact RWFRWF newsmedia linksabout RWFby istomedia
Description of episodeRWF episode interviewsRWF episode scenarioRWF episode linksRWF episode photosRWF episode videosRWF episode feedbackWhistleblowersVideo of the WeekMosaic
Ημερομηνία Προβολής: 29-5-2008
Τίτλος :
ΕΠΙΘΕΣΗ ΣΤΟ ΙΡΑΝ: ΤΟ ΤΕΛΕΥΤΑΙΟ ΑΝΤΙΟ ΤΟΥ ΤΖΩΡΤΖ ΜΠΟΥΣ;
Θέμα :
ΙΡΑΚ - ΑΦΓΑΝΙΣΤΑΝ

Συνεντεύξεις

Seyed Rasoul Mousavi

 

Could you describe us the Iran s nuclear program and its goals?

 

Yes, about nuclear program, as many time by Iranian Afshar emphasize, that Iran only try to have nuclear technology without any military aims. Iran is a member of NPT. Iran never wants any point more than what have written in NPT. You know that on their article 4 of NPT every country has the right to have nuclear technology. So for this reason, Iran thinks that as a member of NPT, has this right. Iran emphasize these issues. Iran is a member of IAA. Every time try to go in a direction that to have this technology, and although there are some propaganda against Iran. But you know that in Greece and report by El Baradei, doctor El Baradei when Iran reached work plan with IAA, there were six question about Iran nuclear activities in the past. Iran could answer to all of these question. So you don t thinks there is no other question about Iran s nuclear activities in the past. So Iran at this time can answer to the all question which is related to this present activities. Now IAA inspector are in our countries they can monitor every Iranian activities about peaceful nuclear activities and, I think that, Iran believes that it s nuclear activities are natural and it is necessary Iran at this time must be recognized as other countries that follow peaceful nuclear technology.

 

You have described the nuclear program and the goals of Iranian government. What are you going to do to address the concerns as they are expressed as they have been expressed by the international community.

 

You know that when we talk about international community it is better we try to define what is international community. Whether it s international community is only united states and its allies or international community we can say that non ally country, 120 countries in non ally countries, 51 countries in Islamic world our neighbors all of them line to international community. Unfortunately when western countries, especially united states, talk about international community only they talk about united states and its allies. So we think that there is no concern in international community. You see in IAEA board, recently, there were a letter by more 120 non ally countries, all of them support Iran s nuclear peaceful activities. So I think that there is no concern about peaceful nuclear activities of Iran in international community, if we define this issue correctly.

 

In the last 2,3 years, at least 2 years, there was at least the countries outside the united states and outside Iran were was in something like a chess game between Iran and the united states, in the sense that the united states were threatening for more sections and implying that there might be a war. Were you was the government of Iran ever afraid that a war could take place? Is there such a possibility?

 

Yes, many time there was…there were many threat by united states and especially threat against Iran by war it is many time we have. Although this is a term, it is against international concepts, international agreement, it is against charter of united nation that there must be no any threat by one member of united states one member of united nation against the other member. Unfortunately we have this reality.

 

Iran was ever afraid of a war.

 

Yes.

 

It is afraid now of a war.

 

Yes, exactly. There are many times there were threat by united states against Iran. Although this is against united nation charter, that there must be no threat by one member against another. But unfortunately we have this reality. Many time united states threaten Iran. For example, Iran follow nuclear military activities. But we find that some times ago 16 agencies by united states NEI they openly talked about that Iran do not follow nuclear military activities. So you see that there is no any document for Iran nuclear activities in military aspects. Even in all of the IAEA report. Many time, all the time, IAEA report by... reported by El Baradei there is no document for Iran military activities in nuclear activities. So you see that all of these based on a very false base. So I think that this is one kind of propaganda against Iran.

 

So it is possible, many time we can say, that united states threaten Iran. But Iran understand the situation very well. Iran is in a very sensitive region. Iran is a very huge country with very, I can say that, very the people that they never threaten by other countries. So Iran have experience about war in Iraq 8... for 8 years. So I think that also strategic situation of Iran, the military of Iran, for this reason I think that Iran never afraid from united states invasion. Although it is possible there will be one strike. It is possible. But there is difference between strike and invasion. For invasion Iran never think about that. We think that strategically it is impossible. Iran is not Iraq. Iran is not another Afghanistan. Iran is a very... its own power. Iran has its own power, with the people who support the government. But it is possible. It is possible there will be one strike by assistance of Israel against Iran nuclear facilities,is... infrastructures. But I, myself, also think that it is not reasonable... or wisdom action. It is... I think that it is nearly impossible.

 

But how would Iran reply to such a?

 

Surely, if Iran believes that it is impossible to have any military operation against Iran in the region without any assistance in the region. So if there will be no security for Iran, I think that there will be no security for the region. It is reasonable strategy.

 

You mentioned before false information in propaganda. However in the case of Iraq one of the main insanities, lets say, for the American people, not the American government, to go there and to invade was, the so called, weapons of mass distractions that were never found.

 

Yes, exactly.

 

So do you think that such a propaganda game could happen in Iran?

 

Yes, exactly as you mentioned, that the main reason, at the first, that united states attacked to Iraq it was the propaganda that Sadam Hussein follow that well indeed. But, about Iran, I think that although there were many propaganda, but when you see that when inform intelligence of united states emphasize about this issue you  I mean that the report that distributed by NEI an... at that report also they emphasize that there is no any Iran s nuclear military activities. And although when you read the report by El Baradei  in its recent report and emphasizes that Iran could answer to all of the question belong to the past. And also, other information that every other country have this  about this issue. And experience of Iraq, I think that when we gather all of this issue in one platform might think that it is impossible again, even united states, to have another big mistake like Iraq.

 

One of the recent incidents that was described like, somehow, propaganda incident was the hormuz strait story. What happened there?

 

You know that united states also, the issue the videotape and also Iran another videotape showed that, there was there were a gap between 2 document. So every time there is a very a radio dialogue, the radio connection between Iranian military and united states navy. It is regular. Every day you can find like this radio connection. At that time, I think, that there was there were some I think that propaganda. And after Iran issue, its document, you saw that there were no other issue that they follow this document by united states.

 

So you are saying that it was a non incident?

 

Yes, exactly I say that it was not a non incident.

 

Ok. One of the main concerns of the united states and those who align  with them and oppose the Iran s nuclear program is that... is the case of Israel. Since Iran has rejects the existence of Israel. What... what... can the Iranian government reply to all that?

 

You know that these are different issues. Iran believes that occupation of Palestine is illegitimate. So never Iran can accept that, by any occupation you can make a legitimate estates. If there will be one day, a consensus between all Palestinian either Muslim or Christian or Jews. If they accept one country, one estate, never Iran will say anything against this acceptance.

 

So, at this time, you see that every day there are a lot of clash, clink, killing, killing the people, killing the children, killing the women, old men and so on. And Iran also believe that unfortunately the existence of Zionist regime at a very sensitive region immediately it makes unstability  non instability in the region. So, this is difference between one analysis and... the... any action against, or military action against one country in the region. So any analysis about the reality in the region it is something. Iran believes that until the time that the people of the…Palestinian with all reg... religion, they accept one plan for the future, there will be no peace in the region. This is one analysis. Political analysis. About threaten by Israel against Iran.

 

Yes, unfortunately, this is a reality. At this time Iran is a member of NPT. But Israel is not a member of NPT. There are more than 400 nuclear war head in Israel. And every time Israel threaten Iran and its peaceful nuclear activities. So Iran is against this kind of threaten by Israel and its national security. But beside all of this, never Iran threaten Israel by military. Never. Even president Ahmadinejad emphasize this issue very openly, that Iran is not any military threat for any country, even Israel. But politically, Iran has its own political analysis, and believes that without any solution, which accepted by all people of Palestinian, it is impossible we have peace in the region. And the other issue that…it is emphasize that Israel and Palestinian, Arab and Muslim and Christian are living in a very close... a very small region. How is it possible you threaten the Jews as say that we cannot threaten the Muslim. It is impossible. They are living in a very small region. So all of this is propaganda against Iran. Iran never threaten any country , even Israel by military, But politically yes. Iran will not accept the legitimacy of one estate that... which could make territory by occupation.

 

As I understand that the relations with the united states have never been ideal, between united states and Iran. However is it true that after 9/11 there was some kind of an effort to come closer?

 

Yes. You know that even at the beginning of new government after Islamic revolution, never Iran did any action against united states. Unless when our student found that there are some illegal action against revolution in united states embassy.

 

And Iran had very bad experience in 1953 when Iran national government, doctor Mossadegh, fell down by a coup by…organized by CIA. So it was very bad experience in our history and even you saw that united states  x foreign ministry forei... Madam Albright said this issue. So it was very bad experience for Iranian people when they found that they saw went to united states the Iranian people told that again united states want to have... organize another coup. For this reason the Iranian student went to the embassy of united states in Teheran.

 

fter that we found that many united states operation, many united states activities against Iranian interest. Even Iranian believe that the war by…that force by Sadam Hussein against Iran supported by united states. There are many document about this issue. After that unfortunately there were many escalation between Iran and U.S. relation. After 9/11 there were some activities, I can say that, by Iranian, especially when Iran have had against Taliban regime and also there were some cooperation between Iran and united states against Taliban regime.

 

In what sense?

 

In military. I can say that, without this assistance, it is impossible for united states to go forward against Taliban. And another issue, you know that when before 9th  before September 11 the only states that help to northern alliance of anti Taliban forces only Iran was. You know was the only country supported the anti Taliban forces in northern of Afghanistan. So Iran at that time believe.

 

So Iran was the one that influenced the northern alliance to cooperate?

 

Yes, exactly, to cooperate with united states forces. So at that time Iran thought that it is possible after this assistance it is possible that united states try to decrease its tension with Iran. Unfortunately we saw that president Bush named Iran as a access of evil. Exactly it was after this assistance. So after president Bush named Iran “access of evil” and united states the next operation in Iraq started, Iran was neutral at that time.

 

I have a question for you. I have in front of me an interview of  Flynt Leverett of national security council of the years 2002 and 2003, and he says that in these years there was a fax sent by the Swiss embassy of Teheran in which, then, the former Iranian government was trying was applying to the Americans for a greater cooperation. Are you aware of such a document?

 

Yes, exactly at that time there was many connection between Iran and united states even by Swiss embassy, or by mister Zarif, our in  head of the mission in New York, in united nation. There was some talking, especially after changing of government changing in Afghanistan. You know that Bon process was a very constructive role of Iran. Iran helped to united states in Bon very well. But unfortunately, as I mentioned, president Bush named Iran access of evil exactly after the Bon process, the Bon agreement that make new government in Afghanistan.

 

By way, before we get to the access of evil why was it chosen that a fax would be sent from the Swiss embassy and not something more formal?

 

It is a very, I can say that you know when 2 country have no direct relation it is necessary you act indirectly. When you send one letter, it is better that you stayed to see the reaction of the other side. So we have some bad experience with united states in different phase. For example in the at 19  I think that 82 when it was in Reagan period when there was  McFarlane came to Teheran, and there was a one plan that organize by united states. But when they failed they changed the  what they intended to do in Iran.

 

You refer to the Iran Contra?

 

Yes, exactly, they changed another issue. For this reason it is better when Iran wants to do some things, be very careful to talking to go forward. Because we think, that politically, united states also try to do something that they want to say that we are successful in every manner. So I think that tactically it is necessary to do something, because we don t want defeat in a political scene.

 

What was the reaction of the American administration? At that fax, at that effort.

 

I think that if there will be a positive action we were in another situation. But I when you see that after all of these activities president Bush named Iran access of evil it means that united states, unfortunately, were not honest in this regard. And let me I also add about another activity. President Ahmadinejad send a letter for president Bush and it was very official and open plan. But president Bush did not answer to this letter. In a diplomatic scene it was not very good reaction by president Bush. So you see that in many time Iran try to send many good message. But many time there were not good answer by united states. Iran at this time, you see that Iran and united states have many constructive negotiation about Iraq security. Although united states many time emphasize that yes this negotiation about security in Iraq are constructive and are very positive. But you see that in propaganda many they say that Iran is responsible in security in Iraq. It s a very I cannot name a very exact term any exact concept about this. Why in negotiation you say it s a constructive in the when you have an interview you say another thing. These are the fact between Iran and united states.

 

So you say that there is something like a double face policy?

 

Double face and more than double face.

 

However there were a lot of people, in the national security council, like Flynt Leverett and also I see Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, was in favor of a  cooperation between, even in the lower level, between the united states and Iran. Why do you think, what triggered Bush to say that Iran is part of the... of the access of evil? And how was such a declaration…what was the reaction of the... of Iran to such a declaration?

 

You know that this other question it is better to try to ask from Americans, for some of this question I have no answer. Because I cannot explain why united states, especially after many time that were very good atmosphere for go forward between the relation between nation between Iran and united states, and I think that U.S. government many time lose this opportunity. But I can say that for Iranian side never Iran try to do something that de stabilize the region, do something to be stand for more escalation. Iran thinks that the region it is better try to be stable. Iran never have any interest benefit in this stabilization in Afghanistan or in Iraq. So any action done by Iran until this time try to be a reasonable country logic by logic decision. But we know that there are many factors, there are many different parameter built maked united states policy. Lobby of Israelis, united states, different lobbies, different interest group. So all of these have their own influence in united states policy. I do believe that, for example, there are many obstacle in regional and international level about Iran and united states relation. Politically it is reasonable. So, I think that all of this gather in one big tank, so it makes the difficulty speak with Iran and U.S.

 

As we mentioned, it came to my mind now as we mentioned before the double face policy of the united states, do you think that there is difference, also in Iran, between the rhetorics and the actual efforts of president  towards the united states? Do you think that there are some elements that don t want that cooperation?

 

You see that, surely, in any country, in any estates there are some different face for their policy. Some policy is in journals, some policy is in for example mass media, in people between the people. But exact policy taken in the this is a maker in every close circle. So the main policy of Iran about –not only regarding to united states but about  in all countries, Iran believe that the role of Iran in international level must be constructive. In region Iran try to be responsible power. Iran try to be a rather constructive role in the security of region. But it is possible there are some activities against Iran, united states. For example ones to have regime change in Iran as many time, officially and unofficially, they talk about this issue, we see what happen in the region, in CIS countries, in our neighboring countries. We have many document about united states activities. About their regime. About their internal issues. So we do believe that we cannot let any foreign countries to have influence in our internal issues. If there will be no any action about in our internal issues, Iran has no any difficulties to talk with all countries.

 

Do you think that the American elections are going to change this situation?

 

After all revolution, the main issue, the main difficulties between Iran and U.S. is this. As I mentioned previously, that the reason for the taking the U.S. embassy by the student it was this fact. That they told that united states are acting making a program to change the government, as united states did in 1953 against Mossadegh government.

 

Do you think that there is a prospect? Do you think that it will be the same or there is a prospect of the relations between Iran and the united states to get better, if there is a change o government in the united states? In the sense that there was an escalation during the Bush years.

 

You see that Iran issue is a by partisan issue in united states, not one part issue. I do believe that, although the changing of Bush…the changing of Bush with other government, it is possible there will be some change in united states  foreign policy. But I do believe that the Iran issue is a by partisan issue. There will be some changing, but it is not a very radical change. But, for the prospect, I think that if there will be a reasonable decision talking there will be a reasonable people to think about the reality in our region  what s going in Iraq, what s going on Afghanistan, what s going on Persian Golf, and try to understand Iranian thinking, Iranian role, the role of Iran in the region. I think that prospect can be better than this current situation. 

 

What is the Iranian administration, what does it propose for the stabilization at least of  Iraq?

 

You know that, at this time, Iran only emphasize this issue that everything  that supported by the people of Iraq, Iran accept it. Iran support the constitution of the new constitution of Iraq. Iran supports the government which based on new constitution. And also Iran believes that the government of Iraq, which is supported by the people of Iraq, can securt secutorize the Iraq, so there is no need for foreign troops.

 

But there is another situation now that was triggered by the American invasion, which is something like a civil war between the Shia component and the Sunni component.

 

Iran believes that this struggle or component issue is artificial. It is not a real. It is possible you see some of these incident, but Ahl al Bayt is not a leader of Sunni people. Ahl al Bayt we believe that Ahl al Bayt even is not Shia or is not Sunni. Ahl al Bayt the people ofwho has any related to Ahl al Bayt, we believes that even they have many difficulties call him Shia or Sunni. They are against Islamic talk. They are against Islamic teaches. So if we separate Ahl al Bayt no there is no clash between Shia and Sunni.

 

Which could be the strategic partner for Iran?

 

I can say that Iran, when we review the history of Iran, Iran try to be a country which have good relation with all neighboring countries, with all countries in all of the world. But strategically, when we say that Iran try only to have one strategic partner with super powers, I do believe that no. Iran never follow this fact. The main aim of Islamic revolution at 1979, the main slogan was neither east nor west, in a by polar, international order. So, in this regard, I do believe that Iran never follow any dependence to any powers. Iran thinks that Iran is a regional power, so Iran can be a regional power without any dependence to any international power. Iran can play constructive role in regional without any  strategic dependence to any powers in world order.

 

Thank you very much.

 

 

Τα κείμενα που δημοσιεύονται αποτελούν την ακριβή απομαγνητοφώνηση των συνεντεύξεων, χωρίς καμία επεξεργασία.

<<< back

 

english version
ΕΠΙΒΙΩΝΟΝΤΑΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ ΜΕ 700 ΕΥΡΩ
 
ΕΠΙΘΕΣΗ ΣΤΟ ΙΡΑΝ: ΤΟ ΤΕΛΕΥΤΑΙΟ ΑΝΤΙΟ ΤΟΥ ΤΖΩΡΤΖ ΜΠΟΥΣ;
 
ΕΛΛΑΔΑ ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙΒΑΛΛΟΝ
 
Πληροφορίες για όλες τις εκπομπές