The
following is the full text of an interview with Ali Akbar Velayati, the
Leader's advisor on foreign affairs, about the nuclear
negotiations.
Interviewer: Throughout the nuclear negotiations, Iran has been committed to diplomatic principles, but when we look at the American side, we see that not only has it not decreased its threats, but it has in fact increased them. Why does America insist on threatening Iran with military attack- whether it can or cannot carry it out?
Velayati: This American notion and viewpoint dates back to the time - particularly, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union - when they used to think that they could interfere wherever they wanted and they did not see any obstacles on their way. In the year 1990 or 1991, Bush father participated in a ceremony of the American Navy and he said that, today America is the only superpower in the world. They addressed all issues with the illusion of a uni-polar world. Ever since then, they engaged in illegitimate interferences without any international support. They did this particularly in Islamic countries including Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq.
Of course, the important point is that they were defeated in all these events and they did not reach their goals. In the present time, out of that uni-polar thought and notion, only an illusion has remained for the Americans. In fact, America has turned into a "Don Quixote". It is drowned in the illusion of being a superpower and it threatens others by only relying on its past.
Without a doubt, these threats against Iran have no practical backing. The experience that America has in countries weaker than Iran is a failed experience. For this reason, one of the promises that the current American president gave in his first term was to bring back American forces wherever they were involved and to decrease their military interferences as much as they could. Therefore, such claims contradict their general policies. Iran has a long history of hearing these threats and today, these threats are the emptiest threats throughout the history of the Islamic Revolution. So, the first point is that they do not have the courage to carry out their threats.
The second point is that, if the nuclear negotiations are supposed to work well, they should be conducted in a balanced way and in a cooperative environment. Negotiations should be conducted on the basis of initial terms and agreements. The Americans should not continue to employ their old method by issuing threats and trying to reach their goals with political hypocrisy. On the one hand, the American president says that if the Congress wants to do something, he will veto it and on the other hand, he gives his blessing to possible bills against the process of negotiations. This is a contradiction in words and actions. And when threats are added to these contradictions, one of the consequences is that the very essence of negotiations is endangered. Therefore, we advise them to stop issuing threats because they are not justifiable.
The American secretary of state says something to our negotiating officials in private and he says a completely different thing in public. This brings more disadvantages than advantages to the Americans and it disturbs the balance that exists between Iran and 5+1. The Iranian side interprets this course of action as greed. For this reason, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution stated that negotiations under the shadow of threats are meaningless. So, if they want to continue doing this, the continuation of the negotiations will be endangered.
Interviewer: Considering the threats that the Americans issue every day, is it possible to reach a good agreement?
Velayati: Of course, the issue is not only about threats. The Americans have other claims as well and these claims raise doubts about the possibility of reaching an agreement. For example, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution and the honorable President [of Iran] announced a common viewpoint on a certain day. They said that the issue of limiting the peaceful nuclear activities of Iran and lifting sanctions should begin simultaneously. This is while they say that first, Iran should fulfill its commitments - that is to say, limiting the number of centrifuges and the amount of enriched uranium that it can keep - and second, the International Atomic Energy Agency should confirm it so that they can fulfill their commitments.
This is unreasonable in practice considering our history with the Agency. We are not at all sure whether the Agency is under the influence of 5+1 members or not and whether its judgments are fair or not. Therefore, lifting sanctions and limiting the peaceful nuclear activities of Iran should be done together and at the same time. The statements by the Americans have serious differences with the decisions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Another matter is about the time span that the Americans speak about. Someone says that limiting Iran's activities will last for 10 years. Someone else says that it will last 15 years and another person speaks about a 25-year term. These time spans are not accepted by Iran.
The third point is they have said that they want to visit some of our centers which include some of our military centers. The Leader has said in his speeches that military officials are not allowed to let any person investigate the defense systems of the Islamic Republic of Iran. These matters are part of the security of the Islamic Republic of Iran and such permission has not been granted by the Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian Armed Forces. However, they constantly repeat that they should see our centers.
These matters are among the red lines, but they insist on breaking and crossing them. This is an obstacle in itself. The Leader of the Islamic Revolution has stressed that red lines should be observed. Of course, our negotiating team is committed to these red lines and they should observe them. The responsibility of all those people who are involved in this area or who give their opinion in this regard is to observe the red lines. I stress that the announced red lines are definite and that they should not be ignored by negotiators in any way.
Interviewer: In his speech in the meeting with teachers, the Leader pointed out that if America does not need these negotiations more than us, at least it does not need it less than us. What is this need?
Velayati: They are trying to say that their diplomacy - limiting Iran's nuclear activities, imposing sanctions and laying an economic siege which began a long time ago and which was strengthened during the time of Obama - is more efficient than military threats. Of course, contrary to what they say, their military option is "still on the table", but they want to say to their rivals that, when you began military threats against Iran, they continued doing what they were doing before and they managed to build 19,000 centrifuges compared to the limited amount that they had before that. However, when we began negotiating with them, Iran finally agreed to stop its activities for a while. In this way, they want to say that their diplomacy has been more efficient. If they want to prove that this method is more efficient, they should do something to make negotiations produce results.
Besides, in the present time, West Asia is suffering from different crises and America - as a country which continues to have the illusion of being a superpower in the world - does not have the capability to resolve these crises. America has failed whether in its direct military interferences or in waging wars between various sides by using its mercenaries. America was defeated in Iraq. Even its assistance in forming terrorist groups such as DAESH could not help them in any way. If it had not been for Ayatollah Sistani's fatwa, the determination of the youth and popular forces of Iraq, and Iran's indirect help, DAESH would have seized control of Baghdad and the Americans would hot have prevented them from doing so. In fact, by using DAESH, they were trying to take away Iraq from the current democratic government - which has been formed on the basis of the people's requests - so that they could exert their own influence, but they failed to do so.
In Syria too, they said that they would depose Bashar Assad, but they failed again. Both the Americans and their agents in the region used to say this, but today - after the passage of more than four years - Bashar Assad is standing firm. Once, the hostile mercenaries who are fighting in Syria today - they entered Syria through the borders of a certain regional country and they are supported by the likes of Saudi Arabia - reached only a few kilometers away from the office of the current President of Syria. But today, Damascus is a peaceful and completely secure city. The government is doing its work and it has stood firm against mercenary terrorists.
They did not succeed in Lebanon either. In Lebanon, they wanted to bring to power certain people as the president or the prime minister so that they would change the path, but the people of Lebanon did not allow them to do so. In Yemen too, the Americans and the Saudis were not successful. So, they did not achieve any result from their direct and indirect wars and interferences. They want to say that they have entered into negotiations with the Iranians and that this is a successful method. Therefore, they need these negotiations to produce results.
We should not think that the Americans want to be generous towards the Islamic Republic and that this is why they have entered into negotiations with us. This is definitely not the case. Before negotiations began and before they reached this point, they constantly sent messages - in different ways and through some regional governments which are Iran's friends - saying that they want to negotiate with us and that they promise to formally recognize the nuclear rights of Iran.
Interviewer: Why did they not act on it?
Velayati: They did not honor their promise because this is their goal and their habit. After negotiations resume, they will go back on their initial promises step by step. The important point is that whenever they negotiate with us, they break their promises, repeat the issues about which some agreement had been made and bring up new claims and ideas. This means that the Americans still have that greed and that they think they can force Iran - with psychological warfare and propaganda and by prolonging events - into conceding the most points and securing the least.
Interviewer: After the Lausanne negotiations - which were conducted in Farvardin of the year 1394 - we still witness that the Americans break their promises. Please give some examples in this regard.
Velayati: For example on the issue of Fordo, after the great efforts that our negotiating team made, they reached an agreement. But the next time the Americans came to the negotiating table, they said things that were completely different. This means that they did not even honor their own commitments. The more interesting point is that the Americans did not even honor what they had said in their fact sheet. When they came to the negotiating table, they made statements which were against their fact sheet. Of course, it should be mentioned that this fact sheet was their unilateral interpretation of the initial agreement and we did and do not agree with it in any way. Nevertheless, they made certain statements which even contradicted their published fact sheet.
Another example is that recently, the United Nations Security Council decided to pass a resolution to abolish former resolutions against Iran. According to this resolution, it is no longer necessary for Iran to remain in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. This is while they say that Iran should remain in it for a very long time. Such a thing is not acceptable in any way. In fact every time, they say something that is different from their previous statements. For example, the American secretary of state reaches an agreement, but later on, he says a different thing. When he is told about it, he says in response, that "...experts made certain criticisms". Well, each time a minister of foreign affairs participates in a negotiation, a large team of experts is behind him. A negotiating team in Geneva or anywhere else reflects what these experts say and they receive instructions from them. Throughout negotiations, this is repeated all the time. Therefore, it is not acceptable to say something and to change it later on.
Another example is the issue of the bill passed by the United States Senate and House of Representatives which was referred to it in the beginning of the interview. Another example is the length of time for limiting Iran's nuclear activities. They have put forward many figures until now. Anyone who shows up puts forward some figures.
So, if they want to continue this method - issuing military threats, making contradictory statements, breaking promises and refusing to accept reasonable ideas - the other side will completely lose its trust.
Interviewer: You said that that the Americans say different things in their private and public speeches. This behavior will be to our disadvantage when their sympathetic media and propaganda networks reflect it and it looks as if the Americans have gained an advantage over us. In fact, it seems that the rights of the people of Iran are being violated. What method should we adopt in the face of this policy?
In view of my knowledge of the negotiating team, they are committed to observing the red lines. On the other hand, the Leader's steadfastness and strong determination because of the viewpoints that he has expressed throughout his Leadership and even during the time of his presidency, has been proved to everyone. If he makes a statement, adopts a position and announces his decision, he will certainly follow it with complete power and on behalf of the people. All he is doing is preventing the rights of the people from being violated. After all, the people and all Muslims in the world have pinned their hopes on the Islamic Republic of Iran and on him.
During the time I was in charge of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I travelled to many countries. Certain individuals in some of these countries used to say to me, "You are not only Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs. You are the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the entire world of Islam. You are our Minister of Foreign Affairs as well". The position that the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran enjoys is, in fact, the manifestation of the dignity that Muslims have throughout the world.
State affairs should not move forward in a way that the rights of the people are ignored. This is the right course of action. Well, it is clear that we are not after military work, but the fact that Iran can enjoy nuclear power and that it can be powerful is frightening them. Iran wants this power to continue. This process is supposed to continue and to gather strength. Therefore, our interactions and our statements in private and public should be made in a way that when the people carry out a calculation, they feel that their interests have been protected. Our people are prepared to make any kind of sacrifice on the path of the goals of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is because they are sure that the person who is in charge of the system defends the rights of the people.
These rights do not belong to one single individual so that he can say, "We will give up nuclear energy because the Americans have demanded this". This important right belongs to all the people of Iran. For this reason, in the polls which have been conducted inside and outside the country about nuclear technology, most people have stressed that they want it. Even those individuals who are outside the country and who may have certain criticisms against the Islamic Republic of Iran believe in this as a national right. Even such individuals believe that this right should be protected.
Therefore, negotiators and those people who are directly involved in the nuclear negotiations have no option other than observing these red lines. If, God forbid, they cross these red lines then - as the Leader of the Islamic Revolution pointed out - there is no secret information on such fundamental issues and he will tell the truth to the people.
Interviewer: In his recent speech, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution pointed out that America is not reputable in the eyes of regional peoples. Please give examples of this disreputability.
Velayati: With what reason do they say that the government of Syria should go and the person that we want should come to power? Like any other country, the people of Syria have certain criticisms against the government, but the elections have been held in any case, the Constitution has been reformed and Mr. Bashar Assad has been reelected. Syria is a legal member of the United Nations and it is regarded as an independent country on the international scene. With what reason do they allow themselves to question Bashar Assad's presidency and say that someone else should become the president? What does it have to do with them? In the beginning, the people of Syria had a different belief. Some people in Syria used to believe that the terrorists had come for reforms, but when they witnessed their crimes and the support of the Americans and their agents in the region, they became even more loyal - to their government - than they were before elections.
Another example is what they did in Iraq. In the name of a coalition against DAESH, they bombarded Iraqi forces and supported DAESH. In Yemen, they support the Saudis so that they bombard innocent people. The American secretary of state announced that they would support Saudi attacks, but that at the same time, they are concerned about human rights. How shameless, weak and immoral someone has to be to say on the one hand they support the continuous bombardments by the Saudis and to say on the other hand that they are concerned about human rights. No one believes such lies. If you take a look at America's performance sheet in different countries, you will see that it is full of things that no liberated person in the world accepts. Their performance sheet is full of actions and measures that people hate.
Interviewer: Recently too, the U.S. Congress is working on the project of disintegrating Iraq.
Velayati: Yes. An idea has been put forward in the U.S. Congress. The decision that they want to make - they have announced it before - is to disintegrate Iraq. This matter reveals Americans' nature and their viewpoint about Islamic countries, particularly regional ones. When they failed to impose their thoughts on the people's government - Dr. Ebadi's government - they suddenly brought up the idea of disintegrating Iraq. They have the same dream for Syria and Yemen.
However, the Americans should know that this is a satanic dream and that it will never come true. As Iraq's neighbor and strategic ally, the Islamic Republic of Iran will not allow these satanic dreams of the Americans to come true. Various political groups and parties in Iraq have vehemently expressed their opposition to this satanic scheme. The Islamic Republic of Iran too supports Iraq's legal right to have an independent government. As the Islamic Republic of Iran helped to fight against DAESH at the request of the government of Iraq, it will not allow this country to be disintegrated either.
The Islamic Republic of Iran cannot tolerate that an important country like Iraq - which is our neighbor, which shares 1,200 kilometers of common border with us and which is considered to be our strategic ally - becomes disintegrated by the Americans' plot so that each disintegrated part becomes a base for American and Zionist mercenaries.
What I am saying is very clear and direct: the Islamic Republic of
Iran will not allow the Americans' satanic dreams to come true- neither
in Syria, Yemen nor Iraq- because it considers itself as an Islamic
country and as the friend and ally of these countries. By Allah's favor,
Syria, Yemen and other Islamic countries will continue to be on one
another's allies.