NEWSWEEK: What are your expectations going into this weekend’s meeting with Javier Solana? Ali Larijani: Tomorrow [Friday] I will be meeting Mr. ElBaradei of the IAEA, and the day after tomorrow, with Mr. Solana. What we basically discussed with Mr. Solana in our previous meeting is to have meticulous expert-level work done on the ideas so far being introduced [involving increased surveillance by the IAEA] … What is important here is that Iran’s logic dictates that we do accept the supervision of the agency.
As you know, the U.S. and European negotiators were unhappy with ElBaradei’s comments recently when he suggested that Iran’s uranium-enrichment program has advanced so far that the West may have to allow Tehran to keep some of that capacity. Do you see ElBaradei as being on Iran’s side in this matter now? This is not only Mr. El Baradei who has made these assertions. There are intellectuals who are … more prone toward this approach, even inside the United States … We do believe we should have our rights through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [to develop civilian nuclear power]. And we believe that nobody should deviate toward a bomb … I ask you now, ever since the NPT came into effect [in 1970], have the countries in possession of nuclear weapons destroyed them? Don’t we hear about new generations of nuclear weapons that the Americans and British are developing? The countries that have already developed nuclear weapons, have they ever accepted the NPT, like Pakistan, India and others? We would like to work within the framework of the NPT.
It does seem as if your strategy is to win over ElBaradei and the IAEA by satisfying his concern that all of your enrichment activities and equipment are accounted for by inspections. That way you can divide the West, which is now united against you. Is that what you’re doing? We have always supported the active role of the agency in this case … We are quite hopeful, and we always keep in touch with the agency. We have no problem with the agency. We welcome agency surveillance, and inspections, and their cameras are in place.
But the IAEA still has extra demands—areas of concern, as ElBaradei puts it, right? We have no problem in Natanz [Iran’s main enrichment facility]. They can have their surveillance. They can have their inspections. Even at the part where we do injection of the material [yellowcake feeder stock] they can inspect the materials.
Would you be willing to suspend, under any conditions, your current enrichment program? We basically cannot clearly understand the rationale behind such demands. It’s important to us to hear that the other parties … are similarly willing to talk about suspension [of sanctions]. If they are just willing to see that there is no deviation toward a weapon, we are ready to give the guarantee.
The Americans and Europeans say that if Iran doesn’t suspend enrichment, they will move ahead to a third U.N. Security Council resolution that will place more sanctions on Iran. What will Iran’s response to that be? Let’s assume they would be willing to pursue this course. What would be the benefit? Have the past two resolutions impeded our activities? They can pass another resolution, and we would make another, longer stride. Therefore they cannot solve the Iranian nuclear program. There is a Persian proverb that says if you can open up a knot with your fingers, why should you open it with your teeth?
You said a “longer stride” would be taken by Iran. What would that be? It will be announced in its appropriate time.
Would that mean, for example, accelerating your uranium-enrichment program? We don’t see a need for a higher degree of enrichment. Because our basic theory is to [create civilian nuclear] fuel. And we don’t need higher [weapons] grades of enrichment.
So what kind of step would you take? When the step has been taken, it will be announced.
Let’s turn to some regional issues involving U.S. interests. As you know, U.S. officials at senior levels have alleged that Iran is involved in supplying Shiite Iraqi militias in Iraq with training and weapons, and in recent weeks these officials have also alleged that Iran is now involved in equipping the Taliban in Afghanistan. Is this true? I think the Americans have embarked on a wrong course, and these lies are going to be disclosed sooner or later. You know well who created the Taliban … basically the countries that are friendly to the United States. What would be behind the rationale of such moves? … Some NATO members are supplying the Taliban behind the scenes in Afghanistan. You can see the traces of this activity in Uruzgan and Helmand provinces of Afghanistan.
Which NATO members? NATO is fighting the Taliban. If you just review the matter, you will come to the [right answer]. Americans are also aware of this, as is the government of Afghanistan. It’s 100 percent lies. [We have] no connection with the Taliban. Now, concerning Iraq. Was it the Shiite militia that blew up the mosque in Samarra? The explosions and violence in Baghdad are the work of Shiite militias? … Our position is quite clear. Have we not supported the political process in Iraq? Why didn’t the other countries in the region do so? We supported the Constitution. We supported the National Assembly. We supported the democratic government of Iraq. It seems to us it is other countries and U.S. behavior that have created such chaos.
Still, as long as Washington is hostile to you, isn’t it in your national interest to keep the Americans preoccupied in both Iraq and Afghanistan? There are two points in here. First of all, any insecurity along our neighbors’ borders is going to exert pressure on us. We have about 2½ million Afghan refugees in Iran. It’s a heavy burden on the government and the nation … And if Iraq goes critical, then there will be an influx of refugees coming over the border. We have some 500,000 already. Second, Iran has proven to be a responsible country. We are an oppressed power in the region, and we are not pursuing adventurism.
On that point, let’s talk about Iran’s relationship with Hizbullah, which helped to provoke a war last summer, as well as Iranian support of Hamas, which just took control of Gaza. Certainly many of your critics, particularly in Washington, say that you are embarked on adventurism in the region. They say you are using these proxies to advance your interests. The situation between these two are quite different. We do support Hizbullah and Hamas, that is right. But these two are not terrorist groups. These are the two groups that are defending their own land.
Since the violent split between Fatah and Hamas last week, the new U.S. policy seems to be to support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank and to isolate Hamas in Gaza. Will Iran help Hamas in some more active way than it is already? With such moves the Americans are just placing themselves head on with the Palestinian people. Have the Americans seen any miracle coming out of the support they have given to Abbas? We have always said that as a popular movement Hamas is supported by us.
Would that include arms? No, we have never given any arms support. Only financial support to the Hamas government.
Back on Iraq, there have been many allegations made by U.S. intelligence and military officials that Iran has supplied Iraqi insurgents with these very sophisticated explosively formed projectiles, or EFPs, that can pierce heavy armor. U.S. intelligence says they are of Iranian design. What is your response? They are lying. Please present this information to us. For all the terrors that are happening in Iraq, is there any evidence that would show or dictate that we have been involved in it? There are different groups of Shia, Sunni and Kurds in Iraq that are in touch with us. And there is a reason. Because at the time Saddam [Hussein] was in power and the Americans were fully supporting him, we were supporting these people against him. [Iraqi President Jalal] Talabani and [Kurdish leader Massoud] Barzani were supported by us. Sunni nomads were supported by us. SCIRI [Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the leading Shiite party] was supported by us. Which one of them is embarking in terrorist activities? In all the provinces in our neighborhood, from the north to the south, there are no terrorist activities. The terrorist activities are mostly located toward the west of Iraq … This is a lie, and they know where these weapons are coming from.
Where? Ask the Americans. Ask the countries that are friendly to the Americans.
You mean like Saudi Arabia or Jordan, right? Recently, a prominent American senator, Joseph Lieberman, alleged on TV that there were Iranian training camps across the border from Iraq. He said that this could justify military strikes inside Iran. What is your response to these allegations, and what would the Iranian response be if there were strikes? Where are these camps located? Please ask Mr. Lieberman to give the address of these camps … If these camps are supposed to be along our borders, then there would be insecurity along our borders … It seems that the Americans are somehow trapped in a hole and they are digging themselves further in. They should come out of the hole.
The assumption is that if the United States were to attack Iran over this issue, or over the nuclear issue, Iran’s response would be an indirect one, targeting the American military in Iraq. Care to address that? It would be responded to.
Well, let’s try to end on a higher note. Historic, direct negotiations are going on between the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and the Iranian ambassador to Baghdad, Hassan Kazemi Qomi. Is anything good coming out of that? I was briefed about the negotiations … What we have planned for was to have a secure Iraq where no terrorist activities are taking place. Having democracy in place. And making the Iraqi government a powerful government based on their Constitution. Within this framework we are ready to render our assistance to the Iraqi government. We are serious in this matter, and we do find it quite useful for the security of the region.
No preconditions? No, we are fully ready for negotiations in this matter.
