Radicalization of nuclear row would harm West more

TEHRAN, Oct. 18 -- Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani said here on Wednesday that the negotiations with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana have prepared the ground, if the real intention of the 5+1 group is reaching a compromise.

In an exclusive interview, Larijani told the Mehr News Agency that the situation will become radicalized if the EU bows to the United States’ will, but under such circumstances, the West would experience more serious repercussions than Iran.

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator warned the so-called 5+1 group (UN Security Council permanent members the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China plus Germany) that it has been proven that the carrot-and-stick policy is a failed policy and the adoption of any new resolution on Iran’s nuclear program by the UN Security Council will make it more difficult to reach a compromise.

The Western countries’ claims that they are interested in long-term cooperation with Iran run contrary to the threats against and pressure on Iran, he said.

They should realize that “real and effective flexibility” can never be the outcome of negotiations under pressure, he noted.

Following are excerpts of the interview:

Q: Mr. Larijani, you had several rounds of talks with Mr. Solana. What was discussed in the negotiations?

A: We had four long sessions with Mr. Solana, maybe 18 or 20 hours. In these detailed discussions, there was an actual effort to discuss the foundations of long-term agreements. We made progress…

Q: Can you explain some of the compromises that you made?

A: Two points were constantly discussed about Iran’s nuclear issue. One was that Iranians have become suspicious of the West’s behavior, believing the West intends to deprive the Iranian nation of nuclear technology and the fuel cycle. Two years of unjustified suspension in the past, which came under pressure and a recommendation by the West, has given rise to such a view. And that is why today, when the Westerners talk of ‘suspension’, they will face a rapid response from Iranian officials.

The other point is that the West repeatedly claims, “We want to be sure that Iran’s nuclear technology will not be diverted.” Of course, these two issues were seriously addressed in our discussions with Mr. Solana. In my opinion, in our discussions with Mr. Solana we actually reached a fair basis for resolving these two points, even though the results (of the talks) might not have met the expectations of the other side. However, regarding the first expectation of the negotiations, which was said was clearing up ambiguities, it should be fairly admitted that progress beyond that was made. We reached agreements on the modalities of negotiations and their foundations. In fact, Iran proved that it is serious in talks and does not want artificial negotiations or wasting of time, although it could have been more fruitful.

Our negotiations were authentic and everything was discussed very frankly. In fact, there was no reason to hide issues. For example, we expressed our concern about the intentions of certain Western countries that want to deny the Iranian nation the technology for producing nuclear fuel and conducting uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes, and my assumption is that this effort was successful to a great extent. However, if the intention of the 5+1 countries is to reach a compromise, the joint efforts with Mr. Solana have paved the way for a compromise to some extent.

Q: Is it not odd that after every meeting you and Mr. Solana described the talks as constructive and even now you say that the course of negotiations is satisfactory, but the recent meetings of the 5+1 group and its representatives’ remarks imply something else?

A: Yes, it seems odd. Maybe these stances and moves are a tactic meant to combine the negotiations with pressure to gain more concessions from Iran. The agreements we reached during the four sessions with Mr. Solana were a good foundation for broader talks, but the change of stance has probably happened under pressure from adventurist countries like the U.S., which was not unexpected. This clearly shows that they do not intend to reach a compromise. If they seek a compromise, why do they not support their representative Mr. Solana and forestall positive talks?

Q: You are talking of the U.S. pressure, but although Mr. Solana has acknowledged that the talks were positive, he has also expressed disappointment.

A: Mr. Solana is a skilled diplomat. What is important is that our talks with Mr. Solana were fruitful and can pave the way for the two sides to continue the talks based on a win-win model. Nether side should put forward its maximum demands during the talks. If the U.S. pressure weakens the determination of the other side (the EU), the situation will become radicalized. Of course, it would not be the end of the world, but it influences all our cooperation, and I think the other side (the EU) would be harmed the most.

Q: Some diplomats have said that the 5+1 group is seeking to adopt a new resolution and then resume the talks. The European Union’s statement on Tuesday implied such a scenario.

A: I have repeatedly said that if they choose the path of the UN Security Council and illegal sanctions, they should expect a proportionate response from Iran. This path is completely different than the path of negotiations, the proposed package, and Iran’s response. If they think that they can take both paths as a carrot-and-stick policy, they have miscalculated everything. Indeed, negotiation is possible under any circumstances, but the nature of negotiations and the conditions of the sides will be totally different. Undoubtedly, if another resolution is passed, for the continuation of talks, we will not be at the point where we are now.

Q: Do you think that the North Korea issue has created a harsher atmosphere over Iran’s nuclear dossier?

A: Some Western countries have taken advantage of the North Korea issue to make the conditions harsher, but everyone knows that Iran’s situation is totally different than North Korea’s. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA inspections are underway in the country. We have repeatedly declared that not only do we not seek an atomic bomb but also we are ready to reach a mutual compromise on guarantees that our nuclear activities will not divert toward banned purposes… Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons have no place in Iran’s national security doctrine. Anyway, the U.S. and Israel are trying to use the opportunity to make the Security Council atmosphere harsher by making unrealistic comparisons between Iran and North Korea…

If the U.S. leaders think that issuing a resolution in the current situation will benefit them and the neoconservatives in the elections, they are mistaken. Although Iranian politicians are people of goodwill, they are not naive and are carefully observing everything.

Q: You always talk about the U.S. adventurism, but U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns has recently said that although he has been tasked with Iran affairs in the U.S. State Department for a long time, he has not been able to hold talks with any Iranian official.

A: This illustrates the U.S. double-standard policy. They make these statements to convince their public opinion that they are behaving logically, but at the same time they adopt an aggressive policy toward Iran…

Their contradictory behavior has caused regional countries to mistrust and even hate the United States. I think the U.S. neoconservatives believe in a kind of fascist liberalism… Such policies have imposed great damage on the American people. No one has enmity toward the American people. There is much opposition to U.S. fascism, and not only in Iran. The difference between Iran and other countries is that Iran has the courage to express its views. If they stop their hostile behavior and put an end to the exportation of U.S. fascism, they will not have problems with Iran or other countries.

Q: You are saying that the U.S. is applying double standards and behaving in a hostile manner, but why are they among the 5+1 group members and claiming that they have offered Iran a generous package and that they want to establish long-term cooperation with Iran?

A: Basically, a country that pushes for sanctions and regime change cannot talk about long-term cooperation. This is another of the U.S. paradoxes. The time of these tricks has passed…

Q: Some diplomats believe that the involvement of the Security Council in Iran’s nuclear case was a violation of international law, discrediting the body.

A: This is absolutely right. According to the IAEA Statute, the Security Council can interfere when a deviation has been identified. The IAEA has never declared it has found a deviation in Iran’s nuclear activities. Even in response to a false report by the U.S. Congress, the IAEA confirmed that Tehran’s nuclear activities pose no threat to world peace and security.

Q: The West claims that Iran has shown no flexibility in the talks and this has stalled the negotiations.

A: They do not speak sincerely. Negotiations are principally held to reach a compromise and, of course, the two sides should show logical flexibility. Our discussions with Mr. Solana pursued a fair and logical framework, but if they want to set a specific outline for negotiations to gain what they want from the outset, this would not be negotiation. This is cheating. Iran regards damaging the course of talks and relying on coercive action through the Security Council as a security threat, which compels us to change our behavior toward the IAEA.

Logical flexibility occurs when negotiations are not under pressure.

Q: You are saying that the two sides should show logical flexibility. Then what problem has stopped the talks?

A: Iran has no problem for starting logical negotiations. We gave a serious, clear, and detailed response to their proposed package, which we still believe can be the foundation for more talks.

Since the day we gave the response, we declared that we were and are ready for talks. Consultation with Mr. Solana started and we believe that it can continue.

Q: They insist that Iran should suspend uranium enrichment and say that Iran has not accepted this.

A: Suspension for what? Suspension of diverted activities is acceptable, but suspension of Iran’s enrichment, which they have confirmed has no deviation, is meaningless…

Using the Security Council as a tool to pressure Iran to suspend enrichment will foment a regional crisis. They should abandon hostile approaches and return to the negotiating table. We are ready to hold negotiations on the conditions necessary for talks. I clearly state that in talks with Mr. Solana, we reached agreements on how to continue constructive negotiations. This is a logical path in which we can devise a plan to both allay their concerns about Iran’s nuclear activities and guarantee the Iranian nation’s right to produce nuclear fuel and enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. If they want to block the path of negotiations, they are responsible.