NEWSWEEK: What do you think about the [July 31] resolution passed by the U.N. Security Council giving Iran a month to suspend uranium enrichment or face possible sanctions?
Hossein Shariatmadari: I don’t think this resolution is realizable. Even though the Security Council has set a deadline, they wouldn’t be able to implement the articles of the resolution. Russia and China will be damaged economically from the sanctions and they will lose their status in our region. And even if they implement the sanctions we are self-sufficient in many fields and the current international situation affords us various markets in different parts of the world. Many countries will not jeopardize their economic interests by imposing economic sanctions. I think this is just another phase in the confrontation that started three years ago.
Why has Iran taken so long to respond to the 5+1 offer [the incentive package offered by Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States in return for Iran’s suspension of uranium enrichment.]?
Our answer is clear. We’ve done whatever we could do for gaining the trust of the other party, and we know that enriching uranium according to the NPT [Non Proliferation Treaty] is our natural right. What we’re insisting on is legal. But what the Americans are insisting on is a bit of bullying.
The West’s demands are politicized now, not technical or legal. So this is my opinion: I don’t think the West is looking for a solution to this problem. It’s quite clear what’s happening now—we have reached the end point together. The West is insisting that we should stop enriching uranium, and we are saying halting the enriching of uranium is a red line we cannot cross. This is the string both of us are pulling. We either have to compromise or the string will break. What they’re saying about proposals, these are just marginal issues.
Is the possibility of establishing full diplomatic ties with the United States a marginal issue?
Having full relations with the Americans is not a plus point for us. It is the Americans who have been looking to reestablish relations with us for the last 27 years. We had an article in the [Kayhan] paper—the title was “Americans proposing their dream as an advantage for Iran.” Everything in the package is conditioned on stopping enriching uranium. So it’s obvious that we can’t accept anything at that price.
Why can’t Iran stop enriching uranium?
Because it’s our right according to the NPT, and we can’t give up our legal rights because of Americans bullying us. If we wanted to give in to American pressure, we should have done so 27 years ago. We tolerated eight years of war with Iraq, the bombardment of our cities and oil tankers, economic sanctions, terrorist attacks, but we didn’t give in to America’s unreasonable demands. And this is just another American demand.
But isn’t this a demand of the international community, not just America?
This is not a demand of the international community. There are 120-something countries in the Non-Aligned Movement, and they have released a communiqué saying that enriching uranium is a legal right of Iran. Aren’t those 120 countries part of the international community? Also, the Europeans don’t have a unified position on this. … China and Russia are totally different. China reached an agreement with us on a $100 billion oil and gas contract. If they wanted to impose sanctions against us, they wouldn’t sign such a contract. Some European leaders are even sending us secret messages saying please just come to a compromise because we don’t want to go further with this.
Which European countries?
I can’t tell you the names, but there are four or five countries, and they’re very famous. You can judge for yourself which are these countries. The Europeans know that if the conflict reaches the point of sanctions, Europeans are going to lose. And if there are any benefits, they will only be for Americans. In this day and age, sanctions don’t mean anything. What do they want to sanction against? In this day and age there are so many markets, especially in the Far East. I think it’s just a bluff. They don’t want to do anything special.
Is there any difference of opinion within [Iran’s] core leadership group over h ow to deal with this issue?
No, there cannot be such divisions. When we suspended uranium enrichment in 2003, when time was wasting, it was Iran who was losing. And now that we’ve started our nuclear activities again in Isfhahan, Natanz and other places, no time is being wasted. So we’re not in a real rush to respond.
What do you think about the current conflict between Israel and Hizbullah?
I think releasing the two hostages was just an excuse to start a campaign that the Israelis and Americans had in mind for years. And that is to implement America’s Greater Middle East plan. But Hizbullah realized what their plan was and disrupted it. I think at the moment Hizbullah has achieved a great success. Hizbullah’s hands are full and Israel’s are empty. When in June 1967 Israel was fighting against a number of Arab armies it defeated them in six days and that was it. But now Israel cannot defeat a resistance group. So the myth of Israel’s invincibility is over. The breakdown of Israel’s myth will make a number of Islamic movements that are passive now more active. Israel has never been in such an unstable position. Northern Israel is under the fire of Hizbullah. Even if there will be a ceasefire tomorrow Israel will still feel insecure. Israel has not gained anything in this war. There were two Israeli hostages in the beginning of the war and now there are more. Bombing a small nation that doesn’t have air force or navy is not a military achievement. Navy and air force are usually used to pave the way for ground troops and we see that Israel has not been able to succeed on the ground. I truly believe this war is the beginning of the collapse of the Zionist regime and the end of America’s Greater Middle East plan.
How do you define America’s “greater Middle East plan”?
This is an American plan to create a safety zone for Israel. The plan has three axes: One, Israel. Two, an American military force stationed in the region to be ready to help Israel and three, transforming the countries of the region to sterile secular governments. All these three goals have not been realized. Israel does not have the security that it aspired to have. Americans are in a quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, as you can see, there are Islamic movements from Algeria to Turkey….A new Middle East is being shaped now-not one led by the Americans but by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
On July 31, 2006, in an article in Kayhan you asked “young Muslims to attack Zionists, Zionist centers as well as the embassies of the countries supporting Israel such as the U.S., the U.K., etc.” Don’t you think your words can be interpreted as promoting terrorism?
By that I don’t mean bombing or such terrorist activities. But why should children of Qana have no security while the Zionists enjoy security? By Zionists of course I don’t mean Jewish people. Jewish people have a representative in our parliament and they condemn Israeli crimes. I mean international Zionism. Muslims have to confront the economic and military centers that support Israel. For example Americans have bases in Dubai and Kuwait. And people should attack them. But it’s not only in Muslim world where they do it. The other day in Scotland people stopped an American plane that was bringing military [supplies] for Israel and didn’t let it land. Also there are many Israeli war criminals who travel in Europe. They shouldn’t have security.
Do you mean they should be killed?
Well, they shouldn’t have security.
Has the political culture in Iran changed under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Definitely, there’s been a total change. The main difference in terms of foreign policy has been a return to the theory of peaceful coexistence as defined by Imam Khomeini. Peaceful coexistence has two different points that are interconnected. First, we really don’t want to pick fight with anybody. But there’s also another axis—if a country is going to cross our threshold of tolerance, we are going to react as strongly as they’ve crossed those red lines. For example, in the past Japan would sign a resolution against us in the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], but at the same time took advantage of [doing business in] our 70-million-strong market. In the new government, they’ve said, “No. If Japan is going to be hostile to us, we’re going to close our market.” So, out of $60 billion in oil revenues, we used to buy $30-$40 billion in goods from different countries. Now we’re only buying from countries that have friendly relations with us.
Do you really think the world needs Iran more than the Iran needs the world?
We all need each other. That’s why we have the U.N. But it’s just a statue right now. And it’s a statue that’s as worthless as the Statue of Liberty in New York.
Would Iran be acting so tough if oil was not at $70/barrel and America were not tied down in Iraq?
The oil price rise is high because of the confrontation that Europe and America started. And yes, the quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq have naturally resulted in America being in a weaker position. As a Muslim, I would really pray for Bush, if he were not a killer, because his stupidity has really benefited the Muslim world. I don’t think the Americans are ready for a military confrontation anymore.
You’re not worried about possible U.S. military action against Iran?
Nobody’s worried, but we’re prepared [ smiling ].
Part of your title is “Supreme Leader’s Representative.” How have Ayatollah Khameini’s ideas about the world changed in the last few years?
The supreme leader thinks that we have to take the legal path that’s ahead of us, and naturally while doing that our enemies are not going to be quiet. He believes that the enemy’s propaganda is much greater than its capability. He believes that we have to take advantage of our strong points, so when our nuclear scientists made some breakthroughs he was delighted by that and ordered that they should be given every resource. In terms of America he believes that they’re sitting in a glass palace, and people sitting in glass palaces should not throw stones. And he believes that a big event is awaiting the world—the demise of the big powers. And he believes that this big event will be delightful, even if we have to pay a big price for it.
What exactly is this big event?
We are in an age of information, and we’re noticing that military power is not the main source of power anymore. It’s communication technology that is becoming the real power now. People in the world can’t tolerate being bullied around and just keep quiet. We are witnessing chaos and different demonstrations all around the world. And when you listen closely to these voices, you see that they’re all saying the same thing in different languages-that they don’t want to be oppressed. What Americans are talking about in terms of globalization is something they want to use to contain this. I’m talking about globalism. It’s a natural process, and no one can stop it.
What exactly do you want America to do differently?
Stop being an oppressor. I’m going to quote Imam Khomeini: “America has to stop doing evil things.” I’m giving you the gist of the saying. But it literally means, “America has to get off Satan’s donkey.”
