The following is the transcript of Press TV's exclusive interview with Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (AEO) Ali Akbar Salehi (Pic). Press TV: What is really happening in the IAEA and the latest of their reactions to Iran?
Salehi: The latest resolution that was adopted by the Board of Governors in the IAEA has nothing to do with the attitude of the IAEA per se; it has to do with the [Group] 5+1. Of course it was Germany that tabled the resolution and it was with the support of the [Group] 5+1 that they were able to pass this resolution.
What is important to note is that for the first time there were about 10 countries out of 35 countries that did not agree with the resolution; three totally disagreed with it. The other seven voted in abstention.
When countries like Brazil, Egypt, South Africa, Turkey — which is almost part of the European Union, it almost associate itself with the European Union — do not vote in favor of the resolution has a message in it.
So I think the West, specially [Group] 5+1, has come to realize this when a country like Brazil, South Africa, which enjoy such a high stature in the international community, do not vote in favor of this resolution.
So I hope that the [Group] 5+1 will receive this message because if they continue like this, the 10 will be 15, will be 20 and at the end of the day, there will not be any possibility to get out of this fabricated crisis and a face-saving manner.
So, I think they have lost this opportunity to change the course from confrontation to cooperation. But there is still room for remedying this whole process.
Press TV: What do you think about the double standards in the nuclear arena? For example, Pakistan and India are not even signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Board of Governors adopts a resolution against Iran which is a signatory to the NPT.
Salehi: The world of politics is a very complicated world [with] so many hidden things happening in it that makes things very complicated. Being an official, I cannot really express myself very openly in this regard. All I can say is, we do not understand why India, the biggest democracy in the world, behaved in such a way.
Because India itself is not a member of the NPT; it has exploded the [nuclear] bomb and for thirty-five or forty years it has been under the so-called international sanctions, it was not a sanction but let's say it was a so-called sanction, vis-à-vis their nuclear activities and I don't understand the logic behind the move, specifically that our relationship — politically and culturally and economically — is very strong.
India enjoys a special standing among Iranians; we have a lot of respect for the people of India; we have so much in common, culturally in particular. So it is very difficult for us to understand, even parties in India in the Parliament, they are beginning to question the stance of the government.
I hope India has some valid justification for what it has done. I have tried to understand what their justification would be … I mean a country that is not part of the NPT, that has not allowed inspectors to inspect its nuclear sites; how come it is so eager to vote in favor of this resolution.
We certainly question their move. I hope they will make up for it because India is an independent country. We cannot believe that India yields to superpowers and world powers, because India itself is a world power. India can be a role model for developing countries. For that matter, we are questioning China.
Press TV: My next question is about Iran's level of cooperation with the IAEA. Former director-general Mohamed ElBaradei has been criticized for adopting a soft tone toward Iran. But in his last month at the agency, he changed his tone. How will this affect Iran's cooperation with the IAEA?
Salehi: From my personal experience, since I was Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA for about five years, I happen to know Dr. ElBaradei as a friend.
You see, the IAEA is not a place where one person can make decisions. You have over 2,000 employees in the IAEA. You have the inspectors, so many departments that are involved in drafting any kind of report.
It is true that the director-general may have a say to some extent, but he cannot make decisions. The Board of Governors makes decisions for the IAEA.
In the last move, which is about the resolution, in fact Dr. ElBaradei tried very hard [to stop it]. He spoke with the Germans that it is not wise and prudent to table this resolution and that tabling this resolution will not be conducive and will not be helpful.
So he did his best. So this has to be reflected. But the Germans were adamant about the resolution and they did what they had to do. And we are also astonished by the Germans.
Our relationship with Germany is very good, economically and in other domains. It seems Germany wants to gain prestige and they think if they use Iran as leverage they gain prestige for themselves, which is unfortunate to use others to gain prestige because Germans are a great nation. So they have the potential to uplift their position internationally without needing to rely on others or use others as a bargaining chip.
So this goes back to German politicians. I advise them as a friend, please make your decisions out of your own independent thinking and do not try to appease others. We know what Germany has been through in the first and second World Wars, we know about the complexity in its political scene.
But in our cooperation with the IAEA we have indicated many times and we are persistent on this, that as much as we are committed to our rights, to safeguard our rights, we are also committed to our international commitments.
So, whatever commitments we have, vis-à-vis our agreements with the IAEA, specifically the safeguard agreements, we will remain committed. And there was some voluntary cooperation with the IAEA. We may re-examine this cooperation. But whatever commitments we have, we will adhere to them and we stay firm in delivering on our commitments.
Press TV: There are talks of new sanctions. What do you think will happen?
Salehi: Iran is so internationally important that you keep hearing about Iran in international media. There is almost no news program that the name of Iran is not mentioned in. This is an indication of the importance of Iran; otherwise they would not bother about it.
So it seems international politics will be very boring without Iran. So they have kept the issue of Iran alive to keep the international politics lively, not boring.
Let's say this was a little joke but it emanates from the childish reaction of the West really. We do not understand why there is such a reaction, it's very childish. It does not originate from any kind of wisdom, does not stem from providence.
I think it is about time to make an axis of providence and to get wise people around the [negotiating] table and try to find a way that would save the faces of all those who are involved in this fabricated Iranian nuclear crisis. I call it fabricated because it really is fabricated.
Iran is a member of the NPT, is a member of the IAEA; Iran is a member of all the international conventions to do with the banning of weapons of mass destructions, such as chemical, biological, nuclear.
I have said it many times that we are very sensitive to the integrity of the NPT. We want to see the NPT as strong as it must be. Of course, we have to remove the part that has to do with the discrimination of the NPT. But that is a different story. Nevertheless, we are very sensitive to it because we feel the integrity of the NPT is in line with our national interests.
So I advise the West to read between the lines of the messages that Iran is sending out. One of them was our demand to send the 20 percent fuel that we asked through the agency, whichever country that has the capacity and the capability to supply the fuel that we are willing to accept their offer.
And there was this offer through a non-official document by the Americans and the Russians that they are ready to supply the fuel but in exchange for our 3.5 percent nuclear material that we even accepted this swap of fuel.
But of course we demanded a guarantee and because of our past experience over the past thirty years. The first time that we demanded the fuel we asked the Americans and we paid the money and they did not pay back the money and they did not send us the fuel then it was with the Germans and the French and they are currently holding our natural uranium in their countries.
So it is only fair for us not to trust them and ask for some kind of guarantee. And the only guarantee which we think would be acceptable in this regard was to accept the custody of the agency in Iran.
If it is accepted in Russia and France, why is it not accepted in Iran? So we are ready to put the nuclear material under their custody for as long as we receive the 20 percent enriched uranium.
We don't understand their logic. How do they justify this logic? And about the sanctions, what else do they want to do? The sanctions have already been applied. We have sanctions all over in all domains. What more do they want to do?
Iran is a great nation. We have three thousand years of written history, we have seen all ups and downs and we have withstood the test of history. I am worried about other countries that only have 200 years of history. I don't know what their future will be. But we have shown that we are a nation that can withstand the test of history.
So, do not try to test us anymore. You have tested us for the past thirty years. I think this is enough. Iran has grown stronger and stronger, and Iran has never been as strong in the past few centuries as it is now. It is a fact. It is not a slogan, this is not something [blown] out of proportion.
Whoever comes to Iran and looks at it from a real perspective from an objective point of view, will realize that Iran is a strong nation, a strong country.
It is almost self-sufficient in the food industry, it is almost self-reliant scientifically, technologically. So sanctions may create little problems but they will not disturb us to the extent that would make us cave into their demands.
Press TV: Is Iran's standing in the international arena being picked on or is there mistrust in what Iran has been doing in the nuclear program up until now? So is there any secret left that the world does not know about our nuclear program?
Salehi: If an impartial observer looked into this nuclear development for the past seven years, he would clearly see that Iran, had it been guilty of anything, wouldn't be so steadfast in its response to the agency, to some of the Western countries.
So because we know that we have not done anything wrong and that we are right in pursuing our objectives in our nuclear activities, whatever decisions we have made is indicative of the righteousness of our stance. Because had we somehow committed mistakes, then we would not be as steadfast as we are now.
Secondly, [the Leader of the Islamic Revolution] has clearly and explicitly stated that the manufacturing and holding and the utilization of any weapons of mass destructions, be it nuclear, biological, chemical, is forbidden religiously. And our government is based on the basis of Islam and so we are committed to the tenets of Islam.
If the West insists that we have wrong intentions that means somehow they are implicating us that we are not telling the truth and the West is looking at us from their own perspective. Because they are used to telling lies.
If it comes to measuring intentions, who is the one who used nuclear bombs? Us or them? They used it on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and they are saying, look, we are worried about your intentions. They have stated that we don't have a nuclear bomb, but they say they are worried about our intentions.
So this whole thing is a fabricated thing. We have a saying in Persian that you can awaken somebody who is really asleep but you cannot awake somebody who is pretending to be asleep. They are pretending to be asleep. How can we awaken them up?
You see, the fact is that when Iran embarked on [achieving] the entire nuclear fuel cycle it was something beyond its past experience. Had the West treated us properly, we probably would not have pursued this path.
But when the Germans left the construction of the Bushehr power plant thirty years ago in the beginning of the Revolution and then refused to send us the fuel we had in Germany along with the equipment we had there…then we realized that there is no way but to rely on ourselves. So that's why we chose this path.
Secondly, we wanted to show, specifically to the West and to the international community, that we have the capability and the capacity to produce fuel. Because if you have a nuclear power plant and you have no guarantees for the fuel then that nuclear power plant is worthless.
It is like a car without fuel; so what can you do with the car…you have to push it. So this is why we need a guarantee or an assurance for the supply of fuel. For that matter Iran embarked on [achieving] the nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment activities; because nuclear power plants use 3.5 percent enriched uranium.
But when we started this we thought that having one or two enrichment facilities like Natanz and of the same size as that site would be enough to show to the West that we have the capacity and then for the rest of our needed fuel we can enter into international trades just like any other country and buy the fuel from the cheapest sources. So that was our initial intention.
But unfortunately as we proceeded, specifically after this last resolution, the government of Iran realized that there is absolutely no room for having trust in the West or their assurance for the supply of the fuel. So since we plan to have 20 thousand megawatts of nuclear power plants in a period of over twenty years and each nuclear power plant needs one [nuclear] site like Natanz to be able to produce the fuel that it needs.
Therefore if we want twenty thousands megawatts that means twenty Natanz… Now the government has decided to have ten sites with the same size as Natanz, of course when I say with the same size as Natanz it is concerning the amount of fuel that is produced and it is about thirty tonnes per year.
Every site will be producing thirty tonnes per year which is enough for one nuclear power plant. So that is why the government decided to proceed with the feasibility studies and [about] the potential sites in Iran deciding that they will be scattered in the mountains…we will be using the passive defense so that we don't need to have active defense, which is very expensive.
So we have started looking for possible sites and [so far] we have identified some but we are looking further for other sites. So had the West not taken such a decision, Iran probably would have never entered into this domain.
This is while the more they put pressure on us, the more resilient Iran will become in reaction to such pressure. This is unfortunate…I have had doubts about the intentions of the West and there has been another doubt which has been added to them... I think the West is trying to force us out of the NPT because they have noticed that we are so insistent on adherence to the NPT and this is not to the liking of the West.
I don't know what they are really after because already there are some voices in Iran from the Parliament, from among the [country's] politicians and the media that are asking the government of Iran to mull over pulling out of the NPT which the government of Iran will not do.
But I have my doubts about the intentions of the West because their actions are somehow indicative of this fact that they are trying to push us out of the NPT for their own purposes and political games, which I think are very dangerous. But our official stance that we have always stated is that the NPT is very important to us as it safeguards the peaceful use of the nuclear energy.
Without the NPT the world would be a dangerous place so I hope that the West recognizes this and looks at one country that pulled out of the NPT and how they are being challenged by that country.
But we — contrary to India and other countries including the five nuclear powers — are a member of the NPT and the safeguards regime and we are also very insistent on adherence to this agreement.
Press TV: Was Fordo [power plant] the first block, building the mistrust between Iran and the West?
Salehi: No contrary to that…because Fordo was declared to the Agency much ahead of the time that we are officially obliged to declare it, which is about 180 days before introducing nuclear material into the plant.
In Fordo not only have we not introduced any nuclear material but also we have yet to even introduce any centrifuge equipment there. It is only the basic infrastructure that has been constructed there… we declared it to the Agency at this stage to show the level of our transparency.
This is one example of our voluntary cooperation beyond our commitments. But with their reaction it would be very difficult for us to continue such voluntary cooperation in the future.
Press TV: Well, not having relations is not in the interest of none of the countries, not Iran and not even the US and other Western countries…even bringing more sanctions… so what do you think would be left on the table? What are the options that would follow?
Salehi: You see, I would like to make an assessment but my assessment is not an official stance. As a specialist in this whole issue of disarmament and the peaceful uses of the nuclear energy and as a person who has been active in international diplomacy in the past ten years at least, I think the West is looking for a way out and we welcome this.
That is why our last proposal to the Agency about the fuel, asking them for the 20 percent enriched uranium carried a lot of messages in it; because Iran has the capacity and the capability to enrich uranium to any level that is required.
But noting the sensitivity of this issue, we prefer to demand the Agency to provide us with our requirements and all this in order to send a message to the West which says: Look! Although we have the capacity and the capability, rather than creating an environment of mistrust, we prefer to request the fuel from you.
And then we thought that we have to leave a way out for them. They received part of the message but not the entire message. They began to appreciate this whole process as a decent way out for them, which would save their faces, and it would be a win-win situation for both countries.
In the West there are two camps; this is what I have noticed. I am assessing this as a specialist not as an official. One camp would like to really resolve this issue. The other camp would like to escalate this nuclear issue.
It seemed the other camp could win over the first camp. I hope that as President [Barack] Obama has talked of seeking change and looking for another way of interacting with Iran, I hope that he translates his words and his intentions into deeds.
We have indicated that we would prefer cooperation and that we are not after confrontation. No wise man or wise woman or [better said] no wise human being looks for any confrontation.
So based on prudence and wisdom and providence, we should look for peaceful ways to deal with any kind of international crisis that we are facing, one of them being the nuclear crisis.
However, it is unfortunate to say this, as I said I have begun to doubt that the West is trying to force us out of the NPT and impose some kind of confrontation as they did in the Iraq-Iran war.
I just warn them based on my little knowledge, Iran has never been stronger as it is now. Comparing Iran to itself — I am using one scale— Iran compared to what it was in the past centuries has never been as strong as it is now. And the West, during the past few decades, has never been as weak as it is now. They should realize this.
So [in case of] any kind of confrontation...the least of consequences are not known to anybody…any kind of confrontation with Iran will lead to unknown consequence, which I don't think is to the benefit of any country.
So the deal for the fuel from our side still stands. We are ready to accept the fuel from any source and we are ready to accept the custody of the Agency [on the fuel exchange] but only in Iran.
Why is the custody of the Agency only valid in Russia or France and not in Iran? This is somehow demeaning and is belittling the Agency. So this is my final word: let's come to an axis of providence, all of us, rather than an axis of confrontation.
Press TV: You said that they are trying to push us to the edge so that we pull out of the NPT. Do you think they would actually do that and that there would be military action?
Salehi: Iran will never get out of the NPT and this is our official stance. It is because of our national interest and because we believe in the NPT. The NPT is one of the most important pillars that would guarantee non-proliferation and would ensure disarmament. It is beneficial to the entire world.
Press TV: Do you think that another intention of the West would be to get China and Russia away from Iran?
Salehi: I think Russia and China are wiser than that. They would not dissociate themselves from Iran…because…what would they gain in return?
Because Iran is the most important neighbor of Russia; Russia without Iran will face a lot of problems. So for Russia, Iran is a very strategic entity as Russia is for us.
So we may have ups and downs in our diplomatic relationships but strategically speaking, we are complimentary to each other; we need each other.
