Middle East Inside line: Israel's Nuclear Problem; Syrian Tensions with US & Israel

Israel's Nuclear Trouble: On Wednesday, at the United Nations conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the ~US, Russia, Britain, France, and China voiced support for making the Middle East a zone free of nuclear arms. There are two messages: one for Iran's nuclear programme and one for Israel's secret nuclear agenda.

"We are committed to a full implementation of the 1995 NPT resolution on the Middle East and we support all ongoing efforts to this end," the five permanent members of the UN Security Council members said in a statement. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukia Amano, in a letter, asked foreign ministers of the IAEA's 151 member states to share views on how to implement a resolution demanding that Israel accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and throw its nuclear facilities open to IAEA oversight.

Israel-Palestine: The Proximity Talks Starts Silently (Yenidunya)
Syria: A National Unity Government for More Democracy? (al-Assad)
Israel-Palestine Opinion: Discrimination in East Jerusalem (Eldar)
Israel-Palestine: Proximity Talks to Begin on Wednesday? (Yenidunya)

Syria-U.S. Relations at Odds?: On Monday, the U.S. renewed the six-year-old economic and diplomatic sanctions on Syria. In response Damascus criticized Washington harshly and said that the penalties reinforce hostilities in the region.



Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mekdad said the sanctions decision shows Washington has lost its credibility and failed to live up to its promises to Syria. "Obama is not serious about changing the relationship between the U.S. and Arab and Islamic states in the Middle East," Syrian officials said.

Hezbollah-Syria-Israel Triangle: On Tuesday, although there is still no evidence that Scud missiles were transferred to Hezbollah, the Israeli army's head of intelligence research, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, told the Knesset that the Scud transfer was the "tip of the iceberg", .
"Even today Hezbollah has missiles of all ranges types, including solid-fueled rockets that have a longer range are extremely accurate."

Baidatz then drew the picture of a multiple threat:

Hezbollah's long-range rockets allow them to position launchers deep within Lebanese territory and cover ranges far greater than we aware of in the past.

Hezbollah in 2010 is very different to Hezbollah in 2006 in terms of military capability, which has advanced a great deal. Hezbollah is now regarded by the Syrians as a component of their defense establishment.

Lastly and paradoxically,Baidatz stated that a political settlement with Israel is still a priority for Damascus:

A political settlement with Israel is high on Syria's list of priorities and intelligence shows a will to reach an agreement – but on their terms, meaning a return of the Golan Heights and American involvement.

Military intelligence believes Syria could radically alter its role – but Assad feels that political progress with the current Israel government is impossible and has therefore avoided confidence-building measures.

Iran Video and Transcript: Ahmadinejad on Charlie Rose (3 May)

Hours after his speech at the United Nations, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was interviewed by Charlie Rose on the US Public Broadcasting Service:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTlNyC_W5Tg[/youtube]

CHARLIE ROSE: What is the status today of the agreement that Iran will send uranium out of the country to Turkey?


MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD (via translator): Let me give you a short history of an issue on my mind here that also involves our discussion. According to the rules of IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], all member states must give other member states, those who possess the fuel and the technology for fuel production. This has to be done without any preconditions.

Now, we have had a reactor in Tehran that develops medical isotopes that basically meets the needs of 800,000 patients in Iran. It needs a fuel to the grade level of 20 percent, a fission grade level of 20 percent.

Now our fuel is almost ending. And so we requested the IAEA to provide us with some more fuel. According to the regulations of the IAEA they have to provide that fuel to us and get paid by us. The IAEA instead of sending out requests to purchase the fuel to all countries decided to only send the request to two member states, the United States and Russia.

And acting against the spirit of the IAEA, they said that they will give the 20 percent fuel, but in return demand that Iran give a lower enriched grade fuel to countries abroad as an exchange. And we said very well.

And then negotiations happened and they were moving forward. But then some demands were set in place that were not right. We are the ones that want to buy the fuel. We have to have conditions, not those who want to sell it, because those who want to sell it have to provide the fuel basically within the framework of the NPT regulations without any preconditions.

And they came and said they want an exchange and fuel, and we said sure enough we can do that. But then later on they came and said we want Iran’s enriched uranium to be bought outside so that Iran moves farther from the ability to build a nuclear bomb.

Once that statement was made the people in Iran felt there was insincerity involved and there is something not quite fair about the process. And they reacted and prevented the process from moving forward.

Now today we wish to continue with talks but the agreement that is arrived at has to be mutual, based on mutual exchange. We are agreeing to have an exchange, and we had agreed to it beforehand as well, but, again, it has to be a mutual agreement in order to carry out an exchange, not for one group to say it’s my way or the --

CHARLIE ROSE: So what my understanding was that a representative of your government signed the agreement, your negotiator, for 1,200 kilograms to leave Iran by January 15th to go to Russia. What happened?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Every paper signed by a representative of Iran is acceptable by the Iranian government wherever in the world it was signed. But there was no agreement that was signed.

CHARLIE ROSE: So you want to today present a counterproposal to Russia and the United States and the IAEA. What’s that counterproposal?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: We believe we can find a middle ground.

CHARLIE ROSE: What is the middle ground?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: We have certain proposals that we have given to some parties involved. Now we have to talk about it and decide on the details. I mean after all, when I speak of an agreement we’re speaking of two parties, and both parties have to agree.

Now, some people want to unilaterally impose an agreement on the other. That can’t happen. That’s where problems arise.

CHARLIE ROSE: They want to have a negotiation, they want to have a conversation, they want to move the thing forward. And people in Iran tell me that you want to move it forward. You have opposition in your country, but that you would like to see this idea move forward. Is that correct?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Yes, and I agree that this should be done.

CHARLIE ROSE: So how would you do it? Tell us what you would do.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: You see, we agree to send 3.5 percent enriched feel to receive 20 percent and pay for it, for the 20 percent. But there are some technical details that require the technicians and those who are experts in the field to sit down and talk about and resolve.

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, has anyone responded to your counterproposal? Where does it stand?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Some have said very to sit down and reengage in
talks. There’s no other way but to talk, of course.

I’d like to bring your attention to the fact that we are able to produce 20 percent grade fuel. We don’t exactly need it in that sense, but we agree to accept the exchange idea to engage in cooperation as introduction for longer cooperation.

It’s quite interesting -- some have told us that either have you to engage in an agreement in trade with us or we’ll sanction you. Accept the exchange or we’ll sanction you. Is this the new world order that’s in place?

We happen to have 20 percent enriched fuel and we’re producing it within the legal framework of international law. And it’s only based on the spirit of cooperation that we agreed to the provision to have an exchange. Now, of course, after we lost hope, we started the production of the 20 percent.

CHARLIE ROSE: Here’s what Secretary Clinton said, "Iran is the only country represented in the hall that had been found by the IAEA board of governors to be currently in noncompliance with its nuclear safeguard obligations, the only one.

It has defied the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA and placed the future of the nonproliferation regime in jeopardy. And that is why it is facing increasing isolation and pressure from the international community. But Iran will not succeed in its efforts to divert and divide.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Again, who said this?

CHARLIE ROSE: Secretary Clinton.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Oh, Mrs. Clinton. Well, Mrs. Clinton says a lot
of things. Do I have to have a comment on every statement she makes?

Let it be just said that Iran has been the country that has cooperated the most with the IAEA. She cannot provide some documents and evidence that we have not carried our obligations within the framework of the agency.

We have continued to cooperate with the agency within the legal framework and we have responded to every set of questions they have put to us, and we have actually received a response back from the IAEA.

CHARLIE ROSE: They said you have not complied and not allowed them access to see scientists. You have not answered the questions.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: This is not the case. The agency makes the claim which is unlawful. Based on its own regulations, no member state can present an allegation against another member state.

The agency sends a series of six official, formal written questions to Iran. Iran responded to all six questions and then received sort of a receipt from the IAEA that they respond to.

Now the IAEA is in fact asking us to respond to the undocumented allegations presented by the U.S. administration, by the U.S. government. That is far beyond the framework of the IAEA. We have never committed to the agency that any member state that brings an allegation forward has to be responded to. And therefore, hence, there’s no violation.

It is the U.S. government, by the way, mind you, that has had the largest numbers of violations of IAEA rules. The U.S. government has violated this law by alleging that Iran has some activities that are illegal. But the director general himself cannot speak unlawfully within the framework of the IAEA.

CHARLIE ROSE: It was the IAEA, not the United States, that suggested you were not in compliance with their request. So what I want to do in this conversation is understand what the president of Iran would do and what he would like to see done to facilitate nonproliferation and facilitate Iran sending uranium outside of the country to be enriched.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: If we did that, do you think all the problems would be resolved? In other words, if Iran sends uranium abroad for enrichment and then it returns, do you think all the problems will be resolved including the world problems around us?

CHARLIE ROSE: Certainly not.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: It’s clear Clinton is an enemy of Iran. Mrs. Clinton is an enemy of Iran, it’s clear from the position she takes. She has always threatened Iran, and the agency does not have any evidence suggesting Iran has deviated from the legal framework of the IAEA, no documentation.

This is a simple political move under political pressure. I have said that over and over again.

Mr. Charlie Rose, if we want to resolve this problem we need to find the root cause of it. We can make a lot of political noise, we cannot really pose these kinds of political pressures. We must follow justice and law.

We want to prevent proliferation. We have to ask ourselves, who are those who proliferate? The very states that possess nuclear weapons, and you have to have those weapons to proliferate it. If we want to stop proliferations, the answer is quite simple. Those who possess the bomb have to eradicate it so that proliferation stops. Where else are the bombs being exported around the world from?

CHARLIE ROSE: The world worries about Iran having the bomb because they think it will set off a proliferation in the region, and that’s against everybody’s interest. The world would like to convince you that Iran should not want to have the bomb because it’s not in the interest of proliferation.

The president would like to say to you that they made an agreement with Russia to reduce the number of bombs, you know, and that the president is trying to set in motion nonproliferation and is asking you to engage in that.

You have said, you have said "We don’t want the bomb." Correct? Categorically you have said Iran does not want the bomb. Correct?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Mr. Rose, if we want to understand the truth, we have to look at it fairly. All our nuclear activities are being watched by cameras installed by the IAEA, all our nuclear facilities.

Now, show me one nuclear facility in the United States that comes under the watch of the IAEA cameras. The IAEA has no inspection over these facilities in the United States.

The United States and Russia have had discussions. Who’s going to supervise it and make sure that’s carried out? What independent, verifiable regime is out there to watch it happen? They themselves are agreeing to do a certain number of things. Perhaps there should be an independent boy that can verify what they do.

We at the end of the day welcome world nonproliferation and we welcome halting proliferation and we have announced we are post-proliferation. We have carried out our legal duties. What else do we need to do?

We are prepared to show the path towards disarmament and we are prepared to sit down and give political assistance, proposals as to how the United States and other nuclear countries who possess the nuclear bomb can disarm. Once they disarm, the solution is there, it’s finished.

How convenient that those who possess a bomb are not considered a threat, but those who don’t have a bomb but may possibly have a bomb in the future are considered a major threat. This is a paradox in and of itself. No one can accept this kind of logic. The international community cannot.

And the international community is not summarized by being just the United States and the allies. There are over 100 NPT or G8 member states who have supported Iran’s position. Are they not members of the international community?

You see, we oppose the spirit of the word that come American politicians thinking that they represent the world, that whatever they say is what the world thinks. This is not the case.

You heard my speech today. Some people got up and left. Those who speak of themselves as representatives of the international community, they were a minority, an absolute minority. And they like to think of themselves as the international community.

If we want to fix the world, we have to act fairly. And to be fair and just those who have bombs have to put them aside. That’s the end of the story.

CHARLIE ROSE: So you are saying the test --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: By alleging Iran has some problems, America’s problems aren’t resolved. Just alleging that Iran has problems is not going to resolve Mrs. Clinton’s problems for her.

CHARLIE ROSE: With respect to my question, you categorically say that Iran does not want either nuclear weapons or the capacity to make weapons, categorically, under no circumstance. You’ve also said it’s against the --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Yes, exactly so. I have said it categorically.

CHARLIE ROSE: And it’s against your religion, yes?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Yes. Yes. And it also against our culture and against our beliefs. And we just simply cannot accept to have nuclear bombs.

CHARLIE ROSE: Then why is it so hard to cooperate with the IAEA if
that is the principle that you act on?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: In our eyes we’re cooperating. Who said we’re
not?

CHARLIE ROSE: Not in their eyes. The IAEA --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: The IAEA comes under pressures. What you’re saying is because the IAEA comes under the pressure of the United States. They say that themselves. It’s quite obvious if you read what comes out of it. How come they don’t produce anything against the United States arsenal? It’s clear --

CHARLIE ROSE: You doubt the integrity of Mr. Baradei.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: No, not at all.

CHARLIE ROSE: He was a director of the IAEA.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: It doesn’t matter who the position or what the position is. It doesn’t mean just because you’re the director general of the IAEA that you can’t make mistakes. It’s quite clear you can make mistakes.

The question posed is quite clear. The United States has 10,000 nuclear warheads. Is the United States a threat, or is Iran? Which one is actually the threat? They say Iran may in the future produce bombs, hence it is a threat therefore sanctions are in order. But a country that possesses thousands of nuclear warheads and has used nuclear weapons in the past and is threatening to use them again now today is not considered a
threat?

This is a political position. It’s not a fair, legal, reasonable position. It’s quite clear it’s all politics.

And just weaving this into a thick story is not going help the IAEA. It’s quite clear where the threat comes from. It comes from the country that possesses nuclear bomb. The country that possesses it is a threat. It’s quite obvious.

CHARLIE ROSE: What’s quite obvious is there’s not a level trust between your government and President Obama’s government. There is not a level of trust.

So I ask you this question, what can be done to create a level of trust? Because Iran is a great nation. The United States is a great nation. Iran has considerable influence in the world. The United States has considerable influence. Where is the trust and how do you get the trust?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: I agree with you. There is no level of trust. Now this goes back to the history of relations between the two countries. I don’t want to, however, ponder over history.

CHARLIE ROSE: We’ve discussed it before.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Our people remember the coup in 1953, for example, or the support of the Shah and the dictatorship that went on before the revolution.

CHARLIE ROSE: And the Americans remember the hostage taking.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: I don’t want to go back to history.

Under the Bush administration we tried to talk as well as under Mr. Obama’s administration. And we do believe trust is built through talks and
not by clashing and by fighting.

CHARLIE ROSE: So take a step forward, how you would --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Allow me. Just allow me. I’m going take a step forward and say what you have in mind.

When Mr. Obama was elected I sent him a congratulatory note. That was a very big step. It was an opportunity that could have responded to in order to pave the way for talks. He didn’t respond to the note.

When the elections happened in Iran, Mr. Obama supported the people who were setting cars on fire in the streets. Now that wasn’t a good position.

Last year when I was visiting New York I said that I was ready to talk with Mr. Obama. But he didn’t respond.

It seems to me that the problem comes from inside America. If you can resolve the problem coming from inside America, the problem between Iran and the United States will be resolved quickly.

CHARLIE ROSE: Say that again. I’m sorry, say that again.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: I think there’s a problem within the -- inside the U.S. government, the politicians, the statesmen, that somehow prevents the relations between Iran and the United States to improve. Once that problem is resolved within the United States the problems between the two countries will be removed.

There are a group of radicals in the United States who see their interest in conflicts.

Now allow me -- allow me, if you may, please. I think that with Mr. Obama in office the United States has a great opportunity in its hands, perhaps a historical opportunity, perhaps even the last historical opportunity so that the United States starts improving its relationship
with the world.

CHARLIE ROSE: There is some indication the United States is improving the relations with the world.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: The United States has to address its problems in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan as well as in Iran.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, but you have to be a positive contributing factor too, a positive contributing factor.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: We have given Mr. Obama plenty of opportunities. But it seems to me that there’s a group that wants Mr. Obama to reach a point where instead of cooperating with Iran he starts entering resolutions condemning Iran.

Mr. Rose, I’m telling you as a friend, just a friendly conference here we’re having. I’m familiar with the world affairs and so are you. Mr. Obama is the biggest and the only and the last opportunity America has for itself.

Mr. Obama came with the idea of change, with the motto to change, to build and create change. Where can he built the change, where? What corners of the world? In Iraq, in Afghanistan --

CHARLIE ROSE: Mr. Obama went to Cairo and made a message about the world, and he reached out to the Islamic world.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Allow me, please. Mr. Charlie Rose, please.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, go ahead.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Mr. Charlie Rose, things are not resolved with one speech. A speech has to lead to action -- action.

Mr. Obama said that "I want to create change." And this change must present itself, must show itself in Iraq. It must show and happen in Afghanistan. It must show and happen in Palestine. It must show with regards to Iran.

Now, please pay attention. I’m trying to help here. I’m trying to help you. I’m trying to help America here. Those who are behind the scenes or within the U.S. administration, in the Obama administration, are moving things in a direction which will make Mr. Obama to take radical
positions especially with respect to Iran.

Some of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are also doing the same thing, leading Mr. Obama to a position that is irreversible, vis-a-vis Iran.

As soon as Mr. Obama enters into a series of behaviors that resemble Mr. Bush’s behaviors, two things will happen. First, Mr. Obama’s time is over. In other words, when Mr. Obama becomes radical in his behavior, what that means is there’s no change and therefore he’s been defeated. He’s failed. And his presidential term will be not useful.

Secondly, America’s most important historical opportunity will be lost and America will no longer be able to improve itself in the world. I’m saying as a person who sympathizes, who is just expressing what he sees. They’re constantly instigating. Over and over again I said I’m ready to
speak with Mr. Obama. Well, what happened? He’s never responded.

CHARLIE ROSE: Can you clarify one historical point to me. Did President Obama send a letter to the supreme leader of Iran?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: You should ask that from Mr. Obama.

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, what do you know?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: You and I should speak about our own affairs.

CHARLIE ROSE: I asked you an honest and sincere question, how do you build trust? And your answer had to do with accusing the United States of things and saying this was the last chance for the United States as a nation. It’s not. The United States is the longest democracy in history.
It’s not the last chance. President Obama is part of the continuum of democratically elected presidents which will continue after him.

But you’re important, and this is a time for trust to be done, and it has to have a give and take. I’m asking you what you want the president to do and what you’re prepared to do in response. It’s that simple.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Can you tell me what have they given us so far for us to give something back? What have they given us so far?

CHARLIE ROSE: They’ve made offers to --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: What offers? What offers? Can you tell me? Specify? You’re saying we should get something to give something. What have they given us so far?

CHARLIE ROSE: What have you given them?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Are our eastern borders any safer today? No. U.S. forces have increased in number in Afghanistan.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you fear --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Are our western borders any safer today? The Americans are in Iraq still.

Is the Persian Gulf now free of American troops? Exactly what is it they have given us? You’re a member of the media. You must know. What have they given us and what in return are they expecting? They haven’t given us anything?

CHARLIE ROSE: They have reached out. The president has said to you he was holding his hand and would you like to unclench -- he said "I’m holding my hand out. Would you like to unclench your fist and shake hands?" That’s what he asked. And so --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: These are just words, Mr. Rose, just posture. Instead of that I sent a message, I sent a written letter, saying I’m truly extending my hand to him. And I sent a message saying we’re prepared to cooperate in the following fields that I expressed in the letter.

So we’ve been a step ahead. We’re in fact a step ahead. Nothing has been given to Iran accept the hand has been extended. So? We extended it earlier. We extended it many times before.

CHARLIE ROSE: You are concerned about sanctions. It’s not just the United States that’s talking about sanctions. It’s Europe. It’s Russia. Many people are talking about sanctions.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: With respect, we’re not concerned about the sanctions. Sanctions cannot be implemented. In the world of free trade, what does sanctions mean?

CHARLIE ROSE: You’re not worried about sanctions?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: No, we’re not. Sanctions are unimportant to us. We’re saying that clash is bad, conflict is bad. We’re not even speaking of sanctions. We’re speaking of a world filled with friendship and saying this goes against what we want, otherwise there have been three other sanction resolutions passed already. But we’re still alive and going on living and going on with our life, and I’m still sitting there despite three sanctions. And it can be a problem.

CHARLIE ROSE: And you solidified your support in some cases.

Speaking of that, how is your economy today?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: It’s good.

CHARLIE ROSE: Good?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Yes. It’s better than the economy here in the United States because in the past three years of economic crisis we’ve had a positive economic growth.

The volume of our trade is not anywhere close to the volume of trade the United States has. The volume of your trade is much larger. But in world crisis, in a global crisis when you’re economy was going down, our economy was still showing a positive trend, because our economy is based
indigenous and based on Iran’s own internal resources primarily. It’s not based on global resources.

So we don’t really have a major problem. We don’t worry about sanctions either. We’re worried that the opportunity for creating a better world and world peace are getting lost.

CHARLIE ROSE: But why are you attacking the United States all the time, then?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: We’re defending.

CHARLIE ROSE: No.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: We’re constantly defending ourselves. Mr. Bush, how many threats, and we kept defending ourselves. When exactly have attacked --

CHARLIE ROSE: Mr. Bush is no longer president.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Allow me, Mr. Charlie Rose. Are there Iranian forces around U.S. borders or are there American troops around Iran borders?

CHARLIE ROSE: There are American troops --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Are we the ones who are attacking?

CHARLIE ROSE: Not attacking Iran.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Where have we attacked?

CHARLIE ROSE: Are Americans troops attacking Iran? Are American troops attacking Iran?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Allow me. Mr. Bush four times officially threatened Iran with a military attack, four times. And the policy was regime change in Iran. He said it officially many times.

CHARLIE ROSE: But Mr. Bush is no longer president. You need so stop suggesting that there’s no difference between President Obama and President Bush. You say that all the time.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: I’m saying in fact there’s a difference between them. I’m saying there is a difference. Since Mr. Obama assumed office we have welcomed him and said we’re ready to help him.

If Mr. Obama wants to create change, we’re ready to help. We said in Iraq if you want to change we’re ready to help. We said in Afghanistan, if you want change, we’re ready to help. We said in Palestine we’ll help.

Mr. Obama did not make any changes in Iraq policy. He probably doesn’t need our help in Iraq, I suppose.

CHARLIE ROSE: No, no. He does.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: I mean, if somebody doesn’t need your help, you insist on giving it to them? You can’t insist on it.

CHARLIE ROSE: The possibilities of cooperation between Iran and the United States would make the world a better place. A better place --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: I accept that. I agree.

CHARLIE ROSE: And the United States is saying please, Mr. President, don’t engage in developing the capacity to have nuclear weapons, or --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Are you saying that or is the United States saying that?

CHARLIE ROSE: Am I saying what?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Are you saying Iran should not increase its ability to develop nuclear weapons or is the U.S. government saying that?

CHARLIE ROSE: I think that’s the U.S. government --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Why would we want nuclear weapons?

CHARLIE ROSE: I know, but you need to convince the world. You need to convince the Russians, the international energy agency, the Turks, you need to convince the Europeans, and you need to convince the Chinese.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Mr. Charlie Rose, do you see the world as the summary of these few countries? That’s wrong. Just for five countries to call themselves the owners of the world is wrong in the first place. We don’t even believe in that. This is a major difference we have with that and they have to accept that.

They have so sit and talk with us about it. We can’t believe that the world is summed up by five states. The rest of the world has issued declarations in our favor. If we go on like this, nothing’s resolved.

Where do America’s problems lie? Let me just set your mind -- I want to give your mind some rest here. We are opposed to the bomb, the nuclear bomb, and we will not build it.

If we want to build it, we have the guts to say it. We’re courageous enough to say it, because we’re not afraid of anyone. If we want to have the bomb, we’ll come and tell everyone he want to build it. We’re not afraid of anyone if we want to make it. Who’s there to be afraid of?

So when we say we don’t want it, we don’t want it. They want to engage in political games, and the agency, this, that. They’re not going to resolve anything. No, let’s settle this. This is not going resolve anything.

Mrs. Clinton might make 2,000 more speeches. That’s not going to resolve anything.

CHARLIE ROSE: But your speech --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Iran is not going to be harmed by those statements. It’s America will waste the opportunity. Exactly how, what harm will that bring to Iran?

CHARLIE ROSE: Before you leave --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: It’s only made us stronger.

CHARLIE ROSE: Before you leave New York, present a program to the United Nations and the IAEA and the United States and others of, one, your commitment not have a nuclear weapon, and then present a program to the United States as to how you would like to create trust and credibility, how you would like to see the United States develop same kind of relationship
with Iran that it developed with China.

You could do that by reaching out. The initiative is there. How do you take steps to create an engagement? You take the initiative.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: We’ve given the U.S. government many opportunities it didn’t want. The political issues are there. We know that. It’s called politics. They’ve been our enemy 30 years. That’s nothing new. We don’t care.

We think that if they want to get into a level of cooperation with us they have to be sincere. Those who want to carry -- if they want to carry double standards, we want to hold the stick over Iran’s head and then give the carrot out, it’s not an issue, not a policy posture that can resolve
anything. It’s not a humane policy to begin with.

What is humane is based on justice. Whatever it is, put it on the table to discuss. Sincerely, let’s put everything on the table and respect each other for a change. Stop the double standards, because they failed in the past. It’s just a failed way of moving forward.

Now, that stick, whether it’s going on the IAEA or the U.N. Security Council, it doesn’t matter. A stick is a stick. The name of the stick, it doesn’t get purified the stick.

The U.S. influence in the U.N. Security Council can be used for sanctions. That’s not going to legitimize anybody. It can use its pressure on to the IAEA for somebody to say something. That’s not going to resolve the problem.

The problem’s not going to be resolved. You’re asking me to say it. It’s not going to be resolve and it’s only going exacerbate the problem. If the U.S. administration truly seeks to resolve the problem it has to bring a change of method, because the current methods have not given any
answers. They’re defeated methods.

I say that the root cause of the problem has to be sought behind the scenes of American policymakers.

CHARLIE ROSE: You had an election. There will be an anniversary on June 12th. The impression is you have strongly cracked down on the opposition in your country, that you have threatened, put some in -- arrested. How do you respond to that?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Mr. Charlie Rose, when you say that this perception this has been shaped, you mean among the Iranian people?

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes. Yes.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Let me tell you a few things about the Iranian people, because I got 25 million votes from them, and I’m the only official representative of the Iranian people elected by them.

All the main people who were opposed to us are free and walking around. The leaders of the opposition are free in Iran. They’re all free. They actually have official positions in Iran and they’re still holding their posts.

Sure, there are groups who went on the streets and put cars on fire and destroyed building, and the judiciary dealt with them. Otherwise the main opposition groups, my main competitors are all free. Who ever said anything to them? Has anyone ever confronted them? They’re all free.

In Iran, the judicial system carries out its decisions independently. If someone goes on the streets and hits people or creates conflict and induces conflict, the law will deal them.

Now, in America if a group of people go on around and break windows won’t you not deal with them? If they set cars on file won’t you not deal with them? I’m sure the police will confront them. It’s the same there in Iran.

The judicial system and the law, it’s all I independently done, carried out when somebody carries enough hands on the street, it’s dealt with. Otherwise all the leaders of the opposition were free before the elections and after. Which ones have been arrested?

CHARLIE ROSE: With respect, Mr. President, after the election that was contested, were the people tortured in prison, and did some people die in prison?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: See, these are claims that were made in the press. These claims have to be presented by -- before a court, before a judge. The judicial system receives complaints, and anyone, even if an officer of the law has a violation it has to be dealt with, because there is law in Iran and it applies to everyone, even the president. If I were
to violate the law I’d have to be dealt with.

If somebody complained against the prison ward or a prison officer or even the judicial system, anything, there’s a judge, there are documents, there’s evidence that has to be produced, and then the decisions are made.

It’s not our effort to defend anyone or condemn anyone every day. Something happens. The police confronts them and confronts the situation. They have to go to court. The police may be condemned. Whatever has violated the law has to be held accountable.

But there are claims made that have not been proven yet. In other words, the judge has not accepted the claims that anyone’s been tortured. If the judge agrees, accepts that someone’s been tortured in prison, then the perpetrator will come before the law. It’s quite clear.

And our judicial system is very independent. It doesn’t come under -- the Iranian judicial system is not selected by the president, by the way, mind you. It’s independent of the president.

In fact, the managers of our judiciary and his friends were people who were not unlike him in my camp, actually, to tell you the truth. So they were not about to defend me. They were kind of independent. They’re still independent. They didn’t belong to any camp.

So I can’t really interfere in what they do. Our judicial system’s is quite different than you have here in the United States. In Iran it’s not the president that appoints the judge.

CHARLIE ROSE: I understand, and I also am aware of the National Security Council having to do with nuclear policy as well.

Do you -- is the reform movement that was identified in Iran, in your judgment, what’s happened to it?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: What do you mean by the reform movement? Do you mean a party?

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, I mean the people who voted for Mr. Mousavi, the people who voted who were in the streets protesting. At the time, I’m asking a question, at the time, there were lots of people in the streets, and people thought this was the decisive moment in Iranian history. It
turned out that you clearly have prevailed at this time.

What’s happened to the reform movement? What did Mr. Mousavi represent?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: How many people do you think were in fact out on the streets?

CHARLIE ROSE: I don’t know.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Can you guess? Can you say how many?

CHARLIE ROSE: You tell me. You live in Tehran.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: You see in Tehran Mr. Mousavi got about two million votes.

CHARLIE ROSE: Two million. How many did you get?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: In Tehran, two million. In Tehran, I got about two million, too. So it was close.

So two million people come on the streets, how important is that? We already knew the two million didn’t vote for me. You see, Iran is in a very good position right now. The Iranian people don’t necessarily operate within party groups. They don’t really vote for any party.

Iran’s system is different from what you have here in the United States. In Iran parties don’t define what happens. People define what happens.

In the course of 30 years people have had opportunities to vote, and then move on with their lives and are friends. They don’t clash every day on the streets. They live like neighbors.

And those who didn’t vote for me are living their lives and are working and are in the bureaucracy and part of the government, they’re part of the organization. They work and live and have a life. It’s not the case that if they don’t vote for me they’re all going to stand in the
opposition camp.

Iran’s situation is very different from a party system. People are people. They vote. If they don’t win, they go on with their lives. And they still recognize the government that’s there and they can cooperate with the government for sure.

Sure, there are those that are in opposition. Every government naturally has an opposition. They’re living their lives too. They send declarations out and say things. It doesn’t matter. Iran is a strong country. Rest assured, it’s a strong country. You should be worried about and concerned about America.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you fear that war may come?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Who would attack Iran?

CHARLIE ROSE: No one, I assume.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: I mean, you can’t just assume. Assumption aren’t made in the heavens. They’re made on earth. Who’s going to -- on this earth, who’s going to attack Iran on this planet?

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you believe Israel --

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Russia?

CHARLIE ROSE: No.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: China?

CHARLIE ROSE: No. The United States, no.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Then who?

CHARLIE ROSE: Would Israel attack Iran?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Israel isn’t even counted. It doesn’t even factor into our equation. It’s not even counted.

So who’s going to attack us? There’s no one there to attack us so there will be no war. We don’t think about war. We think about peace. We think about friendships. We think about cooperation, not about war.

CHARLIE ROSE: One step that you would like to see President Obama take to make the relationship better?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Let me just first say one sentence about the earlier issue that you raised. If we are not afraid of a threat, it does not mean that a threat is not an ugly posture. The country that threatens has done a very ugly thing.

Sure, we’re not afraid of it, but when an ugly thing happens, it’s ugly. We weren’t expecting the Obama administration to threaten us with a nuclear attack. That was a very bad thing to do. They did. They did.

CHARLIE ROSE: They didn’t.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: They did. If you’re saying they didn’t -- OK, some didn’t and some did. Let’s just say at least some didn’t and some did, to be fair. That’s what I’m saying, it’s a double standard.

We have said that Mr. Obama didn’t need to extend the sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions were of no use to begin with the ones that were extended. It just you know, dirtied the atmosphere, let’s say.

Mr. Obama when he came to office, we had a conversation with our people. We said let’s give Mr. Obama a chance. Now in Iran people don’t have much faith with Mr. Obama. There’s a lot of distrust and for us the task is harder to remove that distrust.

Mr. Obama we would say as a proposal should not give into pressures. That’s the one step I would. When you’re a president, you have to make a decision.

CHARLIE ROSE: May I make a suggestion?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: We’re ready to take any action. We’re ready to take any proposal. We’ll cooperate with him in the region to help resolve international issues, but within the framework of respect, they have to respect us.

CHARLIE ROSE: They respect you.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: And treat us fairly.

CHARLIE ROSE: They treat you fairly. They respect you. Convince them -- convince them that you do not want nuclear weapons. Convince them.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Who convinces who?

CHARLIE ROSE: You convince them.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: They’re the ones -- they’re threatening us with a nuclear attack. How on earth can I convince them? They have a nuclear bomb --

CHARLIE ROSE: Convince them you don’t want nuclear weapons.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: -- they want to drop it on us, how on earth am I to convince them?

CHARLIE ROSE: Convince them.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: We’ve given them a chance, in god’s name. They can move forward with reforms.

Mr. Obama’s policies in Afghanistan can change. We sympathize. When Afghans lose their lives, when NATO troops lose their lives, it doesn’t benefit us. We say every bloodshed in Afghanistan makes it harder there and more complicated there.

How else, in what language do we have to make this understandable in America? You tell me, maybe you can interpret this for the Americans. We’re saying every day that goes on things are getting worse in Afghanistan. You have to make a decision. Your policies have to change.
Your ten-year-old policies there have failed.

This is the biggest chance we’re giving. This is the biggest opportunity. We’re even willing to show them the way, by the way. Anything more? Who’s ever offered America such a great proposal? Any other country in our position that has been so wronged by America would sit
aside and just observe America’s fetters in Afghanistan and rejoice in it. We don’t. We don’t rejoice in it, because we say human beings should not lose their lives.

Why is it necessary to go down that way? Even to say American troops or Afghan people, they’re people. They are still different, by the way. The Afghan people are being killed in their homes while the American troops are losing their lives another place. But a death is a death.

CHARLIE ROSE: A death is a death, absolutely right.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Neither group decided to be there and both groups are losing their lives. So we’re giving a good proposal to America to show you the way out of Afghanistan.

CHARLIE ROSE: Can we continue the conversation in Tehran?

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: Definitely. We welcome you in Tehran any time.

CHARLIE ROSE: Then we’ll continue the conversation there.

Thank you, Mr. President. You have been generous of your time. We have talked many things, and, again, on behalf of the audience of this program, thank you once again for taking time to appreciate the opportunity and the conflict that exists. Thank you.

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: The opportunities will always be available. If we’re sincere, God will help us.

Video & Transcript: Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press (2 May)

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton popped up on NBC Television's Meet the Press on Sunday. The chat started initially with domestic issues --- the oil spill off the Louisiana coast and immigration --- but then took in Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan.

Notable points are Clinton trying to evade both the question of an inclusion of the Taliban in the Afghanistan political process and the recent revelation of an expansion of the Taliban's influence across the south of the country and her snippy dismissal of President Ahmadinejad's appearance at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation conference at the United Nations: "I don't know what he's showing up for."

Clinton's appearance begins around the 11:00 mark in the video:

NEW Afghanistan Analysis: The Growth of the “Taliban Zone” (Porter)
Afghanistan Analysis: A Very Bad Six Months (White)
The Latest from Iran (3 May): Mahmoud’s Road Show

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

MR. GREGORY: What's certainly in the headlines this weekend is this oil spill off the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi, and it becomes a bigger issue and even a national security issue in--as it applies to climate change, which is an issue that you've dealt with. How will the administration approach this, particularly given the president's interests in offshore drilling? Does that have to stop now?


SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, I think that the president has ordered the departments that deal with this, Homeland Security, Interior, Environmental Protection, Defense to all immediately, not only do everything possible to mitigate the effects of this spill, but to try to come up with recommendations going forward. First order of business, however, is to try to get this spill under control--which has been, as you know, very difficult--and to prevent further damage to the coastline along Louisiana to the fishing waters, to the wildlife. I think it does raise questions, which the president has said have to be answered. He put forth a very comprehensive approach that included the potential of drilling off of our own shore. That is a national security concern because we have to do better to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. But it has to be done safely. It can't be done at the risk of having to spend billions of dollars cleaning up these spills. So, as with so much in these difficult areas, it's going to require a balancing act.

MR. GREGORY: Another area that has become a domestic political debate over immigration has also taken on some international ramifications. Mexico, because of the law, the stringent law against--anti-immigration law passed in Arizona has issued a pretty unusual alert...

SEC'Y CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: ...to its own citizens traveling to Arizona. I'll put it up on the screen. This is the alert, a travel alert over Arizona immigration law. This is how the USA Today reported it on Wednesday. "The country warned that the state's adoption of a strict immigration enforcement law has created `a negative political environment for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors.'

"`It must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time,' according to the foreign ministry." The president, President Calderon, with whom you'll meet soon has talked about criminalizing--"this law criminalizes a largely social and economic phenomenon of migration." This is a pretty big shot across the bow to America here.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, it is, and, and I think if you look at it, again, you have a lot of unanswered questions. This law, which is clearly a result of the frustration that people in Arizona and their elected officials feel about the difficulty of enforcing the law along our border and preventing the continued immigration, people who are not documented. But on the other hand, it is written so broadly that if you were visiting in Arizona and you had an accent and you were a citizen from, you know, my state, of New York, you could be subjected to the kind of inquiry that is call--that this law permits.

MR. GREGORY: You think it invites profiling, racial profiling?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I don't think there's any doubt about that because, clearly, as I understand the way the law is being explained, if you're a legal resident, you still have to carry papers. Well, how are--how is a law enforcement official supposed to know? So, again, we have to try to balance the very legitimate concerns that Americans--not just people in Arizona, but across the country--have about safe and secure borders, about trying to have comprehensive immigration reform, with a law that I think does what a state doesn't have the authority to do, try to impose their own immigration law that is really the province of the federal government.

MR. GREGORY: That's important. Do you think this law will not stand up legally?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I don't want to offer a legal opinion. I, I think I'll leave that to the Justice Department, but I know the attorney general of Arizona has raised questions about the legality. And you're right, we have a visit from President Calderon coming up, a state visit. He's a very important partner to us on trying to stop illegal activity along our border--the importation of drugs, of arms, of human beings, all of the crime that that's associated with--and we believe that he has really done the best he can under very difficult circumstances to get this under control. We don't want to make his life any harder either. We want to try to support him in what has been a courageous campaign against the drug traffickers.

MR. GREGORY: Let me move on to some other issues that are obviously on your plate, which is a, a big plate of issues.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about Afghanistan. A big offensive is being planned for Kandahar, a very important visit by President Karzai's coming up after a period of turbulence between the U.S. and Karzai, which I know the administration has tried to tamp down. And yet, it's the nature of the insurgency that our fighting men and women are dealing with, and the Pentagon issued a report that was reported on by the Los Angeles Times on Thursday. Let me put it up on the screen. It says, "The report presented a sobering new assessment Wednesday of the Taliban-led insurgency in the country, saying that its abilities are expanding and its operations are increasing in sophistication, despite major offensives by U.S. forces in the militants' heartland," like Marja.

"The new report offers a grim take on the likely difficulty of establishing lasting security, especially in southern Afghanistan, where the insurgency enjoys broad support. The conclusions raise the prospect that the insurgency in the south may never be completely vanquished, but instead must be contained to prevent it from threatening the government of the President Harmid Karzai."

A narrow question here. Are you resigned to the fact that the Taliban, the insurgency, will have to be a part of this government in the future?

SEC'Y CLINTON: No. And let me start by putting the, the recent report from the Pentagon into context. It was a look back. It goes from last October through March. When we were devising the strategy that the president announced at West Point in early December, it was during the August, September, October, November period. And there was no doubt that the Taliban had the initiative, that there was a very serious threat to not only our forces, obviously, on the ground, but to the stability and security of Afghanistan.

MR. GREGORY: But you hear all this talk, and Karzai wants some kind of reconciliation with the Taliban as well.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, but, David, I think that we have to sort of sort out what we mean by that. We talk about reconciliation and reintegration. They may sound the same, but they're somewhat different concepts. Reintegration refers to the foot soldiers on the field who are coming in increasing numbers and saying, "Look, you know, we're fighting because we get paid. We're fighting because we were volunteered to fight because the Taliban came to our village and intimidated our, our, our elders. So there, there seems to be an ongoing movement of people sort of out of the battlefield. And General McChrystal and his commanders on the ground are seeing that and kind of organizing and running that.

The larger question about reconciliation--I don't know any conflict in recent times that didn't have some political resolution associated with it. People either got tired of fighting and decided they would engage in a peace process, they were defeated enough so that they were willing to lay down their arms. What President Karzai is saying, and we agree with this direction, is that you've got to look to see who is reconcilable. Not everybody will be. We don't expect Mullah Omar to show up and say, "Oh yeah, I'm giving up on my association with al-Qaeda, etc." But we do think that there are leaders within the Taliban--in fact, there are some already who have come over to the other side. Now, if they do so, they have to renounce al-Qaeda, they have to renounce violence, they have to give up their arms, and they have to be willing to abide by the Afghan constitution.

R. GREGORY: Another adversary, of course, gets us to Iran and the fact that President Ahmadinejad from Iran will be coming to New York to the U.N. for a nonproliferation meeting.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Right.

MR. GREGORY: You're moving down a path of sanctions, we understand what that is. Do you feel like he's going to try to show up here the early part of next week and steal the show?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I don't know what he's showing up for because the purpose of the non-proliferation treaty review conference is to reiterate the commitment of the international community to the three goals--disarmament, non-proliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. So the vast majority of countries are coming to see what progress we can make. And this is a very high priority for President Obama. It's why he pressed so hard for the START treaty, which he signed with President Medvedev in Prague. It's why he convened the nuclear security summit to highlight the threat posed by nuclear terrorism. It's why we have begun to work out deals with India and others for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which countries are entitled to under the non-proliferation regime. If Iran is coming to say, "We're willing to abide by the non-proliferation treaty," that would be very welcome news. I have a feeling that's not what they're coming to do. I think they're coming to try to divert attention and confuse the issue. And there is no confusion. They have violated the terms of the NPT, they have been held under all kinds of restrictions and obligations that they have not complied with by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, by the U.N. Security Council. So we're not going to permit Iran to try to change the, the story from their failure to comply and in any way upset the efforts we are in the midst of, which is to get the international community to adopt a strong Security Council resolution that further isolates them and imposes consequences for their behavior.

MR. GREGORY: Madam Secretary, I'd like to spend a couple minutes on some other global hot spots that you're dealing with. The first one is actually with America's strong ally in the U.K., in Great Britain. Very interesting election going on. You've got three candidates, a resurgent third party in the Social Democrats, televised debates. You know something about those.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I do.

MR. GREGORY: And as you watch what's going on there, do you think there's a movement that could spread? Do you see a third party becoming viable in the United States?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, let's see whether it's viable in the U.K. I, I don't know the answer to that. We had, in my lifetime, and certainly long before, viable third party candidates. We've, you know, had Ross Perot, John Anderson, you know, just within my voting history. I think there's always room in a democracy for people to bring their views to the forefront. But I think one of the real strengths of our system has been our two-party approach, where each party may frustrate some of its own members because they, they do have a broad cross-section of voters and opinions. But, look, I'm going to be as interested in anybody in seeing what happens in the election in Great Britain.

MR. GREGORY: Final one has to do with the election in Sudan, where you have Bashir as the victor. And yet, this is--Sudan is a sponsor of state terror, according to the State Department. And this is someone who's boasting about the results and keeping the United States at bay. Nicholas Kristof wrote this in The New York Times: "Until he reached the White House," President "Obama repeatedly insisted" the U.S. "apply more pressure on Sudan so as to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur and elsewhere. Yet, as president, Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness. ...

"President" Bashir, "al-Bashir of Sudan - the man wanted" ... "for crimes against humanity in Darfur - has been celebrating. His regime calls itself the National Congress Party, or N.C.P., and he was quoted in Sudan as telling a rally in the Blue Nile region:" Every America--"`Even America is becoming an N.C.P. member. No one is against our will.'

"Memo to Mr. Obama: When a man who has been charged with crimes against humanity tells the world that America is in his pocket, it's time to review your policy." What do you say?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I would say that, number one, I, I can't take anything seriously that Bashir says. He is an indicted war criminal. The United States is very committed to seeing him brought to justice. But let's look at what's happening in Sudan, because I have the greatest respect, of course, for Nic Kristof and others who share my deep dismay at events in Sudan. But here's what we're trying to do. When we came into office, Bashir threw out the, the groups, the non-governmental organizations who were providing most of the aid in the camps in Darfur, which could have been a disastrous humanitarian crisis. We were able to get a lot of the help back in, and we're beginning to see some slight progress in Darfur. I don't want to overstate it because it is still a deplorable situation. But we're working to try to get the people back to their homes, out of the camps. At the same time, you had this election going on. It was, by any measure, a flawed election. There were many, many things wrong with it, but there hadn't been an election in many years. And so part of our goal was to try to empower opposition parties, empower people to go out and vote. Thousands and thousands did. The result, I think, was pretty much foreordained that Bashir would come out the winner, and that's unfortunate. We are turning all of our attention to trying to help the south and to mitigate against the attitudes of the north. I, I can't sit here and say that we are satisfied because I'm certainly not satisfied with where we are and what we're doing, but it is an immensely complicated arena.

Now, the United States could back off and say, "We won't deal with these people, we're not going to have anything to do with them, Bashir is a war criminal." I don't think that will improve the situation. So along with our partners--the U.K., Norway, neighboring countries--we are trying to manage what is a very explosive problem.

MR. GREGORY: Just a couple minutes left. I want to ask you about another big thrust of your time as secretary of State, and that is forging--well, I should say, a realization that there are limits to what government can accomplish around the world.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: You have spent a lot of time working with the private sector...

SEC'Y CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

MR. GREGORY: ...to achieve certain commercial goals, also to achieve goals like the empowerment of women. You've got an announcement this, this weekend having to do with the China Expo...

SEC'Y CLINTON: Right.

MR. GREGORY: ...and the U.S. role in the China Expo, as well as efforts to empower women around the world in developing countries through the help of the private sector. Why is this really the, the route of the future for the government?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you for asking me that because that is exactly what I believe, that diplomacy today is not just government to government. Part of what I had to do when I became secretary of State was to rebuild America's image, standing, and leadership in the world; and certainly President Obama is, you know, our greatest advocate of that. But you can't just do that by the government saying things or even by our president making incredibly important speeches. You have to begin to engage the people in other countries; and, in order to do that effectively, I want more people to people contacts, I want more private sector partnerships with our public sector and with people around the world.

Let me give you two quick examples. You mentioned the Shanghai Expo. You know, there are probably 70 million plus people who go through that Expo. When I became secretary of State, there was no money raised because we don't put public money into a project like that. So with the help of a lot of very dedicated corporate sponsors, we now will be a player in that Expo. Now, what does that mean? Well, when those 70 million Chinese, mostly Chinese, but people from elsewhere in the world, go through, they're going to learn something about America. They're going to learn something about, you know, our values, about our products, about, you know, how we live. I think that helps to build the kind of understanding and connection that is at the root of good relations.

And on women's issues, we just had a great announcement through the combined efforts of a number of corporate sponsors, foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation. We're going to be working to help empower women doing what they do best and to try to up their education levels, their health levels. Why does this matter? Because it's the United States doing it. And it's not just the United States government, it's the people of the United States.

MR. GREGORY: Before you go, a question about whether you think it's realistic that you will stay on as secretary of State for the balance of the first term.

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I intend to, yeah.

MR. GREGORY: You do intend to?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I intend to, yeah. But, I mean, you know, people have been asking me this and in, in the interest of full disclosure, it is an exhausting job. But I enjoy it, I have a great time doing it. I feel like we're making a difference around the world, that--you know, I'm a big believer in setting goals, having a vision of where we're trying to get, but then trying to translate that into what we do today and what we do tomorrow. And we've made a lot of progress. We face incredibly difficult problems.

MR. GREGORY: But so, you, you think you'll stay for the whole first term?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think so. I think so. I mean, look, you know, ask me next month and the month after that. But that certainly is my intention.

MR. GREGORY: And yet you don't care to be on the Supreme Court?

SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, never. I mean, I'm glad, I'm glad you asked me that.

MR. GREGORY: You're a lawyer with all that background.

SEC'Y CLINTON: I am--I do not and have never wanted to be a judge, ever. I mean, that has never been anything that I even let cross my mind because it's just not my personality.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think the president should pick another women--woman this time?

SEC'Y CLINTON: I think he should pick a very well-qualified, people-savvy, young person to be on the Court to really help to shape the jurisprudence going forward. I think that, you know, it's not a surprise that there's a real division on the Court, and a lot of decisions that have great ramifications for the people of our country, that I would like to see someone put on the Court who can really try to shift the direction of the current Court.

MR. GREGORY: Secretary Clinton, thank you, as always.

SEC'Y CLINTON: You're welcome.

Middle East Analysis: Washington's Latest Stick for an Israel-Palestine Solution

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Friday she expects indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians to begin next week. However, this is not the end of the story.

Here is the Obama Administration’s most recent and biggest stick: an international summit run by the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers --- the United States, European Union, United Nations, and Russia --- to establish a Palestinian state if Israeli-Palestinian talks remain stalemated into September or October.

Israel-Palestine: The Golden Key to Proximity Talks? East Jerusalem (Yenidunya)

Why in September or October? First of all, Arab League foreign ministers are expected to demand that the negotiations show progress within four months. Secondly, the UN General Assembly will reconvene in late September. Thirdly, September is the first anniversary of Obama’s trilateral summit with the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Lastly, 26 September marks the end of the 10-month Israeli freeze on construction in West Bank settlements.


So what does this mean for Israel? Simply put, Washington says that West Jerusalem might find itself facing an internationalization of the conflict, moving hand-in-hand with insistence on a solution based international law and UN Resolutions 242 and 338. This means a shift away from the basis of provisions for Israeli self-defense to the  consolidation of socio-political institutions seeing the Israeli occupation as the heart of problems in the region.

Meanwhile, Washington is increasing its pressure on Israel. On Friday, a Palestinian source told The Guardian that the Obama administration would consider allowing the UN Security Council to censure Israel over its activity in West Bank settlements, encouraging the Palestinians to participate in peace talks. This would mean a US abstention on any resolution. The same source also reported that David Hale, the deputy to US special envoy George Mitchell, told Abbas that the Obama administration views Israeli construction in East Jerusalem as "provocative."

Will the Obama Administration be able to convince other countries to support these measures, despite Israel’s “sensitive” bilateral relations with Russia and France? Washington may find ground if it presents this as an approach to not only the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also other regional problems, such as Iran’s nuclear programme, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation talks, and Israel’s relations with Lebanon and Syria.

If the Obama Administration is really serious in its warning, this is more than welcome for the Palestinian Authority as it will decrease pressure on the PA in the Weskt Bank.  However, Palestinians are unlikely to welcome an international conference if they cannot get more than “gestures” from the Netanyahu Government.

Arab countries will take a similar position. The London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi has already reported that Syria is opposed to the Palestinians returning to the negotiating table because "Israel has not made enough gestures of good faith, and in light of the fact that senior officials in Israel have been sounding threats against Damascus and Beirut".