Iran Snap Analysis: Ahmadinejad's Nuclear Roadtrip

The Ahmadinedjad roadshow in the US has finally closed. Given that it was a last-minute decision for the Iranian President to go to New York for the nuclear non-proliferation conference, this was a major public-relations campaign. There were at least three significant television appearances  --- one of them on a national morning programme --- and several newspaper interviews in addition to the United Nations speech.

I think Ahmadinejad, on the ground he has chosen, was successful in the tour. Of course he is unlikely to swing the opinions of many in the US, but he was able to put down his American interviewers. More importantly, he had a platform to play to opinion beyond the US, trying to persuade other countries --- especially "non-aligned", non-nuclear states --- that Iran has the high moral and political position on the atomic question.



The question is whether those states will support Iran's case against the "established" order. Both the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon criticised Tehran's stance even before Ahmadinejad took the podium on Monday. The Iranian President's speech, beyond the 11-point proposal for global disarmament, carried this message: "In the end, 'we' will stand against you and the 'nuclear' states like the US and Israel."

Will that get Ahmadinejad enough political space to bolster Iran's position abroad and his authority at home? And, on the specific nuclear question: is he trying to use that space to get a deal on enrichment --- the latest flutter is that Brazil will broker the talks --- or is he trying to avoid any commitment altogether?

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.

Latest Iran Video & Transcripts: Clinton & Ahmadinejad Speeches at UN Nuke Conference (3 May)

The speeches on Monday by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the opening session of the United Nations 5-Year Review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The transcript of Ahmadinejad's speech has been posted in a PDF file by the UN; Clinton's transcript follows the two videos.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r__RO9V5TVk[/youtube]



SECRETARY CLINTON: I want to thank the Secretary General, Director General Amano, Ambassador Cabactulan, for their outstanding leadership in pulling together this Review Conference and addressing the challenges of nuclear proliferation.

As you know, President Obama has made reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons and materials a central mission of our foreign policy, and the NPT lies at the core of that mission. I want to begin by reading a section of the message that President Obama has sent to this conference:

“For four decades, the NPT has been the cornerstone of our collective efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But today, this regime is under increasing pressure. A year ago in Prague, I therefore made it a priority of the United States to strengthen each of the treaty’s key pillars as we work to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to pursue the peace and security of a world without them.

“Today, the eyes of the world are upon us. Over the coming weeks, each of our nations will have the opportunity to show where we stand. Will we meet our responsibilities or shirk them? Will we ensure the rights of nations or undermine them? In short, do we seek a 21^st century of more nuclear weapons or a world without them? These are the questions we must answer and the challenges we must meet. At this conference and beyond, let us come together in partnership to pursue the peace and security that our people deserve.”

Now, President Obama and I know that there are many different perspectives and historical experiences represented in this room. We know there are doubts among some about whether nuclear weapons states, including my own country, are prepared to help lead this effort. I am here to tell you as clearly as I can: The United States will do its part. I represent a President and a country committed to a vision of a world without nuclear weapons and to taking the concrete steps necessary that will help us get there. And along with my delegation, I come to this conference with sincere and serious proposals to advance the fundamental aims of the NPT and strengthen the global nonproliferation regime.

Now, President Obama and I have spoken often of rights and responsibilities, and for us that’s not just a slogan; it is the guiding principles of our efforts. We recognize the rights of all countries in compliance with the treaty to realize the benefits of nuclear energy. And we recognize our responsibility to commit the resources that will help spread those benefits as widely as possible.

We also recognize our responsibility as a nuclear weapons state to move toward disarmament, and that is exactly what we are doing. And as we work to uphold our end of the basic bargain of the NPT, we are asking all signatories to do the same, to work with us to strengthen global nonproliferation rules and hold accountable those who violate them.

So as we begin this conference, let’s remember why we are here, because it is easy to get lost in the jargon and the technical disputes. But there is a deeper mission here to create a safer world where all of our children and grandchildren can realize their God-given potential without the threat of nuclear proliferation.

This meeting comes 40 years after the NPT first entered into force. At that time, the world was at a crossroads. President Kennedy had warned that by the year 1975, up to 20 countries might have nuclear weapons, and many said that nuclear proliferation was inevitable. Well, today we can be grateful that this treaty helped dispel the darkest predictions of that era and that a nuclear weapon has not been used in those four decades.

Yet as we recognize the significance of the NPT, we must also acknowledge that like our predecessors 40 years ago, we stand at a crossroads too. Once again, we face the prospect of a new wave of proliferation. Once again, we hear claims that the spread of nuclear weapons is unavoidable. And once again, some say we must learn to live with the fear and instability of a world with more and more nuclear-armed states and networks.

Now, today, the vast majority of states are living up to their nonproliferation obligations. But a few outliers have demonstrated a determination to violate the rules and defy the international community. During the past decade, one state said it was withdrawing from the NPT after being caught cheating and subsequently announced two nuclear tests. Another has cynically claimed to be abiding by the treaty while violating its safeguards, expanding its enrichment program, failing to cooperate with the IAEA, and ignoring the injunctions of the Security Council.

But amid these challenges, once again, most nations have the opportunity to choose a different path. And the message that President Obama delivered in Prague last year has a new urgency. Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. And the world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now, at this conference, it is time for a strong international response.

These Review Conferences have been held every five years for the last four decades, but too often they have fractured along familiar lines: nuclear weapons states versus non-nuclear-weapons states, or the Western Group versus the Non-Aligned Movement. Instead of working together to meet a common challenge, we have retreated into predictable positions to protect our presumed interest. This time must be different. As one minister said to me, “We not only must think out of the box, we must think out of the blocs.”

We know there are some countries who will choose not to be constructive. This morning, Iran’s president offered the same tired, false, and sometimes wild accusations against the United States and other parties at this conference. But that’s not surprising. As you all heard this morning, Iran will do whatever it can to divert attention away from its own record and to attempt to evade accountability. Ultimately, however, we will all be judged not for our words but for our actions. And we will all be measured not by how assertively we claim our rights but by how faithfully we uphold our responsibilities. And as the Secretary General said, in this regard the onus is on Iran. So far, it has failed to meet its burden. Iran is the only country represented in this hall that has been found by the IAEA Board of Governors to be currently in noncompliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations – the only one. It has defied the UN 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. The United States and the great majority of the nations represented here come to this conference with a much larger agenda: to strengthen a global nonproliferation regime that advances the security of all nations, to advance both our rights and our responsibilities. So now is the time to focus on promoting practical solutions, not pursuing unrealistic agendas. Now is the time to build consensus, not to block it. And I call on Iran to join with all the other delegations represented at this meeting to go ahead and fulfill our international obligations and work toward the goal of a safer world.

The stakes are as high as they were at the dawn of the NPT. And we cannot fall into the ruts left over from old divisions. So rather than allow a small minority to focus attention on our differences, we must acknowledge we are all in this together and set a course for 40 more years of progress to stem the tide of proliferation, prevent the use of these weapons, and use nuclear power for the purpose of peace and prosperity.

So to realize this goal, we must recommit ourselves to strengthening the three pillars of the nonproliferation regime. And with respect to those three pillars – nuclear disarmament, access to civilian nuclear energy, and nonproliferation – this Administration, the United States has led through deeds, not simply through words. Our commitment to the NPT begins with our efforts to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons in our own arsenal. When President Obama came into office, he recognized that the greatest potential danger facing the United States comes from a terrorist group like al-Qaida obtaining a crude nuclear device, not from a global nuclear war. And we know that the threats of the 21^stcentury cannot be addressed with a massive nuclear stockpile. So we are taking irreversible, transparent, verifiable steps to reduce the number of the nuclear weapons in our arsenal. Our new START treaty with Russia will limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by our countries to levels not seen since the 1950s. This agreement is consistent with the Secretary General’s call to pursue nuclear disarmament through agreement on a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments.

Our Nuclear Posture Review ruled out the development of new U.S. nuclear weapons and new missions and capabilities for our existing weapons. It also stated we will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapons states that are parties to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. We have made a commitment to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and we are ready – past ready – to start multilateral negotiations on a verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty.

And today, I am announcing we will submit protocols to the United States Senate to ratify our participation in the nuclear-weapon-free zones that have been established in Africa and the South Pacific. Upon ratification, parties to those agreements will have a legally binding assurance that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them, and will fully respect the nuclear-weapons-free status of the zones. And we are prepared to consult with the parties to the nuclear-weapons-free zones in Central and Southeast Asia, in an effort to reach agreement that would allow us to sign those protocols as well.

We support efforts to realize the goal of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the Middle East, in accordance with the 1995 Middle East Resolution. The Middle East may present the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation in the world today. Adherence to the NPT is not universal, and a few countries that are parties to the NPT have violated their treaty obligations. But in spite of these difficulties, we want to reaffirm our commitment to the objective of a Middle East free of these weapons of mass destruction, and we are prepared to support practical measures that will move us toward achieving that objective.

President Obama has made clear the Unites States will retain a nuclear deterrent for as long as nuclear weapons exist, one that can protect our country and our allies. But we will continue to seek further reductions and we will pursue concrete steps to improve the transparency of our nuclear arsenal. Beginning today, the United States will make public the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile and the number of weapons we have dismantled since 1991.

So for those who doubt that the United States will do its part on disarmament, this is our record, these are our commitments, and they send a clear, unmistakable signal. We are also committed to bolstering another pillar: access to civilian nuclear energy. We unequivocally support the rights of states that are in compliance with the treaty to access nuclear technology and energy for peaceful purposes. The IAEA’s high-end projection for new nuclear capacity has nearly doubled since the last Review Conference five years ago. And the United States wants to help expand the ability of all states to utilize peaceful nuclear energy. Over the past decade, we’ve provided nearly $200 million to support the IAEA’s Technical Cooperation Fund. We are the largest contributor to that effort. And it has helped more than 100 countries develop or expand the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Today, the President has asked me to announce that the United States will make an additional commitment of $50 million over the next five years for a new IAEA Peaceful Uses Initiative. We hope other partners will match this contribution with an additional $50 million. We will use these resources to improve health care and nutrition, manage water resources, increase food security, and help countries develop the infrastructure for the safe and secure use of nuclear power.

We are pleased that the IAEA’s director general has made expanding use of civil nuclear energy for humanitarian purposes one of his signature initiatives. The United States is also strengthening bilateral technical cooperation arrangements with more than 40 states, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia.

But this treaty is weakened when a state flouts the rules and develops illicit nuclear weapons capabilities. So as we pursue progress on these pillars, we must recommit our nations to bolster the nonproliferation regime. When leaders of the IAEA ask for more resources and authority to carry out their mission of verifying compliance with nonproliferation obligations, we must respond. When the IAEA calls on states to sign and ratify an additional protocol to ensure that parties to the NPT are meeting their treaty obligations, we must act.

But improving the IAEA’s ability to detect safeguard violations is not enough. Potential violators must know that they will pay a high price if they break the rules, and that is certainly not the case today. The international community’s record of enforcing compliance in recent years is unacceptable. So we need to consider automatic penalties for the violation of safeguards agreements such as suspending all international nuclear cooperation or IAEA technical cooperation projects until compliance has been restored. And we must use all of the possible financial and legal tools to disrupt illicit proliferation networks. That means tightening controls on transshipment and enhancing restrictions on transfers of sensitive technology. We should also find ways to dissuade states from utilizing the treaty’s withdrawal provision to avoid accountability.

Now, I am not proposing to amend the treaty to limit the rights of states to withdraw. But we cannot stand by when a state committing treaty violations says it will pull out of the NPT in an attempt to escape penalties and even pursue nuclear weapons. Parties to the NPT have invested decades in building a global nonproliferation regime, and that work will be rendered meaningless if the international community continues allowing nations to break the rules of the NPT with impunity.

Our work at this conference must provide a foundation for future actions, including strengthening IAEA safeguards, negotiating a fissile material cutoff treaty at the Conference on Disarmament and toughening enforcement against proliferation violations at the UN Security Council.

The last 40 years have proved that nuclear proliferation is not inevitable. We believe it can be stopped, but it will take all of us here recognizing common dangers and finding common ground, rolling up our sleeves and getting creative, taking practical steps together in the next month.

A lot of skeptics out there say that when countries gather at the United Nations, nothing happens but a lot of words are used up. Well, it is up to us at this conference to prove those doubters wrong. Forty years from now, our successors will mark the 80^th anniversary of the Nonproliferation Treaty. And the men and women, who gather on that occasion in the new building, once it is finally completed, will not remember the words we speak today unless those words are matched by actions. But our children and our grandchildren will live with the consequences of what we decide this month. Whether the world is more or less secure depends on the path we take, and there is no greater reason than that to find a way to act together and to act decisively.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

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.