US Foreign Policy Video and Transcript: Obama Speech at West Point (22 May)

President Obama used a commencement address at the US Military Academy on Saturday to deliver a new "National Security Strategy":

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXeTSAJIMRU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

THE PRESIDENT: It is wonderful to be back at the United States Military Academy -- the oldest continuously occupied military post in America -- as we commission the newest officers in the United States Army.


Thank you, General Hagenbeck, for your introduction, on a day that holds special meaning for you and the Dean, General Finnegan. Both of you first came to West Point in the Class of 1971 and went on to inspire soldiers under your command. You've led this Academy to a well-deserved recognition: best college in America. (Applause.) And today, you're both looking forward to a well-deserved retirement from the Army. General Hagenbeck and Judy, General Finnegan and Joan, we thank you for 39 years of remarkable service to the Army and to America. (Applause.)

To the Commandant, General Rapp, the Academy staff and faculty, most of whom are veterans, thank you for your service and for inspiring these cadets to become the "leaders of character" they are today. (Applause.) Let me also acknowledge the presence of General Shinseki, Secretary McHugh, the members of Congress who are with us here today, including two former soldiers this Academy knows well, Senator Jack Reed and Congressman Patrick Murphy. (Applause.)

To all the families here -- especially all the moms and dads -- this day is a tribute to you as well. The decision to come to West Point was made by your sons and daughters, but it was you who instilled in them a spirit of service that has led them to this hallowed place in a time of war. So on behalf of the American people, thank you for your example and thank you for your patriotism. (Applause.)

To the United States Corps of Cadets, and most of all, the Class of 2010 -- it is a singular honor to serve as your Commander-in-Chief. As your Superintendent indicated, under our constitutional system my power as President is wisely limited. But there are some areas where my power is absolute. And so, as your Commander-in-Chief, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. (Applause.) I will leave the definition of "minor" -- (laughter) -- to those who know better. (Laughter.)

Class of 2010, today is your day -- a day to celebrate all that you've achieved, in the finest tradition of the soldier-scholar, and to look forward to the important service that lies ahead.

You have pushed yourself through the agony of Beast Barracks, the weeks of training in rain and mud, and, I'm told, more inspections and drills than perhaps any class before you. Along the way, I'm sure you faced a few moments when you asked yourself: "What am I doing here?" I have those moments sometimes. (Laughter.)

You've trained for the complexities of today's missions, knowing that success will be measured not merely by performance on the battlefield, but also by your understanding of the cultures and traditions and languages in the place where you serve.

You've reached out across borders, with more international experience than any class in Academy history. You've not only attended foreign academies to forge new friendships, you've welcomed into your ranks cadets from nearly a dozen countries.

You've challenged yourself intellectually in the sciences and the humanities, in history and technology. You've achieved a standard of academic excellence that is without question, tying the record for the most post-graduate scholarships of any class in West Point history. (Applause.)

This includes your number one overall cadet and your valedictorian -- Liz Betterbed and Alex Rosenberg. And by the way, this is the first time in Academy history where your two top awards have been earned by female candidates. (Applause.)

This underscores a fact that I've seen in the faces of our troops from Baghdad to Bagram -- in the 21st century, our women in uniform play an indispensable role in our national defense. And time and again, they have proven themselves to be role models for our daughters and our sons -- as students and as soldiers and as leaders in the United States armed forces.

And the faces in this stadium show a simple truth: America's Army represents the full breadth of America's experience. You come from every corner of our country -- from privilege and from poverty, from cities and small towns. You worship all of the great religions that enrich the life of our people. You include the vast diversity of race and ethnicity that is fundamental to our nation's strength.

There is, however, one thing that sets you apart. Here in these quiet hills, you've come together to prepare for the most difficult test of our time. You signed up knowing your service would send you into harm's way, and you did so long after the first drums of war were sounded. In you we see the commitment of our country, and timeless virtues that have served our nation well.

We see your sense of duty -- including those who have earned their right shoulder patch -- their right shoulder combat patches, like the soldier who suffered a grenade wound in Iraq, yet still helped his fellow soldiers to evacuate -- your First Captain of the Corps of Cadets, Tyler Gordy. (Applause.)

We see your sense of honor -- in your respect for tradition, knowing that you join a Long Grey Line that stretches through the centuries; and in your reverence for each other, as when the Corps stands in silence every time a former cadet makes the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. Indeed, today we honor the 78 graduates of this Academy who have given their lives for our freedom and our security in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And we see your love of country -- a devotion to America captured in the motto you chose as a class, a motto which will guide your lives of service: "Loyal 'Til the End."

Duty. Honor. Love of country. Everything you have learned here, all that you've achieved here, has prepared you for today -- when you raise your right hand; when you take that oath; when your loved one or mentor pins those gold bars on your shoulders; when you become, at long last, commissioned officers in the United States Army.

This is the ninth consecutive commencement that has taken place at West Point with our nation at war. This time of war began in Afghanistan -- a place that may seem as far away from this peaceful bend in the Hudson River as anywhere on Earth. The war began only because our own cities and civilians were attacked by violent extremists who plotted from a distant place, and it continues only because that plotting persists to this day.

For many years, our focus was on Iraq. And year after year, our troops faced a set of challenges there that were as daunting as they were complex. A lesser Army might have seen its spirit broken. But the American military is more resilient than that. Our troops adapted, they persisted, they partnered with coalition and Iraqi counterparts, and through their competence and creativity and courage, we are poised to end our combat mission in Iraq this summer. (Applause.)

Even as we transition to an Iraqi lead and bring our troops home, our commitment to the Iraqi people endures. We will continue to advise and assist Iraqi security forces, who are already responsible for security in most of the country. And a strong American civilian presence will help Iraqis forge political and economic progress. This will not be a simple task, but this is what success looks like: an Iraq that provides no haven to terrorists; a democratic Iraq that is sovereign and stable and self-reliant.

And as we end the war in Iraq, though, we are pressing forward in Afghanistan. Six months ago, I came to West Point to announce a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I stand here humbled by the knowledge that many of you will soon be serving in harm's way. I assure you, you will go with the full support of a proud and grateful nation.

We face a tough fight in Afghanistan. Any insurgency that is confronted with a direct challenge will turn to new tactics. And from Marja to Kandahar, that is what the Taliban has done through assassination and indiscriminate killing and intimidation. Moreover, any country that has known decades of war will be tested in finding political solutions to its problems, and providing governance that can sustain progress and serve the needs of its people.

So this war has changed over the last nine years, but it's no less important than it was in those days after 9/11. We toppled the Taliban regime -- now we must break the momentum of a Taliban insurgency and train Afghan security forces. We have supported the election of a sovereign government -- now we must strengthen its capacities. We've brought hope to the Afghan people -- now we must see that their country does not fall prey to our common enemies. Cadets, there will be difficult days ahead. We will adapt, we will persist, and I have no doubt that together with our Afghan and international partners, we will succeed in Afghanistan. (Applause.)

Now even as we fight the wars in front of us, we also have to see the horizon beyond these wars -- because unlike a terrorist whose goal is to destroy, our future will be defined by what we build. We have to see that horizon, and to get there we must pursue a strategy of national renewal and global leadership. We have to build the sources of America's strength and influence, and shape a world that's more peaceful and more prosperous.

Time and again, Americans have risen to meet and to shape moments of change. This is one of those moments -- an era of economic transformation and individual empowerment; of ancient hatreds and new dangers; of emerging powers and new global challenges. And we're going to need all of you to help meet these challenges. You've answered the call. You, and all who wear America's uniform, remain the cornerstone of our national defense, the anchor of global security. And through a period when too many of our institutions have acted irresponsibly, the American military has set a standard of service and sacrifice that is as great as any in this nation's history. (Applause.)

Now the rest of us -- the rest of us must do our part. And to do so, we must first recognize that our strength and influence abroad begins with steps we take at home. We must educate our children to compete in an age where knowledge is capital, and the marketplace is global. We must develop clean energy that can power new industry and unbound us from foreign oil and preserve our planet. We have to pursue science and research that unlocks wonders as unforeseen to us today as the microchip and the surface of the moon were a century ago.

Simply put, American innovation must be the foundation of American power -- because at no time in human history has a nation of diminished economic vitality maintained its military and political primacy. And so that means that the civilians among us, as parents and community leaders, elected officials, business leaders, we have a role to play. We cannot leave it to those in uniform to defend this country -- we have to make sure that America is building on its strengths. (Applause.)

As we build these economic sources of our strength, the second thing we must do is build and integrate the capabilities that can advance our interests, and the common interests of human beings around the world. America's armed forces are adapting to changing times, but your efforts have to be complemented. We will need the renewed engagement of our diplomats, from grand capitals to dangerous outposts. We need development experts who can support Afghan agriculture and help Africans build the capacity to feed themselves. We need intelligence agencies that work seamlessly with their counterparts to unravel plots that run from the mountains of Pakistan to the streets of our cities. We need law enforcement that can strengthen judicial systems abroad, and protect us here at home. And we need first responders who can act swiftly in the event of earthquakes and storms and disease.

The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It also cannot fall on American shoulders alone. Our adversaries would like to see America sap its strength by overextending our power. And in the past, we've always had the foresight to avoid acting alone. We were part of the most powerful wartime coalition in human history through World War II. We stitched together a community of free nations and institutions to endure and ultimately prevail during a Cold War.

Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping out of the currents of cooperation --- we have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face consequences when they don't.

So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by your side in Afghanistan and around the globe. As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we also have to build new partnerships, and shape stronger international standards and institutions.

This engagement is not an end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times --- countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing wounds. If we are successful in these tasks, that will lessen conflicts around the world. It will be supportive of our efforts by our military to secure our country.

More than anything else, though, our success will be claimed by who we are as a country. This is more important than ever, given the nature of the challenges that we face. Our campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and to defeat al Qaeda is part of an international effort that is necessary and just.

But this is a different kind of war. There will be no simple moment of surrender to mark the journey's end --- no armistice, no banner headline. Though we have had more success in eliminating al Qaeda leaders in recent months than in recent years, they will continue to recruit, and plot, and exploit our open society. We see that in bombs that go off in Kabul and Karachi. We see it in attempts to blow up an airliner over Detroit or an SUV in Times Square, even as these failed attacks show that pressure on networks like al Qaeda is forcing them to rely on terrorists with less time and space to train. We see the potential duration of this struggle in al Qaeda's gross distortions of Islam, their disrespect for human life, and their attempt to prey upon fear and hatred and prejudice.

So the threat will not go away soon, but let's be clear: Al Qaeda and its affiliates are small men on the wrong side of history. They lead no nation. They lead no religion. We need not give in to fear every time a terrorist tries to scare us. We should not discard our freedoms because extremists try to exploit them. We cannot succumb to division because others try to drive us apart. We are the United States of America. (Applause.) We are the United States of America, and we have repaired our union, and faced down fascism, and outlasted communism. We've gone through turmoil, we've gone through Civil War, and we have come out stronger --- and we will do so once more. (Applause.)

And I know this to be true because I see the strength and resilience of the American people. Terrorists want to scare us. New Yorkers just go about their lives unafraid. (Applause.) Extremists want a war between America and Islam, but Muslims are part of our national life, including those who serve in our United States Army. (Applause.) Adversaries want to divide us, but we are united by our support for you -- soldiers who send a clear message that this country is both the land of the free and the home of the brave. (Applause.)

You know, in an age of instant access to information, a lot of cynicism in the news, it's easy to lose perspective in a flood of pictures and the swirl of political debate. Power and influence can seem to ebb and flow. Wars and grand plans can be deemed won or lost day to day, even hour to hour. As we experience the immediacy of the image of a suffering child or the boasts of a prideful dictator, it's easy to give in to the belief sometimes that human progress has stalled --- that events are beyond our control, that change is not possible.

But this nation was founded upon a different notion. We believe, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (Applause.) And that truth has bound us together, a nation populated by people from around the globe, enduring hardship and achieving greatness as one people. And that belief is as true today as it was 200 years ago. It is a belief that has been claimed by people of every race and religion in every region of the world. Can anybody doubt that this belief will be any less true --- any less powerful --- two years, two decades, or even two centuries from now?

And so a fundamental part of our strategy for our security has to be America's support for those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding. And we will promote these values above all by living them -- through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it's hard; even when we're being attacked; even when we're in the midst of war.

And we will commit ourselves to forever pursuing a more perfect union. Together with our friends and allies, America will always seek a world that extends these rights so that when an individual is being silenced, we aim to be her voice. Where ideas are suppressed, we provide space for open debate. Where democratic institutions take hold, we add a wind at their back. When humanitarian disaster strikes, we extend a hand. Where human dignity is denied, America opposes poverty and is a source of opportunity. That is who we are. That is what we do.

We do so with no illusions. We understand change doesn't come quick. We understand that neither America nor any nation can dictate every outcome beyond its borders. We know that a world of mortal men and women will never be rid of oppression or evil. What we can do, what we must do, is work and reach and fight for the world that we seek -- all of us, those in uniform and those who are not.

And in preparing for today, I turned to the world --- to the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes. And reflecting on his Civil War experience, he said, and I quote, "To fight out a war you must believe in something and want something with all your might. So must you do to carry anything else to an end worth reaching." Holmes went on, "More than that, you must be willing to commit yourself to a course, perhaps a long and hard one, without being able to foresee exactly where you will come out."

America does not fight for the sake of fighting. We abhor war. As one who has never experienced the field of battle --- and I say that with humility, knowing, as General MacArthur said, "the soldier above all others prays for peace" --- we fight because we must. We fight to keep our families and communities safe. We fight for the security of our allies and partners, because America believes that we will be safer when our friends are safer; that we will be stronger when the world is more just.

So cadets, a long and hard road awaits you. You go abroad because your service is fundamental to our security back home. You go abroad as representatives of the values that this country was founded upon. And when you inevitably face setbacks --- when the fighting is fierce or a village elder is fearful; when the end that you are seeking seems uncertain --- think back to West Point.

Here, in this peaceful part of the world, you have drilled and you have studied and come of age in the footsteps of great men and women --- Americans who faced times of trial, and who even in victory could not have foreseen the America they helped to build, the world they helped to shape.

George Washington was able to free a band of patriots from the rule of an empire, but he could not have foreseen his country growing to include 50 states connecting two oceans.

[Ulysses S.] Grant was able to save a union and see the slaves freed, but he could not have foreseen just how much his country would extend full rights and opportunities to citizens of every color.

[Dwight] Eisenhower was able to see Germany surrender and a former enemy grow into an ally, but he could not have foreseen the Berlin Wall coming down without a shot being fired.

Today it is your generation that has borne a heavy burden --- soldiers, graduates of this Academy like John Meyer and Greg Ambrosia who have braved enemy fire, protected their units, carried out their missions, earned the commendation of this Army, and of a grateful nation.

From the birth of our existence, America has had a faith in the future -- a belief that where we're going is better than where we've been, even when the path ahead is uncertain. To fulfill that promise, generations of Americans have built upon the foundation of our forefathers -- finding opportunity, fighting injustice, forging a more perfect union. Our achievement would not be possible without the Long Grey Line that has sacrificed for duty, for honor, for country. (Applause.)

And years from now when you return here, when for you the shadows have grown longer, I have no doubt that you will have added your name to the book of history. I have no doubt that we will have prevailed in the struggles of our times. I have no doubt that your legacy will be an America that has emerged stronger, and a world that is more just, because we are Americans, and our destiny is never written for us, it is written by us, and we are ready to lead once more.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.
(Applause.)

Iran Nuke Analysis: Reading the US-Turkey Discussions

A bit of background to Monday's agreement between Iran, Turkey, and Brazil on procedure for an uranium enrichment deal....

Four days before the announcement, on 13 May, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had a telephone conversation with his counterpart Hillary Clinton. Two days after that, on Saturday, they met, just before Davutoglu went to Tehran.

Hours later, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan --- who had cancelled his own trip to Iran on the Friday --- reversed course. He set aside a visit to Azerbaijan and flew to Tehran.

So what happened in the high-letter US-Turkey encounters just before the IBT agreement? According to the State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley:

During the call [on 13 May], the Secretary stressed that, in our view, Iran’s recent diplomacy was an attempt to stop Security Council action without actually taking steps to address international concerns about its nuclear program.

There’s nothing new and nothing encouraging in Iran’s recent statements. It has failed to demonstrate good faith and build confidence with the international community, which was the original intent of the Tehran research reactor proposal. It has yet to formally respond to the IAEA.

She [Clinton] stressed that the burden is with Iran and its lack of seriousness about engagement requires us to intensify efforts to apply greater pressure on Iran. Now, that was the primary purpose of the conversation. They briefly touched on other subjects, including Middle East peace and the relationship between Turkey and Azerbaijan.

Throughout the question-and-answer session, Crowley was giving the message: Iran was not going to give up its own enrichment of 20-percent uranium and so there was still the "urgent" need for sanctions as a result of the dual policy towards Iran. Translated, Washington said that there would be no unclenched fist extended to Iran as long as Israel's protests  over Tehran's nuclear programme and the regional contest for influence continued.

Crowley continued:

Iran has been very busy in recent weeks having conversations with a range of countries. Part of that conversation did occur last week in the dinner in New York. And not only – during the conversation in New York, not only did Iran not offer any new, Foreign Minister Mottaki indicated during the dinner that notwithstanding any potential agreement on the Tehran research reactor, they would continue to enrich uranium to 20 percent, which we –-- which is of great concern to us and violates their obligations under the IAEA.

So they had initially, when they announced they were going to enrich uranium to 20 percent, they claimed at the time that it was for the Tehran research reactor, but it’s obviously part of a broader agenda. And that’s what we are concerned about. That’s why we continue to pursue the sanctions resolution as part of our pressure track.

When asked whether Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's expected visit to Tehran was a "last opportunity", Crowley said:

Well, I mean, we are –-- we continue to move forward on a sanctions resolution, and we have a sense of urgency about this. We want to get this done as quickly as possible. But our view remains that we are doubtful that Iran is going to change course absent the kind of significant pressure that comes with a resolution and the consequences that come with them.

Then, when he was asked whether the State Department gave Davutoglu any red lines that Turkey should not cross, Crowley replied:

Regarding the TRR [the Tehran Research Reactor], it [a proposal for "third country enrichment"] was put on the table last fall to build confidence with the international community about the true intentions of Iran’s nuclear program. We have drawn conclusions from Iran’s failure to even respond –-- much less engage constructively –-- even respond to the proposal formally to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency].

[Clinton] stressed to Foreign Minister Davutoglu again today that it’s not about the public statements that Iran makes. If Iran wishes to engage in –-- regarding the TRR, come up with alternatives that meet the fundamental intent of the proposal, then they can pick up the phone and call the IAEA, which is something they have failed to do.

Following the announcement of the IBT agreement, Crowley restated the reasons for an "urgent" sanctions draft:

In the statement, the White House acknowledged the efforts made by Turkey and Brazil and now called upon the IAEA to clearly and authoritatively convey the results of this arrangement to the IAEA. That said, the United States continues to have concerns about the arrangement. The joint declaration does not address the core concerns of the international community.

Iran remains in defiance of five UN Security Council resolutions, including its unwillingness to suspend enrichment operations. In fact, today Iran reaffirmed that it plans to continue to enrich uranium to 20 percent despite the fact that it previously justified this increased enrichment as for the Tehran research reactor. So public statements today suggest that the TRR deal is unrelated to it ongoing enrichment activity. In fact, they are integrally linked.

And then Crowley became very coy and even deceptive about how much Washington knew of the Turkish and Brazilian efforts:

I think we had conversations with Foreign Minister Amorim and Foreign Minister Davutoglu prior to their arrival in Tehran. I’m not aware of any specific contacts with them over the weekend.

But, setting aside Crowley's public spin, did the US know in advance of Erdogan's sudden decision to go to Iran? Most likely, Washington did not anticipate that the diplomatic efforts were moving towards an agreement, leading to the Turkish Prime Minister's change of plans. Ankara had made a decision: the benefits of a joint proposal with Iran and Brazil meant that it would exert autonomy and risk the US reaction.

Now the question is "What will Turkey will do in the UN?" This week, Erdogan wrote a letter to President Obama, saying that Ankara had opened the door slightly for a resolutio. Now the ball was in Washington's court.

In other words: "We did our part (and gained diplomatic and political advantage from doing so). You want to mess up this agreement with sanctions, so be it --- although don't expect us to vote for the resolution in the Security Council.

"We've got our ties with the US, which we value. But we also have our economic and political ties with Tehran."

Afghanistan Analysis: Karzai 2, Obama 1 (Cole)

Juan Cole writes in light of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's visit to Afghanistan:

Afghanistan is already beginning to defeat Barack Obama.

He came into office last year clearly hoping to find a way to move Hamid Karzai, the mercurial and ineffectual president of Afghanistan who only controls some 30 percent of the country, out of office in favor of someone more capable as a leader. Perhaps he had in mind the way the US allied with Kurds, Sunnis, and other Shiites to dump Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister of Iraq in the first months of 2006.

Afghanistan: Revealing the US “Black Site” Prison at Bagram (Fisher)

But Karzai fought back with all his considerable local resources, arranging to steal the presidential election of August 2009 and then to behave so extravagantly that he discouraged his only major challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, from even mounting a run-off challenge. The breathtaking boldness of this blatant set of slaps in the face of Washington and other international patrons astonished UN diplomat and former US ambassador Peter Galbraith, who went public with his criticisms of Karzai and got himself summarily fired.


Even as Karzai was stealing the election and shoring up his power by depending on his brothers and on cronies (who have been accused by some high US officials of being a drug cartel), he was continuing to reach out behind the scenes to his primary internal enemies, the old-time mujahidin (Gulbadin Hikmatyar’s Islamic Party militia in the Pashtun East and the Haqqani Network of Jalal and Siraj Haqqani) and the Old Taliban of Mulla Omar. The US was opposed to such contacts, and some US military personnel saw Karzai’s negotiations with people who were actively attempting to kill American soldiers little short of treasonous.

In contrast, Obama’s plan for Afghanistan was a massive counter-insurgency effort, including the adding of tens of thousands of new troops and hard war fighting aimed at taking and holding vast swathes of territory. It is an audacious plan and its chance of success is about 10%. It is more or less opposed by Karzai, who expressed himself lukewarm about the first major demonstration project in Marjah, the success of which is still questionable.

Obama had tried and failed to dislodge Karzai by disparaging him, had opposed Karzai’s negotiations with insurgents, and had imposed on the reluctant Karzai and enormous new military occupation of his own power base in the Pashtun West.

Relations got so bad that a few weeks ago Karzai threatened to go over to to the Taliban.

This week in Washington, Obama finally backed down. He feted Karzai and made sure he felt wanted. He acquiesced in Kabul’s outreach to the insurgents. He reconfigured his troop escalation as helpful pressure on the guerrillas to force them to the negotiating table.

Karzai mostly won, though he hadn’t gotten the hated counter-insurgency plan cancelled and could still see his beloved Qandahar invaded and occupied by the white Christian Westerners this summer. Still, Obama’s own plans for Afghanistan lay in tatters as he is forced to face the harsh limits on US capacity to shape a huge, craggy, tribal country half way around the world.

Radio Azadi reports in Dari Persian that Afghanistan’s independent human rights commission was disappointed that the communiques coming out of the White House and Karzai’s office about the meetings in Washington did not foreground the welfare of the actual people of Afghanistan, or human rights in that country, or improvements in the position of women.

PBS Newshour has video which is, as usual, professional. But the title, “Obama, Karzai Renew Pledge to Continue Fight Against Al-Qaida in Afghanistan,” drives me crazy. There is no al-Qaeda to speak of in Afghanistan and that organization is irrelevant to the social and political struggles in that country. Obama himself continues to frame whatever it is he thinks he is doing in that country in those terms, which does not inspire confidence. But why would among our best foreign affairs programs fall for that rhetoric?

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.