Video & Transcript: Hugo Chavez Interview with CNN's Larry King!

On September 24, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was the guest on Larry King's CNN talkshow. In this interview, Chavez offered thoughts from the United States to Iran; from oil politics to the Gaza War; from his thoughts about assassination to his wishes when he was a child.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy79VaZ9rBw&feature=related[/youtube]

LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Venezuela's outspoken, headline making president Hugo Chavez. He called George W. Bush "The Devil" and now says it seems there are two Barack Obamas.

He counts Iran, Cuba, Syria and Libya as allies. He spends billions buying weapons from Russia and sells a whole a lot of oil to the United States. He's also the star of a new Oliver Stone documentary.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez for the hour is next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Good evening.

From the Venezuelan Mission, about a block from the United Nations, it's our pleasure to welcome to LARRY KING LIVE, President Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela.

He addressed the United Nations a short time ago.

The president of the United States addressed the U.N. earlier.

And he said, Mr. President, he's calling for a new era in world relations.

What sort of relationship do you want now with the United States?

HUGO CHAVEZ, VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT (through translator unless otherwise noted): Hi, Larry -- or Larry King?

The King.

KING: Any way you want.

CHAVEZ: Well, us and the whole world, we want relations based on respect -- relations of peoples where we are respected. Most governments in the United States in a hundred years have not respected the peoples of Latin America. They have sponsored coup d'etats, assassinations.

It's enough. We want to be brothers and sisters. We want respect and equality. Simon Bolivar, our father, said a balanced world -- a universe -- a balanced universe in order to have peace and development.

KING: Do you expect it to be better with President Obama?

Of course, you called him -- now, you said there are two Obamas. Well, what do you mean?

CHAVEZ: I explained this already. We have an Obama that talks about peace yesterday, to sponsor peace, to promote peace. And one of the pillars of his foreign policy I accept this calling and we join him in this calling for peace.

However, there is another Obama -- the one who approved the installation of seven military bases. That's another Obama -- the Obama sponsoring war; using food and the presence of military officers and using the U.S. weaponry against Latin America. We want to see the Obama of peace.

I shook hands with that Obama. That's the Obama we want. The world needs a true leader, an Obama that promotes peace and understanding in the world.

KING: But don't you add to it when you call President Bush a devil or you call -- as you called President Obama once -- an ignoramus?

Don't you think that insults, Mr. President, don't harbor peace?

CHAVEZ: Well, if you talk about insults and name calling -- well, if we withdrawal the insults on those name calling, then we can have peace?

Well, we need to do that, but all of us.

Now, how Bush called me?

The U.S. -- the -- the Bush government toppled me. They asked for my assassination. They disrespected us.

We reply in the firm manner, in the hard manner, but it's not the way you call a president or a human being. I said today it doesn't smell sulfur anymore in the United Nations. I want that we have new winds -- winds of hope.

Now who has been insulted?

It's us. Bush aggressed and used the world.

KING: How do you know -- know -- how do you know they tried to assassinate you?

How do you know that?

CHAVEZ: I saw my assassins. At dawn, I was a prisoner in Venezuela, being a president. They took me to the seaside.

I was debating with those who wanted murder me. They received the order to kill me. However, at this very moment, a group of soldiers refused. They did not kill me, but I saw those who wanted to kill me and the order came from the White House. There is no doubt in my mind. The same thing as they ordered to kill Salvador Allende and to kill Che Guevara and to kill Ojeda Rios. And the same thing to bombard Panama, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic.

That's our history and we want a new time. We want peace.

KING: Be that as it may, true or not, that's the past. Let's look to today. You are spending billions buying new weapons, large amounts from Russia, reports say tanks and rockets.

Why does your country need all these weapons?

What is the threat to Venezuela?

CHAVEZ: Well, that's the story they are telling around. All countries have a defense system. The United States have one.

How much do you spend in weapons daily -- atomic bombs, steel planes?

Who his the country that is sponsoring war around the world?

Now, Larry, for a long time, Venezuela has bought these F-16 planes manufactured in the United States. They do not sell us, however, the spare parts. So most of them cannot fly. Transportation planes -- you don't sell us the spare parts; also, surveillance planes to fight against drug trafficking. The U.S. government does not sell us the spare parts.

Now we have resorted to other options, to have at least the minimum required for our defense. But who can accuse us of arms race, the United States?

KING: But who do you -- the United States...

CHAVEZ: That's ironical.

KING: The United States had a 9/11.

Who do you fear?

Who do fear is going -- what country is going to harm you?

CHAVEZ: What did you say?

KING: Who -- what country...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: What country do you fear will harm you?

CHAVEZ: The empire. The empire. Seven military bases, gringo military bases in Colombia. That's a serious threat against Venezuela. Let's see the reality. That's the reality. The Colombian government, for instance, attacked Ecuadorian territory a year ago based on the principles of the preventive wall -- the same used by Israel to attack the Gaza Strip.

Venezuela has the largest oil reserve and Venezuela has to defend itself. That's what we are doing.

Now, I repeat, who can criticize us, the United States?

On what grounds -- that Venezuela is equipped with the minimum required to defend itself to ensure it -- assure the sovereignty of its country?

Can you criticize that?

KING: We'll be right back with President Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, at the mission in New York.

Don't go away.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa6zJqTjUwM&feature=related[/youtube]

KING: You're watching LARRY KING LIVE.

We're back with President Chavez of Venezuela.

Secretary Clinton, the secretary of State, says that she is worried about your country, that you could trigger a regional arms race. She wants to make sure that the weapons that you have don't end up with insurgent groups and drug traffickers.

Is she right to be worried?

CHAVEZ: I think she's totally lost.

KING: Lost?

CHAVEZ: And you should be concerned. Yes, she's lost. She -- she has lost her way and you should be concerned you didn't have attacks on this country. Your State secretary is totally lost. She is totally wrong.

I think the United States and the secretary of State should be concerned about the poverty in this country -- people without health insurance. The United States should stop being the empire and be concerned about other countries. You've got to be more worried about your own people.

Now, let me tell you this, Larry, in Venezuela, our defense budget -- and pay attention and I'll tell you this. Our defense budget is one of the lowest of the whole hemisphere. You know, Colombia has a very high defense budget thanks to the support of the U.S., the U.S. president, the Pentagon. Colombia has 10 times more -- spends -- expenditures in military weapons than Venezuela. Venezuela is half that amount. Do you know how we spend our money?

In education, health care, schools, culture. That's the core element of our policy. Now, you want to present us -- Chavez -- as the arms race. We want peace, culture, education, health. That's the core -- the center of our attention. Well, the secretary of State is totally lost in her analysis.

KING: But shouldn't -- based on what you say, shouldn't Colombia worry a little about you?

CHAVEZ: No. We have given Colombia affection or an open hand, open arms. I consider myself Colombian and I want for them the same thing I want for us because Colombia was -- they get wide homeland built by Bolivar. I consider myself Colombian. We want peace in Colombia.

And I said to Obama in Trinidad & Tobago, when he approached me to say hello and he was very gracious. And I told him, "Obama, why shouldn't we do something for Colombia? Let's open a key committee -- commission."

And now Obama has stolen bases in Colombia to promote death and war. He is wrong. Mrs. Clinton is wrong. Obama should be consistent with what he suggested, which is to promote peace.

KING: Do you support rebels in Colombia?

CHAVEZ: No. Of course not. Never. I endorsed peace in Colombia. Larry, the first time and the only time I met with guerilla leaders was at the request of the Colombian government, Pastrana, 10 years ago. He wanted peace. And now Uribe asked me to receive some insurgents in order to foster peace.

I want peace, peace, peace in Colombia. And I ask for help to -- to this country to achieve peace in Colombia.

KING: We'll be right back with President Chavez.

Don't go away.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSjujlBZC2w&feature=related[/youtube]

KING: We're back with President Chavez of Venezuela.

You have a close relationship with Iran. And there have been huge protests in Iran over the past election.

Why do you support a government who's had so much bloodshed, whose presidential election is in question?

Why do you support Iran?

CHAVEZ: Well, we support each other and we have the right to do that -- we do that. We are sovereign nations because we have an excellent cooperation relation in the field of health. We manufacture medicine, technology, technology transfer for food production in Venezuela, we're installing milk processing plants to develop agriculture, to produce food. We have political cooperation.

Now, the internal situation in Iran, that's an internal situation. I do not meddle in those internal situations in affairs in Iran. And the same thing with Iran. The same thing with the U.S. You have relations with many countries.

Are we going to blame the U.S. for having relations with dictators and monarchs?

Israel, for instance, the United States -- you support Israel and Israel is a genocidal government. Iran has not invaded anyone. The Iranians have a revolution. The previous leader was the shah. He -- this is democracy in Iran with the Islamic style. But you have to be respectful.

KING: Mr. President, you said in Tehran on a recent trip that the Iranian government was going to help your government develop nuclear technology.

Why -- why do you need nuclear technology?

CHAVEZ: I've never said -- they have fooled you. I've never said that Iran is going to help us to have nuclear technology. We -- there is the opinion -- and that's a strategy -- to attack Venezuela and say that we are building an atomic bomb. That's the next accusation.

And I'm going to say this now. Please, come on. That's crazy. That's crazy.

Now, I tell you, right, you don't destroy your nuclear arms -- and those people who could criticize who have those weapons. Obama said that they want a world without nuclear arms. Let me tell you this, we have signed with Russia -- with Russia, with Medvedev, a mechanism to develop, in Venezuela, nuclear energy -- nuclear energy. That is not a bomb, but energy.

Who manufactures the bombs and -- the nuclear bombs?

The United States and then other countries.

Who launched the nuclear bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

We want -- Brazil does and Argentina, France and many other countries -- we want to develop the nuclear technology for medicine, to develop energy, because one day, we will run out of oil. You don't see it. Our grandchildren might see it. We need to invest in technology to generate alternatives of energy. Nuclear energy is an alternative.

KING: We'll be right back with President Chavez of Venezuela.

Don't go away.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO32S45XTk4&feature=related[/youtube]

KING: Now there is something curious, Mr. President. You are friends with Iran and Cuba, Libya and Syria -- countries that are not friends with us.

Do you, just honestly, do you want to be friends with the United States?

CHAVEZ: Russia is not an enemy of the U.S. Libya is not an enemy. Iran, well, they have been aggressed by the United States and threatened by the United States. I want to be friends of everybody, Larry. I don't care about the internal political system of the United States. I want to be a friend of United States, of its baseball, its institutions, its rock and roll, its workers and its technology because we need it. I want to be friends of the Arab people, of the Persian people, of the Asian people. I was just talking to the president of Vietnam. We need to know those worlds in the world, what different worlds. We need to be respectful and we need to learn to live in this world despite differences.

KING: Why do you -- you denounce Israel, which is not in your part of the world. You -- you support the president of Iran. He denies that there was a Holocaust. Now, come on. You know there was a Holocaust.

CHAVEZ: Yes. But there also was another holocaust in South America. I do not deny the Jewish Holocaust and I condemn it. But in South America, when the Europeans arrived, there were close to 90 million Indians. Two hundred years later, we only had four million remaining. That was an holocaust. And the Europeans denied this holocaust. So we did have -- we might have different approaches. But you cannot demonize something because of their ideas.

How many did that -- believe that?

I do not believe this. I defend my ideas. But you cannot condemn someone because of his ideas or their approaches.

What happened in Gaza?

(AUDIO GAP)

Jimmy Carter.

They killed how many children in Jakarta?

What is that?

Genocide. Thousands of families destroyed with bombs and towns. That's crazy. That's a genocide. In Africa, there was a genocide. Millions died.

KING: You do not think Israel is a beleaguered country?

Small little Israel, surrounded by enemies, is not a beleaguered country? CHAVEZ: A small country with atomic bombs and very aggressive country who invaded the Golan Heights. And he had to give them back to Syria. They have massacred entire families. It is a war-mongering country. And I discuss the Israeli people and the Jewish people that live in Venezuela. They are my friends. I respect them. I've prayed with them, respecting their beliefs, as I respect the Islam -- Islamic people.

One thing is this the Israeli people, another thing those who kill people. They have no mercy.

Did you read the statement of an Israeli officer recently?

He regretted what they did against Gaza last year because they killed everybody -- children, elderly, women.

KING: Are we ever going to have peace?

Are we ever going to have peace?

CHAVEZ: Yes, we want peace. Of course we want peace.

KING: We'll be back with the President of Venezuela in a moment.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8F_F4UEE9o&feature=related[/youtube]

KING: We're at the Venezuelan Mission next to the U.N. in New York City with President Chavez of Venezuela.

Your country, of course, very rich in oil. In fact, you claim to have the biggest oil reserves in the world. You're a larger of exporter world -- of oil, rather -- to this country, the United States.

Doesn't your economy need America?

CHAVEZ: We all need America. America needs us. And we need America. That's for sure. Yes, we are large oil exporters.

KING: Isn't it in your best interests to treat -- to have a peace with America, to be in concert with America?

I mean you're interdependent.

CHAVEZ: Yes, of course. No doubt. In my first government, I had good relations with the Clintons. I came to the White House. We met here in New York several times. We spoke on the phone. And I said to Obama and I said to Mrs. Clinton in Trinidad, we want -- I want to be as close with you as I was with Mr. Clinton. The thing is that Bush destroyed everything with the coup d'etat, with the sabotage. He ordered my assassination. They destabilized Venezuela, following Bush's orders. We want with Obama to come back to the Clintonian times. Despite all the problems with Bush, we always sent you 1.5 million barrels of oil. And we have here in United States Citgo that processes two million barrels a day. And they provide 10,000 gas stations in the United States. And they have the program to help the poor and the needy. Providing heating oil to the poor and need here because poverty is very important in United States.

KING: Will you ever cut off oil to the United States?

CHAVEZ: I didn't do this the time of Bush. I would never do this now. But even during the coup, that's my commitment. And we send oil to our oil company here. That's business. And we are sending oil over to China, to Europe, to the Caribbean, to South America. Venezuela, Larry, our reserve, could last 150 years.

Once we run out of oil on this earth, there will be four or five countries with available oil: Russia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The world will depend on us and we want to entertain the best relations investing in resources to be able to sustain and to meet the large energy needs of the world.

The United States do not have the reserves required. We want to have good relations with the US.

KING: With all your oil, why aren't you doing better economically? Why is there poverty in your country and unemployment? With all the oil you have, you should be dominant.

CHAVEZ: Well, let me tell you this. Venezuela, when I became president, poverty in Venezuela was almost 60 percent. Today, it's below 30. We met the millennium goal. Extreme poverty was 24 percent, now it's seven percent, and it keeps on going down. Unemployment was close to 20 percent. Now it's close to six percent, better than the US. Here, unemployment has increased.

The world crisis has not affected us. We have improved employment. The -- and child mortality has improved. And I know that you are a generous person. You have a foundation to help children suffering from heart diseases. I invite you to visit our heart hospital, built by the revolution in Caracas, the biggest of the hemisphere. We are operating 1,500 children every year, free of charge.

We have a health care system that's taking care of 15 million inhabitants and there's free distribution of food, donated to the poor people. And it serves 40 percent of the population. Venezuela has changed in a dramatic fashion. We have distributed the income.

KING: More with Hugo Chavez right after this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ53hzxTBk4&feature=related[/youtube]

KING: We're back with President Chavez. We're in New York City.

In February, you won a referendum that lifts term limit. Some fear that you are power-hungry and you want to be president for life. Is that true?

CHAVEZ: No. I want to serve my country as long as my people want. We had a referendum and this is a constitution that's being enforced for 10 years. We have created a participatory democracy, moving away from the liberal democracy -- the democracy of the rich and the elite against the poor. The people decided to amend the constitution, and opening the possibility not only for the president, but also to the mayors, to governors, to the deputies. They can be elected without time limits.

KING: You are a full democracy?

CHAVEZ: Full democracy, no. A democracy in development, in progress. We want to have more democracy and hopefully one day we achieve full democracy.

KING: President Carter -- who you recently mentioned favorably -- said recently that you were becoming too authoritarian. He made the remarks in the Colombian newspaper "El Tiempo". He said that, "Chavez is consolidating all political power in his office at the expense of an independent judiciary." True?

CHAVEZ: Yes, I read that and I regret for him, because I think he's totally confounded and lost. It's a long time since he visited us. I respect him enormously, but I think he is wrong. He's a victim of so much falsehood in the world. He knew Venezuela before Chavez, when there was extraordinary power concentration.

We are distributing power. We need to transfer power to the people. We are creating the people's power, and I wish he visits us and see the communities -- the communities, the -- he's wrong. No one is perfect, of course.

KING: You're inviting him to --

CHAVEZ: I invite him because he's a serious person and I'm concerned that he's totally wrong now.

KING: How about silencing your critics, Mr. President? Fears you're going to shut down Global Vision, the remaining independent television station in Venezuela. In fact, some say that is a certainty, you're going to close down that television. Are you?

CHAVEZ: It's not the last independent network in Venezuela. We have hundreds of independent networks in Venezuela. Independents are those who do not belong to the state. I mean, they are not independent. They depend on the owners, of course. They are not independent. There is no freedom of speech.

Now, I said to journalists a while ago, never in Venezuela we had so much freedom of speech as now. You know Chomsky, right? He went to visit us recently. Some Venezuelan media supported openly the coup d'etat. They have called for my assassination, such as Pat Robinson said had to be murdered. They repeat the same thing.

Chomsky said that in the United States, some networks like your network, for instance, where you work, they call for a coup d'etat and to murder the president.

KING: CNN called for this? Are you saying my network did that?

CHAVEZ: No, no, no. In case you say such a thing, you do such a thing, Chomsky said what would happen in the United States if something like that happened. Not only they will be closed down, but they will be put in the electric chair.

KING: Didn't you close 32 radio stations?

CHAVEZ: Not at all. That's a lie. Again, that's a lie.

KING: Are you --

CHAVEZ: Listen. Listen, there is a law. You accept that there is a law, right? If I have a car, I drive my car in New York and I go against the -- the rules, the traffic rules, I'm going to be detained. If I want to drive in a -- in a -- in a street in New York 120 miles, I will commit a crime. And there is a law in Venezuela, those who break the law, they lose their right to use the -- these networks, because they break the law. But in our country, we have hundreds of radio stations.

KING: Yes or no, my original question -- are you going to close Global Vision?

CHAVEZ: I do not know. It depends on them. If they keep on sponsoring coup d'etats, if they keep on calling for my assassination, if they keep on breaching the law even as well, it is not Chavez that's going to close them. I want to apply the law. We need to respect the law. It is the law. It's out of logic, and it's pure logic.

KING: Back with more right after this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oapXb0-HzV8[/youtube]

KING: We're back with Hugo Chavez. We're at the Mission in New York of Venezuela. He visited here and spoke to the U.N. earlier today.

Your friendship with Fidel Castro, very close?

CHAVEZ: Profound, very, extremely close. He's like a father to me, like a father, a political father. I admire him enormously. He is one of the greatest men of the 20th and the 21st century of this hemisphere and of the world.

KING: And he is a communist.

CHAVEZ: And what's wrong about that?

KING: You'd like -- you're not a communist. You don't support.

CHAVEZ: I am a socialist. Now, I prefer him as a communist than to the capitalist. I have friends who are capitalists. I'm not going to condemn them because they are capitalists.

Fidel, beyond his political ideas, he's a visionary. Fidel, he's the father of the Latin America revolution, and his ideas today are more alive than ever. I do not know if you have the time to read Fidel's reflections. It is a book now, and he is writing now that he has retired -- profound reflections on philosophy, the need to care about the environment of the planet.

And through socialism it's -- Fidel's path is the way to save the planet. It's not through capitalism that was born here in the United States.

You should reflect upon this. It is capitalism that was to blame for the great evils in this world, that was to blame for the crisis of this country and the rest of the planet. This socialism is going to save this planet. Rosa Luxemburg said socialism or barbarism.

KING: But Cuba has been oppressive. It has many political prisoners. You know that.

CHAVEZ: Cuba has a political system. It is a revolution. There are prisoners like you find them elsewhere. In Cuba there are election. People deny the truth about Cuba. In Cuba you have a people --

KING: All right. I got to get a break.

CHAVEZ: OK. OK.

KING: We'll be right back.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4tDrGqA26Q[/youtube]

KING: Back with President Chavez. What happens to Cuba after Fidel? I know he's not -- I know Raul now is charge, but basically what happens when Fidel goes?

CHAVEZ: Well, I think Cuba has a path already set. I know Cuba pretty well. Fidel is no longer in power. Its Raul, and Cuba keeps on building its socialism. Let's leave them alone.

Obama should -- as we requested him, all of us -- stop the embargo against Cuba. And Lula said this yesterday, and I said this today. It is absurd to block a country that becomes part of the 16th century. Obama should stop the embargo against Cuba. Let's leave them alone.

There are five Cubans in prison here for fighting against terror. Here in the U.S. there is a Cuban born prisoner who was the father of terrorism, and he is here protected. I've been asking for the -- requesting for him to go back to Venezuela.

And Posada Carriles, he has planted a bomb in a plane, and they killed a group of Cuban spokespersons, so I need to use this opportunity to ask Obama, President Obama, extradite the terrorist, Posada Carriles, to Venezuela. We are waiting for him. And comply with international law.

KING: Do you want to export your socialism? Do you want to spread to other countries, the Chavez socialism?

CHAVEZ: No. There is no Chavez socialism. That is ridiculous. Each country has its own sovereignty. Country has its own people, its own ideas, its own leaders. Each country should fill its own destiny. That's essential. That's part of the sovereignty of the people.

Venezuela has decided in democracy and in peace to go on the path of socialism. That's our right. We have the best of relations with all the -- the countries of the hemisphere, except for Colombia and the U.S., and that's regrettable.

But I am a good friend of -- friend of countries that speak several languages. We have good relations with all those countries, and we respect each other. There's no plan to export. We are exporting oil. That's yes. And we want to export chemical products and all that, but not the revolution.

KING: In our limited time left, some personal questions. What do you like about the United States?

CHAVEZ: Baseball. The people. Yesterday, I walked a little bit in New York. And the Secret Service people have been very gracious, very efficient, and very attentionate (ph), very kind. We walked with him -- with them, and we saw a group of people, women, elderly people greeting us. I love America the way I like Russia, Venezuela, Argentina. This is part of the world.

I like music. Yesterday, I met a lady who sings rock and roll, and we kissed. And I love the movies. Yesterday we went to see Oliver Stone and a group of actors -- Danny Glover. I love the movies. I was telling a person there that I love the movies of this guy Charles Bronson. I love this actor. Excellent actor. He died when he was very young, still young.

These are the most adventures. And baseball, the Yankee Stadium, Walt Whitman. I love those.

KING: All right. You've convinced me. We'll be back with our remaining moments with Hugo Chavez right after this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3p3l1wm8JM&feature=related[/youtube]

KING: Some other notes before you leave us.

Would you invite our president to Venezuela?

CHAVEZ: Of course. Of course. I invite him any time. When we met, I told him, "Obama, I gave this hand to Bush eight years ago and I told him the same thing I'm telling you, I want to be your friend."

I wish him to -- to be with us. I met a number of trade union leaders and they asked me to buy a cracker factory. And we want to have the best of relations -- economic, social -- with these great countries, but not with an empire.

So I invite Obama, no problem. KING: Truth -- would you rather here have been a Major League baseball player than president of Venezuela?

CHAVEZ: It was my dream. It was my dream. I would have preferred, personally, to do that. However, since you do not decide what you're going to do. I went to the army because I wanted to be a baseball player. I became a soldier.

Then Venezuela just shattered and the -- the wind that found me president. But I am still that young baseball player who wanted to play in the Yankee Stadium.

KING: Would you rather have been a singer?

CHAVEZ: I love to sing. Well, I'm not a very good singer. Of course, a poet. I love poetry, singing, culture.

KING: Are you, then, misunderstood?

The image of you in America, are we wrong?

CHAVEZ: I'm just a man with many defects. I love. I sing. I dream. I was born in the countryside. I was raised in the countryside. (INAUDIBLE) manufactured by my grandmother. I loved to live -- to live. My children -- my two daughters are with me. And I want a better world for my grandchildren, for your grandchildren.

Now, they demonize me. But that's the start of these world campaigns to try to defend what you cannot defend, a system that is destroying the world. What we want -- what -- this is what I wanted. I'm a Christian. I want the world of justice and equality. This is the only way to achieve peace.

I was an altar boy. My mother wanted me to be a priest. I am very Christian and Catholic.

KING: Do you have faith?

CHAVEZ: Oh, a lot of faith, yes. I'm very faithful. I believe in God, in Jesus Christ. I love Jesus Christ. I am a Christian. And I feel like the cross of Jesus Christ, a world of injustice, inequities. I cry when I see injustice and justice -- people, children die of hunger. And you -- you see that -- you see that. I know you do. You feel the pain of others.

I'm faithful that there will be a better world. That's why I said today, it doesn't smell sulfur anyone. I want to smell a different world -- hope, faith, peace. We need to unite. The United States should unite with the South American countries to produce food, medicine, to fight against poverty, to take people out of poverty. That's our goal.

KING: We're, sadly, out of time.

I thank you.

CHAVEZ (Speaking English): Larry -- Larry King. Larry the king.

Larry the king.

Larry the king.

KING: The king.

Transcripts: Secretary of Defense Gates on CNN, ABC

Iran’s Nukes: Did Gates Just Complicate the Obama Position?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Robert Gates on CNN's "State of the Union"

JOHN KING: Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us.

We learned as the week came to an end about a new underground secret Iranian nuclear bunker, and the president described it this way. “The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program.”

Tell us more about what we know, and do you have any doubt Iran was using this facility or planned to use this facility to develop nuclear weapons?

GATES: We’ve been watching the construction of this facility for quite some time, and one of the reasons that we waited to make it public was to ensure that our conclusions about its purpose were right.

This is information shared among ourselves, the British, the French, as we’ve gone along. And I think that, certainly, the intelligence people have no doubt that this is an illicit nuclear facility, if only because the Iranians kept it a secret. If they wanted it for peaceful nuclear purposes, there’s no reason to put it so deep underground, no reason to be deceptive about it, keep it a secret for a protracted period of time.

KING: Take me back in time. You say you’ve known about it for some time, dating back into the Bush administration. You, of course, were serving in the Bush administration. How far back?

GATES: Well, it’s hard for me to remember, but at least a couple of years we’ve been watching it.

KING: At least a couple of years. Because the former vice president, Dick Cheney, is on record as saying in the closing months of the administration, he was an advocate for possibly using military action against some of these Iranian sites. Was this one of his targets, this area we’ve just learned about?

GATES: Well, I think I’ll just let his statement speak for itself.

KING: All right. We know -- and correct me if I’m wrong, please -- that you were skeptical about that, in fact, opposed to that. You didn’t think that was the way to go. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has said publicly many times how skeptical he is about the military options here. I just want you to help an American out there who says, we can’t trust Ahmadinejad, this has been going on for years. We don’t think sanctions will work. Why don’t we do something about it? Explain to that person out there, whether they work in the United States Congress or whether it’s just an average American, when you look at the contingencies that you have available to you and the president has available to him, are there any good military options when it comes to these deep underground facilities?

GATES: Well, without getting into any specifics, I would just say we obviously don’t take any options off the table.

My view has been that there has been an opportunity through the use of diplomacy and economic sanctions to persuade the Iranians to change their approach to nuclear weapons.

The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time. The estimates are one to three years or so. And the only way you end up not having a nuclear capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons as opposed to strengthened.

So I think, as I say, while you don’t take options off the table, I think there’s still room left for diplomacy. The P5 plus 1 [US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China] will be meeting with Iran here shortly. The Iranians are in a very bad spot now because of this deception, in terms of all of the great powers. And there obviously is the opportunity for severe additional sanctions. And I think we have the time to make that work.

KING: I want to get to that diplomacy in just a minute, but when you shared this intelligence with others, I want to ask you specifically about the case of Israel, which you know in the past has been very skeptical about the diplomatic route. And many have thought perhaps Israel would take matters into its own hands because it is in the neighborhood. What did the Israeli government, specifically the Israeli military, say when they learned of this intelligence, about this new second facility?

GATES: Well, Israel, obviously, thinks of the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat to Israel. We’ve obviously been in close touch with them, as our ally and friend, and continue to urge them to let this diplomatic and economic sanctions path play out.

KING: And as that goes forward, President Sarkozy was quite skeptical and he was very clear, this year, December, he wants to see progress or else we’ll see tougher sanctions. From your perspective, what sanctions would have the most teeth, would work?

GATES: Well, there are a variety of options still available, including sanctions on banking, particularly sanctions on equipment and technology for their oil and gas industry. I think there’s a pretty rich list to pick from, actually.

KING: If you look at that list, though, in some of those cases, you’ll find the suppliers, gasoline, imports, some of the equipment and technology would be China, would you not?

GATES: China’s participation is clearly important.

KING: And the early indications are they will or won’t help?

GATES: Well, I haven’t had -- I haven’t had an opportunity to talk to the president or those who were with him in Pittsburgh, so I don’t know the nature of the conversations that they had with the Chinese there, but I do have the sense that the Chinese take this pretty seriously.

KING: Let me ask you about the situation in Iran, as this diplomacy goes forward. You’re the defense secretary now. You have been the director of Central Intelligence. When you look at post- election Iran, all the talk of turmoil, reports of tension between Ahmadinejad and the clerics, Ahmadinejad and the reforms, is the water bubbling or is the water boiling in the sense that you just see trouble or do you see potential seeds of revolution?

GATES: Well, I guess I would say it’s simmering. It’s clear in the aftermath of the election, that there are some fairly deep fissures in Iranian society and politics, and probably even in the leadership. And frankly, this is one of the reasons why I think additional and especially severe economic sanctions could have some real impact, because we know that the sanctions that have already been placed on the country have had an impact. The unemployment among youth is about 40 percent. They have some real serious problems, especially with the younger people.

So I think that we are seeing some changes or some divisions in the Iranian leadership and in society that we really haven’t seen in the 30 years since the revolution.

KING: And if you think sanctions work and this is a clear violation -- they hid this from the world, they hid this from everybody, in clear violation of their commitments -- why wait? Why not slap tougher sanctions now? Why wait until the end of the year?

GATES: Well, the opportunity exists in the October 1st meeting and over the next few weeks to see if we can leverage publicizing this additional illegal facility and activity to leverage the Iranians to begin to make some concessions, to begin to abide by the U.N. Security Council resolutions.

GATES: I think we are all sensitive to the possibility of the Iranians trying to run the clock out on us. And so nobody thinks of this as an open-ended process.

KING: And so, lastly, on this point, this facility, obviously, is not on-line yet. It is under construction, not on-line. So Iran’s capability in terms of being ready to perhaps have a nuclear bomb, in the past, the public statements have been a year to three away. Is that still operational?

GATES: That would be my view.

KING: The defense secretary, Robert Gates.

We’ll be back in just a moment with another big decision facing the secretary and the president, whether to send thousands more U.S. troops into Afghanistan. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We’re back with the defense secretary, Robert Gates.

Very momentous decision. Recommendation you will have to make to the president, the president will have to make to the nation about whether to send thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of more troops into Afghanistan. I want to start with a threshold question. Do you have full confidence in the commanding general, Stanley McChrystal, on the ground in Afghanistan now?

GATES: Absolutely. I think we have in General McChrystal the very best commanding officer we could possibly have there.

KING: Does the president share that?

GATES: I believe so.

KING: And then is it a logical extension then to go on to say, if you have such full confidence, that if General McChrystal says, I need 40,000 more troops, he will get them?

GATES: I think we are in the middle of a review. The president, when he made his decisions on strategy in Afghanistan at the end of March, said that after the Afghan elections, that we would review where we are and review the strategy.

We now, in addition to that, have General McChrystal’s assessment of the situation. He found a situation in Afghanistan that is more serious than we had thought and that he had thought before going out there. So we’re in the middle of a process of evaluating, really, the decisions the president made in late March to say, have we got the strategy right? And once we confidently have the strategy right, then we’ll address the question of additional resource...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: As you know, some of your friends on Capitol Hill are saying, why wait, in the sense of because of the ominous warnings, General McChrystal sounds, in his report, among them, this: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term, over the next 12 months, while Afghan security capability matures, risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

If the situation is that dire and he believes he needs more troops, why wait?

GATES: Well, first of all, I would like to remember -- remind people that the debate within the Bush administration over the surge took about three months, from October to December 2006.

It’s very important that we get this right and there is always a dialogue between the chiefs -- the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Centcom commander, and our commander in the field. We had the same kind of dialogue with General Odierno about the timing of pulling our combat units out of Iraq. And the conclusion of all of that was actually for General Odierno to take some additional risk. And it has proved to work very well.

So the question is, there has got to be some dialogue between the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the commander of Central Command, as well as General McChrystal, and then a discussion among the president’s national security team.

KING: You know the conversation in town,though, some, understand the surge debate, find this one rather remarkable in the sense that you now have General McChrystal, part of his report has leaked out, saying he needs more troops. Admiral Mullen has testified to Congress recently he believes we’re going to need more troops. Some see an effort to almost put the president in a box before he deals with the other issues.

If you have the military, the admiral and the generals on record saying we need more troops, does the president really have a choice to say no?

GATES: Well, I think the president always has a choice. He’s the commander-in-chief.

The reality is, do we need additional forces? How many additional forces? And to do what?

And it’s the “to do what?” that I think we need to make sure we have confidence we understand before making recommendations to the president.

KING: Help me on that point, because there’s a lot of questions about the legitimacy of the election. Did President Karzai commit fraud to the level at which he perhaps has stolen the election? The political vacuum could be months. You may have to make your decision uncertain as to the political leadership in Afghanistan unless you wait. There could be a runoff. There could be contestments (ph) and challenges. Would you prefer some sort of power-sharing arrangement to move past this vacuum?

GATES: Well, I don’t think it’s up to us to tell the Afghans how to organize their government. The reality is that you still have an election process playing out. You have both the Afghan and the international election commissions evaluating the ballots. And if they come to a conclusion that there was a real winner, then I think it has legitimacy for both the international and the national -- and the Afghan audience.

But I think, above all, what’s important is whether or not the government of Afghanistan has legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghans. All of the information that we have available to us today indicates that continues to be the case.

KING: Let’s turn to the debate back home. You try to stay of the politics, but it does influence what happens in this town. As you know, a growing number of people on Capitol Hill want a clearer exit strategy. They want benchmarks. They want to know where the end is. Some have even said -- a few, but some have said we need a time line to get U.S. troops out. And now a liberal organization that was very vocal in the Iraq political debate is urging its members to call the president, e-mail the White House and say, don’t send tens of thousands more U.S. troops to be stuck in a quagmire.

Is Afghanistan a quagmire?

GATES: I don’t think so, and I think that with a general like McChrystal, it won’t become one. I think that we are being very careful to look at this as we go along. We’ve put out metrics so that we can measure whether or not we’re making progress. And if we’re not making progress, then we’re prepared to adjust our strategy, just as we’re looking at whether adjustments are needed right now.

So I think that the notion of time lines and exit strategies and so on, frankly, I think, would all be a strategic mistake. The reality is, failure in Afghanistan would be a huge setback for the United States. Taliban and Al Qaida as far as they’re concerned, defeated one superpower. For them to be seen to defeat a second, I think would have catastrophic consequences in terms of energizing the extremist movement, Al Qaida recruitment, operations, fundraising, and so on.

I think it would be a huge setback for the United States. I think what we need is a strategy that we think can be successful and then to pursue it, and pursue it with confidence and resolution.

KING: You mentioned the history, and you’re a student of history, and you’re on the record talking about how this did become a quagmire for the Soviets, who had about 120,000 troops in Afghanistan. And you have said many times the Afghan people began to view them as occupiers, not as friends.

Where’s the line for the United States so that you don’t cross that very same line?

GATES: Well, I think the analogy of the situation with the Soviets really doesn’t hold. The Soviets’ presence in Afghanistan was condemned by virtually every country in the world. They conducted a war of terror against the Afghans. They probably killed 1 million Afghans, made 5 million of them into refugees, tried to impose an alien social and cultural change on the country.

So the situations are completely different. And I think that the -- I think the Afghans continue to see us as their ally and partner.

KING: General McChrystal, in an interview that will air on “60 Minutes” tonight, talks about the breadth and the geographic spread of the violence in Afghanistan. He says, “It’s a little more than I would have gathered.”

We’ve been at this nearly eight years. Why are we still surprised?

GATES: Well, I will tell you, I think that the strategy that the president put forward in late March is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s. And that strategy was more about the Soviet Union than it was about Afghanistan.

KING: You served in the Bush administration. That’s a pretty broad damnation of the Bush strategy.

GATES: Well, the reality is, we were fighting a holding action. We were very deeply engaged in Iraq. I increased -- I extended the 10th Mountain Division the first month I was on this job in January of ‘07. I extended -- I put another brigade into Afghanistan in the spring of 2007. And that’s all we had to put in there. Every -- we were -- we were too stretched to do more. And I think we did not have the kind of comprehensive strategy that we have now.

KING: And if it comes to the point of sending more, this time, if the president agrees and General McChrystal gets -- maybe it’s 20,000, 30,000, or 40,000, do we have the troops now? If you needed 40,000, could you find it?

GATES: Well, I think, if the president were to decide to approve additional combat forces, they really probably could not begin to flow until some time in January.

KING: We’re about out of time. I want to ask you a couple quick questions in closing. One is, do you see any chance now, because of the delays in the political problems, that the administration will keep its promise to close Gitmo, the Guantanamo Bay detention center, in one year, as promised?

GATES: Well, I think -- I think it has proven more complicated than anticipated. I will be the first to tell you that, when the president-elect’s national security new team met in Chicago on December 7th, I was one of those who argued for a firm deadline. Because I said that’s the only way you move the bureaucracy in Washington.

And you have to extend that date, if at least you have a strong plan, showing you’re making progress in that direction, then it shouldn’t be a problem to extend it. And we’ll just see whether that has to happen or not.

KING: And lastly, you served eight presidents. What makes this one unique, or is there anything unique when it comes to these decisions of war and peace?

GATES: He is very analytical. He’s very deliberate about the way he goes through things. He wants to understand everything. He delves very deeply into these issues. I’m not going to get into comparing the different presidents. I very much enjoy working for this one.

KING: Mr. Secretary, thank for your time.

GATES: Thank you.

Robert Gates on ABC's This Week

STEPHANOPOULOS: And we begin with the secretary of defense, Robert Gates.

Welcome back to “This Week.”

GATES: Thank you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: National security was front and center all week long. Let’s begin with Afghanistan. We saw the leak of General McChrystal’s review, and he concluded that the United States has about 12 months to reverse Taliban momentum and that, without new troops, the strategy laid out by the president is likely to fail.

And I want to show what the president said back in March when he laid out that strategy. He called it “new and comprehensive.”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review. My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats. We’ve consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations. We’ve also worked closely with members of Congress here at home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, this was clearly a carefully considered strategy. And now the president is telling us -- he told me last week that he can’t approve General McChrystal’s request until we get the strategy right. Why the second thoughts on the strategy?

GATES: I don’t think there are second thoughts so much as, you know, when he made his decisions at the end of March, he also announced that he would -- we would be reviewing the policy and the strategy after the elections...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But he said the tool was in the tactics, not the strategy.

GATES: Well, I -- I think that he -- he clearly felt that we would have to reassess where we are after the election. Now, in addition to having a flawed election in Afghanistan, we now have General McChrystal’s assessment.

When the president made his comments at -- at the end of March, his decisions, obviously, General McChrystal was not in place. We now have his assessment. He has found the situation on the ground in Afghanistan worse than he had -- than he anticipated.

And so I think what the president is now saying is, in light of the election, in light of McChrystal’s more concerning assessment of the situation on the ground, have we got the strategy right, were the decisions in -- that he made at the end of March the right ones? Do we need to make some adjustments in light of what we’ve found?

And once we’ve decided whether or not to make adjustments in the strategy, then we will consider the additional resources.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But did -- but didn’t General McChrystal take these problems of the election into account? He didn’t even deliver his report until August 30th, which was after the elections. Dennis Blair, the head of national intelligence, said back in February or March that we could foresee that there would be problems with this election.

GATES: Well, I think -- I think that the potential magnitude of the problems in the election really didn’t become apparent until the vote count began in early September. So -- so I think it was really after he submitted his -- his assessment.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So now we have a real dilemma. Does that mean that the United States is re-thinking whether it can even -- whether it can bolster President Karzai’s government, whether we have to give up on it?

GATES: Well, I -- you know, the Afghan people have gone to the polls, and we have the two election commissions -- one internal, one international -- that could still come to conclusions, even if they throw out some fraudulent ballots or a number of fraudulent ballots, that there was a clear winner.

The key is whether the Afghans believe that their government has legitimacy. And everything that I’ve seen in the intelligence and elsewhere indicates that remains the case.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It does seem, though, that you’re caught in a dilemma right now. You’ve got your commanding general on the ground who’s given you this report. He’s said that troops -- more troops are necessary or you risk failure.

That report has been endorsed by the head of Central Command, David Petraeus. Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went to Congress and said we probably need more troops.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet the president is saying that we need to think about the strategy right now. And it really creates the impression of a rift between the civilian leadership, you, as secretary of Defense, the president, and the uniformed military.

GATES: I don’t think that’s the case at all. I talked with -- I had an extensive conversation on the telephone with both General McChrystal and General Petraeus on -- on Wednesday. General McChrystal was very explicit in saying that he thinks this assessment, this review that’s going on right now is exactly the right thing to do. He obviously doesn’t want it to be open-ended or be a protracted kind of thing...

STEPHANOPOULOS: How long will it take?

GATES: Well, I -- you know, I -- it’s not going to take -- I think it -- it’s a matter of a few weeks. And people should remember that the debate within the Bush administration on the surge lasted three months, from October to December 2006.

So I think it’s important to make sure we’re confident that we have the right strategy in place, and then we can make the decisions on additional forces.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet the clock really does seem to be ticking, again, to go back to General McChrystal’s report. He says that if we don’t turn the tide in the next 12 months, we risk failure. So every week that goes by puts the soldiers who are on the ground at risk, doesn’t it?

GATES: But having the -- having the wrong strategy would put even more soldiers at risk. So I think it’s important to get the strategy right and then we can make the resources decision.

As I say, I don’t expect this to be protracted process. The reality is that, even if the president did decide to approve additional combat forces going into Afghanistan, the first forces couldn’t arrive until January.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what are the options right now? You have said in the past that you didn’t believe what some people are recommending -- stepping up drone attacks, stepping up missile attacks, using special forces -- you don’t believe or haven’t believed in the past that that’s sufficient to contain the Taliban.

GATES: I think that most people who -- the people that I’ve talked to in the Pentagon who are the experts on counterterrorism essentially say that counterterrorism is only possible if you have the kind of intelligence that allows you to target the terrorists. And the only way you get that intelligence is by being on the ground, getting information from people like the Afghans or, in the case of Iraq, the Iraqis.

And so you can’t do this from -- from a distance or remotely, in the view of virtually all of the experts that I’ve talked to.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if that -- if that’s not going to work, and then you have General McChrystal who said in his report that you need a full-blown counterinsurgency campaign, counterinsurgency is the answer, that certainly seems to be endorsed by General Petraeus. Is there a middle ground between those two poles?

GATES: Well, I think -- I think people are -- are, frankly, so focused on -- on the comment that -- in General McChrystal’s report about additional resources that they’re neglecting to look at the rest of what’s in his report and that -- where he talks very explicitly about the fact that -- that a preoccupation with the resources or with additional forces, if you don’t have the strategy right, is a mistake.

And -- and he, as I say, he understands this process that’s underway. But -- but what he talks about in most of that assessment is not resources, but a different way of using U.S. forces and coalition forces in Afghanistan.

It talks about accelerating the growth of the Afghan national security forces. It spends a lot of time talking about how we stay on side with the Afghan people. This is mostly what McChrystal’s assessment is about.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it’s a resource-intensive strategy, isn’t it? He says that the troops have to probably be more lightly armed and engage more with the population. And it’s hard to ignore that stark conclusion: Success is not ensured by additional forces alone, as you point out, but continued under-resourcing will likely cause failure. Failure.

GATES: Well, that’s what we’re discussing. And how do we avoid that?

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, as you said, you hope to have this done in a few weeks and you want to avoid failure, as well, but the president has not made any -- any decision at all on resources? Has he -- has he ruled it out?

GATES: No, I haven’t even given him General McChrystal’s request for resources. I have the -- I -- I’m receiving the -- the report. I’m going to sit on it until I think -- or the president thinks -- it’s appropriate to bring that into the discussion of the national security principles.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s what -- General McChrystal says we have to have more troops to avoid failure. Where we’ve had a lack of clarity is on what success means in Afghanistan. You pointed out at the beginning of this year what it was, and he said we’re not -- we shouldn’t expect a Valhalla in Afghanistan.

The president’s special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, was asked for his definition of success last month, and here’s what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOLBROOKE: I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we’ll know it when we see it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that good enough?

GATES: Well, I think -- I think we know it when we see it, and we see it in Iraq. I think that success in Afghanistan looks a great deal like success in Iraq, in this respect, that the Afghan national security forces increasingly take the lead in protecting their own territory and going after the insurgents and protecting their own people. We withdraw to an over-watch situation and then we withdraw altogether.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Which first required a surge in Iraq.

GATES: It did require the surge. And that’s -- the issue that we will be looking at over the next several weeks -- the next couple of weeks or so -- is, do we have the right strategy?

And that includes the question of -- of, is the -- is McChrystal’s approach, in the view of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Central Command commander, the right approach? And if so, then what -- what would be the additional resources required?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to Iran. The president has put Iran on notice that they’re going to have to allow inspectors into this secret site which U.S. intelligence discovered for enriching uranium. President Ahmadinejad says that President Obama is mistaken and the United States owes Iran an apology. Is Iran going to get one?

GATES: Not a chance.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So what happens next? The president has said that this site is not configured for peaceful purposes. Now, the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded -- of the U.S. government -- concluded that Iran had stopped its active nuclear weapons program in 2003. Does the president’s conclusion -- that this site is not configured for peaceful purposes -- mean that that intelligence estimate is no longer operative?

GATES: No, not necessarily. But what it does mean is that they had a covert site. They did not declare it. They didn’t -- if -- if this were a peaceful nuclear program, why didn’t they announce this site when they began to construct it? Why didn’t they allow IAEA inspectors in from the very beginning?

This -- this is part of a pattern of deception and lies on the part of the Iranians from the very beginning with respect to their nuclear program. So it’s no wonder that world leaders think that they have ulterior motives, that they have a plan to go forward with nuclear weapons. Otherwise, why would they do all this in such a deceptive manner?

STEPHANOPOULOS: U.S. intelligence had been tracking this site for quite some time before President Obama made it public. Is this the only secret site that we know of?

GATES: Well, I’m not going to -- I’m not going to get into that. I would just say that we’re watching very closely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the United States government believe that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program?

GATES: I think that -- my personal opinion is that the Iranians have the intention of having nuclear weapons. I think the question of whether they have made a formal decision to -- to move toward the development of nuclear weapons is -- is in doubt.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said a couple of weeks ago that Iran is closer to what he called “breakout” capacity on developing a nuclear weapon. What does that mean exactly? And how much time -- if they do, indeed, have the intent -- how much time do we have before Iran has a nuclear weapons capacity?

GATES: Well, I think “breakout” in the -- in the ambassador’s terms means they have enriched enough uranium to a relatively low level that if they have another facility where they could enrich it more highly, that they have a -- they have enriched enough at a low level that they could, in essence, throw out all the IAEA inspectors, change the configuration of the -- of the cascades and the enrichment capability, and enrich it to a level where they could use it -- where they could make it into weapons-grade uranium.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you say you personally have no doubt that they want weapons. Can that weapons program be stopped with sanctions?

GATES: I think that what is critical is persuading the Iranians that -- or leading them to the conclusion that their security will be diminished by trying to get nuclear weapons, rather than enhanced.

And I think that, because of the election, we see fissures in Iran that we have not seen before, not in the 30 years since the revolution. And I think that severe sanctions, if the Iranian -- that, first of all, we -- we have created a problem for the Iranians with this disclosure.

And so the first step is the meeting on October 1st with the 5+1 powers, with the Iranians, to see if they will begin to change their policy in a way that is satisfactory to -- to the great powers.

And then, if that doesn’t work, then I think you begin to move in the direction of severe sanctions. And their economic problems are difficult enough that -- that I think that severe sanctions would have the potential of -- of bringing them to change their -- their policies.

I think -- you asked me, how long do I think we have? I would say somewhere between one to three years.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn, finally, to Guantanamo. We have just a couple of minutes left. A major story in The Washington Post suggesting that the president’s deadline of January 22nd for closing Guantanamo will not be met, and White House officials tell me that at least some prisoners will still be in Guantanamo on January 22nd and beyond. How big a setback is that? And how long will it take to finally close Guantanamo?

GATES: When the president-elect met with his new national security team in Chicago on December 7th...

STEPHANOPOULOS: 2008.

GATES: ... last year, this issue was discussed, about closing Guantanamo and executive orders to do that and so on. And the question was, should we set a deadline? Should we pin ourselves down?

I actually was one of those who said we should, because I know enough from being around this town that, if you don’t put a deadline on something, you’ll never move the bureaucracy. But I also said, and then if we find we can’t get it done by that time but we have a good plan, then you’re in a position to say, “It’s going to take us a little longer, but we are moving in the direction of implementing the policy that the president set.” And I think that’s the position that...

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s where we are. So the deadline of January 22nd will not be met?

GATES: It’s going to be tough.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And -- and how many prisoners will be there on January 22nd, do you know?

GATES: I don’t know the answer to that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, as you said, it’s going to be tough and likely will not be met?

GATES: We’ll see.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One -- one other deadline question. When you were working for President Bush, you used to keep a countdown clock on your desk, counting down the number of days you had left to serve. Is that clock still there?

GATES: No, I threw the clock out. It was obviously useless.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re in for the long haul?

GATES: We’ll see. The president-elect and I, when we first discussed this, agreed to leave it open.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Secretary Gates, thank you very much for your time today.

GATES: Thanks a lot.

Iran's Nukes: Did Gates Just Complicate the Obama Position?

Transcripts: Secretary of Defense Gates on CNN, ABC
Iran’s Nuclear Program: Gary Sick on the US Approach after the “Secret Plant”
Iran’s “Secret” Nuclear Plant: Israel Jumps In
The Latest from Iran (27 September): Is There a Compromise Brewing?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

UPDATE 2035 GMT: The Los Angeles Times summarises Gates' appearance on ABC's This Week: noting that the unemployment rate is 40% among Iran's young people, he asserted that past economic sanctions "are having an impact" and said severe additional sanctions "would have the potential to bringing them to change their policies". The article also notes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on CBS's Face the Nation: "World powers have learned more about how to effectively use sanctions in their recent effort to halt the nuclear and missile programs of North Korea."

Threatening to punish Iran's young people? Crippling the economic life of "ordinary" Iranians? I stand by my assessment below --- if Tehran does not make concessions at the 5+1 meeting, can the Obama Administration really cross the line of harsh across-the-board sanctions? And will that be a precipice not only for Iran's people but for the White House strategy, bringing confrontation rather than solution?

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had a major set-piece interview on CNN today. While the most prominent issue will be US strategy in Afghanistan, he also spoke at least on Iran's nuclear programme. And while I can see his tactical path --- balancing tough talk on the "secret second plant" with the maintenance of a diplomatic track --- I think he may have cluttered it with excessive rhetoric.



Gates laid the criticism on thick and without reservation: "Certainly the intelligence people have no doubt that....this is an illicit nuclear facility, if only … because the Iranians kept it a secret.”

That conveniently throws out the complexity of Iran's position under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Tehran is relying on the provision of the NPT that it only needs to give six months' notice before uranium is placed in a plant.) And then Gates pushed his boat out, without supporting evidence, on the allegation of military intent: “If they wanted it for peaceful nuclear purposes, there's no reason to put it so deep underground, no reason to be deceptive about it, keep it a … secret for a protracted period of time.” (That ignores the perfectly logical explanation that Iran, wanting to protect enrichment capacity, would put a plant underground as protection against an airstrike. Its first plant, Natanz, is in open air.)

Gates at least did emphasize diplomatic efforts even though, in the standard sop to domestic hard-line opinion, he would not explicitly rule out military action:

The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time. The estimates are one to three years or so. And the only way you end up not having a nuclear-capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons, as opposed to strengthened. And so I think, as I say, while you don't take options off the table, I think there's still room left for diplomacy.

So what's the problem with this balance between tough talk and a maintenance of engagement? If the rhetoric does not bring Iranian concessions but, to the contrary, pushes Tehran into resistance (and, at least for some inside Iran, justify that resistance), then the Obama Administration will find that its balance between pressure and engagement is more rather than less precarious. A good section of US domestic opinion will be baying for, at the least, a wide range of punishing economic sanctions, while the objective of Iran's cooperation on issues such as Afghanistan will be harder to meet.

Latest Iran Video: Ahmadinejad Interviews on CNN's Larry King (September 2009 and September 2008)

The Latest from Iran (26 September): The False Flag of the Nuke Issue
Video: Ahmadinejad Interview with Time Magazine

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Many apologies that, in a bit of editorial haste this morning, an old Ahmadinejad interview was posted. An extract from yesterday's interview is now posted, along with the September 2008 full interview. The person responsible for the blunder was thrashed and sacked. Unfortunately, as that person is me, he has been rehired.

September 2009: Part 1 of 6

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmrszPpeP08&feature=channel[/youtube]

Part 2 of 4

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqI6GR_eHDU&feature=channel[/youtube]

Part 3 of 4

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkjI1bxBsvs&feature=channel[/youtube]

Part 4 of 4

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ekh5ofRMYE&feature=channel[/youtube]

Part 5 of 6



September 2008: Part 1 of 6

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjuCXuESyyA&feature=related[/youtube]

Part 2 of 6

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQezkb5MRsM&feature=related[/youtube]

Part 3 of 6

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxYT0PBPniY&feature=related[/youtube]

Part 4 of 6

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V415rE4WZ1M&feature=related[/youtube]

Part 5 of 6

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Qxoqq8ECo&feature=related[/youtube]

Part 6 of 6

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2YtiQOwdug&feature=related[/youtube]

The Latest from Iran (21 September): Distractions

Iran: More on Rafsanjani and Khamenei’s End-of-Ramadan Speech
NEW Iran: Khamenei Scrambles for Position
The Latest from Iran (20 September): Khamenei’s End-of-Ramadan Speech

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis



2010 GMT: The buzz over Imam Khomeini's grandson, Seyed Hassan Khomeini, continues. After his appearance yesterday at the Supreme Leader's speech (analysed in a separate entry), the Islamic Republic News Agency has attacked him for his continued visits to the families of detainees (see 1510 GMT).

1535 GMT: Revelation of the Day. Rooz Online claims that the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps has ordered the Ministry of Health not to release the medical records of recently injured protesters, thus covering up the cause of their wounds.

Afternoon Update (1510 GMT): A New Act in the Crackdown? State TV has again put high-profile reformist detainees Saeed Hajjarian, Mohammad Atrianfar, and Saeed Shariati on air in a two-day roundtable to explain and analyse their transgressions, no doubt re-drawing the picture of foreign-directed attempts at regime change. The trio were featured in a roundtable last month after the first wave of Tehran trials.

Seyed Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of Imam Khomeini, has continued his visits to the families of post-election detainees. The visits have been seen as symbolic of Khomeini's challenge to the current Government and have resumed a day after his appearance at the Supreme Leader's Eid-al-Fitr address.

Parliament Qualms? Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar has again raised the prospect of a legislative clash with the President after the cease-fire that led to approval of the Ahmadinejad Cabinet. Bahonar has expressed qualms about the President's power, saying he is worried that Ahmadinejad will start changing Ministers and declaring that Parliament will force Government to abide by laws.


0820 GMT: A quiet morning, as all sides continue to manoeuvre for position. The major political story is the Supreme Leader's attempt in his speech yesterday both to stabilise his position and to push for a settlement including both the President and Hashemi Rafsanjani. We've analysed that in a separate entry, "Khamenei Scrambles for Position".

Unfortunately, this story is now beyond the comprehension of most "mainstream" media outside Iran. So, instead of considering the internal dynamics, they will be distracted this week by President Ahmadinejad's visit to New York. They will not pick up on the most important aspect of this trip, namely that Ahmadinejad will use it to show Iranian people that he is in control and that protest against him jeopardises Iran's prominent position in world affairs. (Not many people, even veteran Iran-watchers, have figured out that this is why he gave the "exclusive" interview to NBC's Anne Curry.) They will not realise that the importance of Iran's nuclear programme is more in the prestige that it gives the President, especially as he can show defiance against "Western" and Israeli attempts to curb it, than in any imminent military use.

The headlines on the Supreme Leader's speech this morning give the game away: It's Not about Iranians, It's About US. CNN blares, "Iranian leader decries Obama's missile defense plan". The BBC adds, "Khamenei denies US nuclear claims". NBC, having tried to dine out on the interview with President Ahmadinejad, falls back into the superficial with "Iran's leader says U.S. nuke accusations wrong". The New York Times avoids the pitfall by saying nothing at all. (The honourable exception is The Los Angeles Times, which recognises,"Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei Says Opposition Protests Failed".)