Excerpts From an Interview with Javad Larijani

NYTimes

Here are excerpts from an interview with Mohammad Javad Larijani, the Secretary General of the Iran High Council For Human Rights. The interview was conducted in English by The New York Times at Iran’s Mission to the United Nations in New York on Nov. 14:

Q: What is your appraisal of U.S.-Iranian relations?

A: Personally I think the relations between Iran and the United States have good potential for improvement. But the main obstacle is the attitude of people in Washington. They are paranoid about the Iranian government and not only government, the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It has led to a situation that takes for granted that Iran is a major threat, and for both Democrats and Republicans, the problem is how to deal with the threat. I think the basic assumption is flawed. Iran is a major contributor to the stability of the region, very notable promoter of democracy in the region. Iran was the first country to support, immediately, the uprising in the Middle East. Democracy is in our basic interest.

On a practical level, there are important issues, in which at least coincidentally, if not intrinsically, the interests of the two nations converge. Like the security of the Persian Gulf, like Afghanistan, or other issues, or fighting terrorism. But unfortunately, as I said, the perception, which is, I call it, blind paranoia about Iran, is preventing the politicians in the U.S. from having the right start. The right start is that we should accept that we are different. To talk about regime change in Iran is a sign of weakness.

Q: How are you trying to convey your message to policymakers in Washington?

A: I think there is no shortage of ways for this idea to be conveyed. But the policymakers are entangled in a lot of nitty gritty, American style, which handcuffs them, in looking into the real nature of this interest.

Q: So the burden is on the United States?

A: Well at least this is one major issue, which prevents the United States from taking the right, first step. A good startup policy should be based on respecting the two systems, accepting the differences, even the colliding interests – we should accept that – and then try to go in a pragmatist way.

Q: Is this a view shared by everyone in the Iranian government?

A: This is a major position, that the main obstacle of improvement of relations with the United States is the attitude of the United States toward the polity that we created at the revolution. The United States does not admire or encourage or evaluate this democracy that we built in Iran. It is a democracy, a unique democracy in the Middle East.

Q: Why do you think the American animosity toward Iran is so entrenched and how do you move away from it?

A: We should not ignore the influence of the Israelis in pushing the United States into a hostile position towards Iran. They think this hostility creates safe havens for them in the region. It gives a new reason for the Israelis to be supported by the United States.

The United States should put away this idea of regime change, or the language of threat to Iran. This is definitely not producing any result.

Q: The International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations has just issued a critical report of your nuclear program, raising the possibility that Iran could be seeking to build a nuclear weapon. What is your response?

A: Iran’s achievement in nuclear technology is not something hidden or secret. We are Number One in nuclear capability. We are the first country who owns its nuclear power plant, and we did not buy it, I mean, finished. We know how to do it, we know how to give the fuel, we know how to expand our technology. So this is a great honor for Iranian achievements.

Our structures are within constant monitoring of the I.A.E.A. So I don’t think this is a source of tension and confrontation. I think the source of confrontation lies in the idea that the promotion of Iran in the region may be a threat to the traditional interests which have been defined by the United States.

This last report is a disgrace for the agency, as everybody noted. It brought issues which had been settled on for four years, recycled them, and tried to say that this is new evidence. No single new evidence was there. It was a series of accusations, and put to the I.A.E.A. by the United States.

Q: Could you accept a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

A: We will honor any decision made by the Palestinians, even if we don’t agree. It is up to the Palestinians to decide their future – two states, one state. But our position is that the creation of two states does not resolve the conflict. Why should there be two states? There should be one state, in which Muslims and Jews and Christians live next to each other, with equal civil rights. Jerusalem is a jewel, a cultured jewel of humanity. Even the Jews are missing a lot by this conflict. Just hypothetically, suppose Jews and Christians and Muslims were living in one state, Palestine. Then, how much investment could be done in Jerusalem? Millions of people are coming to visit that place. This hostility is taking victims not only from the Muslims, but the future of Jews and Christians as well.

So we think that if we pursue a policy for 60 years, and it does not produce good results, it’s very prudent that we sit down and evaluate our policy. To create a Jewish state, which is a very racial state, is a wrong attitude, is a wrong approach. Unfortunately, the Zionist regime in Israel doesn’t have any respect for any border lines. I don’t think even a two-state policy is something they can agree with. They want to distribute the Palestinians in small colonies. It’s almost impossible to create any state for them.

Let us face this question. How do Israelis want to live in this area? They are living in a totally military zone. They created an island curtain around themselves. Do they want to continue that life? And the changes in the Middle East definitely are not in ways the Israelis feel more secure. The changes in Egypt, for example. Israel is losing important ground over there. I think that the time will come that even the Western and the United States people will think about this project from the beginning and try a new model.

Q: When do you foresee that happening?

A: Let us start from the changes. I envisage the changes in the Middle East to get to a very good result, not final result, in a decade, to produce more democratic structures. We see Egypt in a more democratic situation, which is emerging. Tunisia moved to democracy, and as you know the Islamist group held the victorious hand. This is happening in Libya as well. And why not in other countries of the Middle East? So just a rough expectation is that in 10 years, we will be facing a new Middle East. In this new Middle East, the people’s voice has greater say in the policies of the government. And you know the people of the Middle East are against this persistent policy of Israel in the region.

Q: Who would you prefer as the next president of the United States?

A: Contrary to American politicians naming people in Iran as their choice, we think that is very impolite.

Q: Well who do you like?

A: I had much more hope in Obama to bring change but he failed drastically. I don’t know why. Whether he was not courageous enough, whether he was not able to create changes within the establishment. I want to see a person who is courageous enough to get rid of failed modalities, both internally and externally. This will best serve both the United States and the world.