Your trusted source

Press TV has conducted an interview with Mohammad Marandi, a professor at the University of Tehran, about Israel’s pushing for the dismantling of Iran’s civilian nuclear work. This is while the IAEA and Western intelligence have provided no evidence, whatsoever, of a military dimension to Iran’s nuclear energy program. 

- Iran has called its new package, as you may know, “ending an unnecessary crisis and opening new horizons”. Why is Iran, first of all, calling this an unnecessary crisis and how close are the sides to new horizons?

- I believe basically the Iranians believe that from the very start this problem has been manufactured by forces that are highly influenced by the Israeli lobby and by forces in general that are highly antagonistic towards Iran in the United States.

When the nuclear crisis or the nuclear dossier became a major issue, the United States and its allies said that there is evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and it turned out that after a number of years when the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) was involved in Iran, all the key issues and all of the key questions that were asked according to Mr. el-Baradei had been responded to adequately.

And if you recall after the IAEA felt that the key issues had been responded to, then we saw the famous laptop with the fabricated information that was put forth and new accusations were made against Iran.

It was becoming more and more clear to the Iranians that the issue is not something that the United States at that time wanted to resolve, they wanted to keep this nuclear issue as a serious problem, so that the United States could use it to put pressure on Iran for a host of reasons: because of Iran’s support for Palestinian groups; its opposition to apartheid in Palestine.

But after ten years now, we see that the Iranians continue to enrich uranium, that there never has been any evidence whatsoever to show that Iran’s nuclear energy program has been anything but peaceful; and that even Western intelligence organizations have said repeatedly that the Iranians are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

- How is Iran intending to build the trust that our guest there (Patrick Basham, Founding Director, Democracy Institute in Washington) is speaking about?

- Well, really it’s not Iran that has to build trust if we want to look at it objectively. The Iranians actually halted its nuclear program - the enrichment cycle completely, for roughly two years. They implemented additional protocol and there were intrusive inspections.

The United States actually misused that period and we saw that elements within the IAEA were carrying out espionage in Iran in military installations with regards to programs that had nothing to do with the nuclear program.

But still the Iranians, in order to create trust and to alleviate any concerns that Western governments had, they allowed this to happen - even at a time when the United States had just occupied Iraq; it was behaving in a very aggressive manner and Iran was called an “axis of evil.” The Iranian government in the eyes of many, appeased the United States and we got nothing in return.

On the other hand, to say that for Western leaders, whether they’re honest or not, to say that they believe that the ultimate aim of the Iranian nuclear program is not peaceful, they have to provide evidence of that.

You cannot condemn a person to jail because you think that one day in the future he may commit a crime.

Western countries allow the Israeli regime to have nuclear weapons; to use chemical weapons, to use illegal weapons in its multiple wars in Lebanon, in Gaza, yet the Iranians who’ve never attacked any country; they’ve been a victim of chemical weapons that were provided to Saddam Hussein by the United States, by the Europeans and with the help of the United States they were used against the Iranian people.

Yet, Iran itself never used chemical weapons and I think the fact that Iran has never used or produced chemical weapons shows that the Iranian hands are much cleaner than those of western countries or the Israeli regime.

- Our other guest (Patrick Basham, Founding Director, Democracy Institute) in Washington was telling us the US has two options: the military option with Iran, or leaving Iran well alone and putting this aside - and this is now the question that the US or the P5+1 is facing. What do you think?

- Well, I think the United States really is incapable of carrying out a successful war against Iran and we all I think recognize that by now; that what happened in Syria was a major event, probably one of the most important events that took place since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The United States, every time the American president with the support of the Western media tried to convince the US public to engage even in a small war against Syria, the population of the United States government, to their immense credit, moved more and more against the idea and became more and more hostile towards the government.

And even despite the fact that AIPAC tried to help Obama convince Congress, the mood in the United States was so negative that Congress didn’t seem to have the capacity to support the war.

On the other hand the United States had become isolated internationally - So, Iran is not serious - it’s not Iraq and it’s not Afghanistan, it’s a country much more powerful and it’s right alongside the Persian Gulf. A war would be a global catastrophe and no one would win.

On the other hand, the issue for Iran is not whether the United States leaves Iran alone or not, the point is that in the past the United States has imposed sanctions on Iran before the nuclear standoff. In the 1990s when the Iranians actually allowed an American oil company to exploit an oil field - Conoco, the United States slapped sanctions on Iran.

And the United States also in its laws and in its past over the past couple of years - and Obama has never protested against them - the sanctions right now are not something linked to the nuclear program. Basically the sanctions are linked to “regime change” as Americans like to put it.

- A lot of people from the Western side especially have been saying this shows the sanctions have been working, this is why Iran has come to the negotiating table.

Do you think Iran is even ready to discuss suspending enrichment of uranium at least to the 20-percent level and does that mean Iran giving concessions?

- I don’t think that the sanctions have brought Iran to any negotiating table.

The Iranians had already been negotiating before the recent sanctions and during the recent sanctions. The previous head of the National Security Council had a meeting on the sidelines of the talks with the deputy secretary of state of the United States. So, these talks have taken place in the past.

The Iranian position is basically that if we appease the United States, then basically the United States in future whenever it wants something from Iran it can again threaten the country with sanctions and Iran would be forced to submit. And that is why the Iranians will not capitulate when it comes to its sovereignty.

It will go the extra mile to bring about a more favorable atmosphere, but it will not relinquish its rights. And enrichment at 20 percent were something that basically the Iranians were forced to do in the first place because the Americans prevented Iran from importing the enriched fuel for the nuclear reactor that produces medical isotopes for cancer patients.