Transcript: Ahmadinejad's interview with the Boston Globe

Section 1: The nuclear issue.

Q. The last time you were in New York you said that Iran would agree to send its low-enriched uranium abroad for reprocessing for fuel for the medical reactor in Tehran. Everyone thought this was a done deal. But then Iran backed away. What happened?

A. You have pointed to a very good issue. I would like to provide you with short introduction and then give a response. According to Article 4 (of the NPT), all member states are required to provide the technology and the material to other member states. The reactor provides the medical drugs for 800,000 people in Iran. Some very good discussions went on in Vienna over it (at the IAEA). We agreed to provide the 3.5% (low-enriched uranium) in exchange for the 20% (fuel for the medical reactor). But then two problems arose. They said we should send the 3.5% grade fuel first before they give us the 20%. But the second problem came when they started engaging in propaganda to (say they were able to) push Iran further away from building a bomb.

The reaction this created inside Iran, these two issues, was very vast. People sat down and said we actually happen to have nuclear agreements with France in the past which were not carried through. We also had agreements with the United States that were unilaterally abrogated. It was suggested that to resolve the problem, the 3% grade fuel would be exchanged simultaneously with the 20% grade fuel.

Q: Wasn't the reason the West objected because other countries don’t have such nuclear fuel at hand, but need your enriched uranium to make the fuel?

A: They do have it. We have purchased it from Argentina in the past. The evidence for my statement is that they told us that we have to send it, and store it into a third country and then wait.
 
Q. You say the reason you need to enrich uranium to 20% is for use in the medical reactor. The West has offer to give Iran five years of medicine isotopes for free, so there would be no need to enrich to 20%. Would Iran agree to that? What if other countries simply provide these medical isotopes directly? Would Iran still insist on enriching to 20%?

A: I agree with that scenario. But in order to build trust we can't expand on distrust first. We believe that through talks and negotiations we can find a middle ground. It is interesting that groups that don't trust us expect us to trust them. It doesn't work that way. It has to be bilateral. It has to be a two-way process.

Q: One of the central complaints about Iran from the IAEA is the failure to disclose developments in your nuclear program. Ban Ki Moon said yesterday that the onus is on Iran to disclose fully. Would Iran be willing to commit to rejoin the Additional Protocol under the IAEA as a way to help build the trust that the IAEA is asking from you?
 
A: We're prepared to take the Additional Protocol, but with one condition: That both the United States and Iran adhere to the Additional Protocol simultaneously. We don't have a nuclear bomb. Yesterday, the American administration declared that it possesses over 5,000 nuclear bombs.... We are saying: we don't have a bomb. Is it fair for us to accept the Additional Protocol, and for a country that possesses nuclear bombs not to? So if the United States agrees to the Additional Protocol, simultaneously. That's our proposal.

Q: Why stay in the treaty? Why not withdraw from the NPT if it is a very unfair treaty and if you don't want to have the Additional Protocol and you don't want to increase your commitments under the treaty? Why do you remain in the treaty?

A: Why does the US government, I ask you, insist on these frameworks of international law? The international institutions belong to all nations, and we are one member of international institutions, and based on that, we have rights that we must enjoy in order to help reform the international legal system. . . . If it was a perfect system, why have a review conference to examine it? Obviously it has imperfections that I talk about as well. The security council set up has imperfections as well. That is precisely why for over 10 years at least the security council reform agenda has been under discussion. We happen to be more explicit and frank about pointing to the imperfections of the system and we also are vigililent in reforming it as well.

Allow me to say just one more word about the additional protocol. The protocol is voluntary. I said that we are willing to accept it....  But with the United States together - we'll sign on to it together. If it is good, then let it be for both of us.... Is this a bad proposal, in your opinion?

Q: Yesterday President Obama did disclose much more than President Bush had disclosed about nuclear weapons capacity. What precisely is the United States is failing to do in terms of the Additional Protocol that you would like the United States to do?

A: What has happened yesterday is definitely a positive trend, but it is not enough, just because of the sheer fact that we are very far from nuclear disarmament still. To disclose the numbers is a step forward, but still a small step. At the end of the day, nobody can really go out there and count the numbers of bombs. Mr. Obama is expecting us to accept the number he is giving us and trust us in his endeavors. That is fine to us. We will place our trust in what he says when he places his trust in our words. If you really look at all the reports issued by the IAEA on Iran, they continuously stress that there is no evidence indicating that Iran's nuclear policy has diverted from its peaceful path, that Iran does not possess a nuclear bomb. According to the US, it possess 5,100 nuclear bombs. And these are two countries who try and trust each other here.  So which country exactly should be setting the condition here? Which country should be a little more concerned here? Which country should be the one shying away from trust? The one that has the bomb or the one who doesn't?

Q: We all signed on to the treaty knowing that it had that imbalance in it, between those who had the bomb and those who didn't. That was the deal. But when you talk to US officials about why they don't trust Iran, they say it is because so much has been done in secret, about Qom, even Natanz... They didn't know it was happening. To go back to the question of trust and trust-building,  are you saying that the idea of the fuel swap as it was presented in September is dead? It must be modified to be accepted? US officials feel Iran accepted it and then changed their mind, which doesn't build trust.

A: If we agreed to a commitment and an agreement, we will abide by it. That agreement was never finalized in Vienna (at the IAEA). Some technical details of it that arose then were never finalized. They were still under discussion. There was a primary operational framework that was defined which was supposed to be referred to the capitals for further discussion for the negotiators to return to the table.... As for Qom and Natanz and the facilities there, we in fact carried all our obligations under international law. . . . In fact we informed the IAEA of the Qom (enrichment) facility voluntarily a year prior to the 6-month deadline - so 18 months prior. Look at this unfair system that is so pervasive that even when a member state informs the IAEA 18 months in advance, they are stilll targeted.

I told (then- IAEA executive director) Mr. ElBaradei about Qom....  It is interesting to hear what he told me in response. Mr. ElBaradei said: "As soon as I arrived in Washington DC, I informed the US State Department that Iran has informed the agency of its new facilities. Then I flew to NY to attend the General Assembly. The next day, representatives of the US State Department invited me out of the General Assembly meeting and they told me, what right do you have to take this from Iran?.... They said, 'our intelligence had found the information of the Qom facility and we were going to use that as evidence to create a large propaganda over it, and you halted that'." (end of anecdote from ElBaradei).

We believe that if there is an international legal system it is to create an orderly exchange among nations, not to create impositions and coercion that have reverse effects. The same thing happens over Natanz. We were a year an a half away from introducing the (uranium) gas into the system. All of a sudden, the propoganda comes out that Iran has secret facility.
Our swap proposal is still on the table for discussion. It can be done in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. We are ready to have a swap. We have the capacity to create 20% grade fuel. It is only in the spirit of cooperation that we are agreeing to the swap just to provide a field for cooperation and eliminate the clash. We are ready to engage in cooperation, just for the sake of cooperation.

Q: What is the specific compromise?

A: We said that they can start preparing half of the 20% required and we will place the 50% of the fuel swap they want from us under the supervision of the IAEA, and when they are done producing the whole, the 100% of the fuel, we are ready to immediately swap it.

Q: Will  Iran increase the amount of low-enriched uranium that you are willing to give?

A: Why would we have to increase it? Are you really suggesting that we send all of our enriched uranium abroad? Is that what a swap is supposed to mean? All we want is 100 kilograms back of 20 % (purity). And we actually have the capacity to produce it, mind you. So what kind of trust-building forces it on us to give more?
 
Q: This is supposed to be a trust-building measure, but now we see it has built a lot of mistrust.

A: You know why? As long as certain governments chosoe to use international instruments and bodies to impose their will and only the way they look at the world on others, there can be no trust. We need to respect everyone in the system, and to accept that when there is an international legal system, it has to apply fairly to everyone. In our region, mind you, the Zionist regime has been helped to be equipped with over 200 nuclear warheads. But they keep saying we are the ones of concern. Isn't that unjust?

Swapping 20% fuel, 3.5% fuel -- these are unimportant. There are larger world issues that are at stake that need to be resolved. Their root cause lies elsewhere. If we can't fix those, these problems will presist.

Section Two: US-Iran relations

Q: There are so many in Iran and so many in America who want to see better relations. However, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, one of your most powerful supporters, said, "anti-Americanism is among the main features of our Islamic state.” Do you agree that it would betray the revolution to restore relations with the United States? Is there any hope?

A: I am one of the proponents of improved US-Iranian relations myself. We are in favor of expanding relations between two nations here. The statement made by Ayatollah Jannati has nothing to do and doesn't apply to the American people at all. When Mrs. Clinton comes out and says we actually want to carry a paradoxical policy towards Iran, to hold out a heavy stick but then hand out a carrot, what she gets is a statemnt by Ayatollah Janati to that effect. He is responding to her statement. Otherwise, if the conditions are fair and respectful in Iran, if you look in Iran, you will witness that everyone is in favor of improved relations.

Q: I wonder if Iran has any specific gestures that you could offer that would help break the ice in terms of improving relations -- for example, releasing the three American hikers, who are in custody and who are apparently sick, and it doesn't seem that they pose any threat to Iran. Why not release them?

A: We have actually sent a lot of good gestures out there, much better than the example that you bring up. (For the first time) in the 29 or 30 years since the revolution, when an American president was elected into office, I am referring to Mr. Obama, I personally sent a congratulatory letter to him. In the history of the revolution, that was a big step to take. I was under a lot of pressure, but nonetheless I chose to send the letter, and when exactly did I ever receive a response? In Iran's post-election season, Mr. Obama chose to come out and defend people who were setting cars on fire and hitting people in the streets. Last September in New York, when I was here, I declared I was prepared to speak with Mr. Obama. Aren't these large gestures and steps to take? On several occasions, loud and clear we have said we are prepared to assist the United States in resolving the conflicts in the region to prevent further bloodshed, but even so, Obama chose to extent the sanctions that were put in place by Bill Clinton.

As for the three Americans that you bring up, their case is before the judiciary. You know that every country has very strict rules to control its borders. It applies to every country including the United States. If you enter across the border illegallly the rules are pretty strict.... These three individuals crossed our border. Regardless of what they had in mind. I'm not the judge here. Accordijng to our law, they violated it.
 
You should know that there are seven Iranians who are in prison right now in the United States. They did not cross  the US border illegally. They had visas from a third country and they were visiting a third country legally. They were intercepted by American officers in a third country, arrested and brought to American soil. Iranian people read about this and what do you think they think? If the judiciary releases these three Americans the Iranians are going to attack the judiciary building and bring it down to the ground floor. They will say, 'how come you did that when there are seven Iranians in prison illegally in the United States?

I think perhaps a good gesture would be to exchange, to swap these people. Let's have a formal judicial agreement so that . . .every party can be brought to justice before the courts of their own country when cases of this nature arise.

Q: To your point about gestures made by President Obama. He did send a New Years greeting. I believe he wrote several times to the Supreme Leader. Should he have written to you instead because it seems he has not gotten a response?

A: That didn't really help in building confidence. People (in Iran) say our president has written you a letter and you haven't responded to our president's congratulatory note. So both the Leader and the people felt that by taking that step, the US Administration is disrepectful of the Iranian government in place. It was unhelpful. I was the one who had actually taken the intiative of sending the letter. The leader also said in his message, if you were paying attention, that he should have responded back to the president.

Q: Mohammad Javad Larijani (the brother of the Speaker of Parliament) called Obama a rude term - kaka siya. It is something that many Americans and Europeans were hurt by.
 
A: Do you know what is the definition of that term? If there is disrespect from any corner, we condemn it. You heard me speak so respectfully of Mr. Obama in my speech yesterday. We can't accept disrepect from anyone. It it our position that we need to respect everyone. But we don't want to see our rights violated. When that happens, we'll defend our rights.
I want to say something very important here. The impasse in Iran-US relations cannot be removed inside Iran. That is not where the problem is. It is inside America where it has to be removed. I believe there are groups in the United States that do not want to see these relations improved. Please pay attention to what I am saying here. What I say is very very exact issue. Mr. Obama's presidency is a historic opportunity for the United States. It might in many ways be the biggest and last opportunity for America to allow America to improve its image around the world. Mr. Obama came in with the motto of change. Changes cannot be summarized in small details and matters. Fundamental changes must happen over fundamental issues. . .

The largest problems Americans face are in the international scene. Those that have marred its images in the world are Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, the confrontation that they chose to have with Iran. These are areas where change must occur. Of these four areas, Iran is the easiest to deal with and Iran is the key point here to deal with. Improving relations with Iran will be the introduction to the improvement of US issues in those other three areas. We can see and observe clearly that there are groups in the United States that are making every endeavor to push Mr. Obama to the point where he confronts Iran very quickly and speedily.
 
At the first resolution in the UN security council that is passed against Iran in the presence of Mr. Obama, look what the reaction will be and what will happen. First of all, any connections and contacts with Iran, the pathway to Iran will be shut permanently. If there are people who think that the regime will change in Iran, they are wrong. They are mistaken. The pathway to relations will be shut. Now, we don't worry about that. We're not concerned by it. But what's going to happen next is even more important. If that were to happen, that will mean that the change will no occur. That means the end of Mr. Obama.

If he can't resolve the impasse with Iran, do you think he can resolve the problems with Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine? The end of Mr. Obama's oppportunity - let's put the word opportunity - will mean the end of his opportunity in improving world affairs and improving the US image in world affairs. Those who are trying to radicalize the atmosphere here fail to understand that they are speedily moving towards the cliff.

Q: There is a lot of talk about a possible Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2011. Is this something that concerns you?

A: Who? Who? Who would attack Iran? Who can possibly attack Iran? You don't know Iran, or do you? Iran is a very vast country. The Zionist regime doesn't even fit into our calculations. If they have time, they have to try to run Gaza and some nearby places. They don't even have a place in our strategic doctrine of defense. We are not worried by them. We are really concerned for Mr. Obama. We think he has an excellent opportunity, not only for himself, but for the world. He should be very careful not to get entrapped in the web laid by radicals around him.

Section Three: Domestic Iranian issues

Q: You say you the people who protested your election are very unpopular... if so then what is the harm in allowing them to gather? Why put them in prison?

A: All the leaders of the opposition are free. All my competitors in the elections are free. They actually hold positions in Iran. They head organizations, institutions. They have a life. I ask you, if someone goes out into the street, sets a car on fire, breaks windows, what would you do?

Q. How about people like Saeed Laylaz? He is a prominent economist, but he has been sentenced to nine years in jail. Is he violent?

A: These are affairs of the judiciary... The law applies to everyone and it has nothing to do with the political circumstances of the country. Whoever commits a crime...

Q: Can you guarantee the safety of peaceful protesters?

A: Iran is the land of protest. In Iran, there is a protest of some sort every day.Millions of people pour on the streets here and there. On the anniversary of the Iranian revolution 40 million people were on the streets. In all cities, everywhere, everybody pours on the streets. Really, the bottom line is that there is not much to be concerned about in Iran. There are larger world issues at stake here. Iran is still standing strong, despite it all. Still strong. And at the end of the day, people accept the government they have, the government is around, they are friends and that's it. We also are friends with those who oppose us. We live together. There is a law. The judiciary will deal with it. I don't really see a problem.
 
You see, it is the American intervention, the US government's intervention that just destroys the thing. The position Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama take, these were wrong positions to take. It wasn't really the right thing. It really just turned the Iranian people and atmosphere against Mr. Obama and his administration. We tried really hard to explain but people didn't want to hear it anymore. About 90% of Iranians don't trust Mr. Obama anymore. That's not good for anyone. It just makes things harder for cooperation. We can't intervene in domestic affairs of a country. Have we ever questioned how many million Americans happen to be in prison, or why? Why, in Pittsburgh, protests were cracked down on? We have to respect each other, the laws of each other.
 
I'm in favor of protesters. I am for it, I am all for it. Every day, every one. But the judiciary is not under my control.