Transcript: Interview with Hossein Mousavian

Sunday, Sep 12, 2004

The following is an edited transcript of an interview with Hossein Mousavian, secretary of the Foreign Policy Committee of the Supreme Council for National Security in Iran, conducted in the SCNS offices in Tehran on 11 September 2004.

Financial Times: The indications from the past week suggest Iran will extend the suspension of uranium enrichment, which it agreed to last October in discussions with Britain, Germany and France [the EU3]. Can you confirm that?

Mousavian: No, I cannot confirm it, because the main delicate issue remains unresolved between Iran and the EU3, which is enrichment. We have told the Europeans that enrichment is the legitimate right of Iran in the framework of the NPT safeguards and the Additional Protocol.

[Note: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commits existing nuclear powers not to spread nuclear weapons and commits non-nuclear signatories, like Iran, not to develop nuclear weapons. To verify compliance, signatories submit their nuclear activities to safeguards, including inspections, of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In November 2003, Iran signed an Additional Protocol to the NPT, which allows IAEA inspectors additional rights of access

The NPT also promises co-operation and assistance to signatories in developing civil nuclear programmes, and obliges China, France, Russia, the US and the UK to take steps towards nuclear disarmament].

Iran is not prepared to buy anything beyond international conventions, and Iran is not prepared for discrimination against members [signatories of NPT] enjoying legitimate rights.

Suspension has been a voluntary decision, after the Tehran statement of Iran and the EU3, to build confidence. The confidence building has been done. We signed Protocol 93-plus-2 [the Additional Protocol] and we have implemented it, to give confidence to the international community that the enrichment activities of Iran would remain peaceful for ever.

Secondly, the IAEA needed time to have the whole Natanz [enrichment] site under full supervision and control. This is also done. The IAEA has full access and has visited frequently, and there is nothing under question from the IAEA about the site.

We also gave the IAEA full access to any site for the production of material û centrifuges, the assembly of centrifuges. We even gave them access to military sites.

This is the maximum we can do and the maximum they can expect. After such full co-operation with the IAEA, there is no reason to continue suspension.

Financial Times: So you cannot envisage Iran agreeing to extend voluntarily the suspensions of uranium enrichment?

For what reason?

Financial Times: For the same reason you agreed to the suspension in October.

The reasons we had in October 2003 have been removed. At that time, we had not signed the Protocol, we had not implemented the Protocol, Natanz was not under the full control and supervision of the IAEA. After 700 person-days' inspections of every nuclear site in the country, there is no reason for suspension.

Financial Times: So you cannot envisage Iran continuing the suspension of uranium enrichment beyond next week?

At the moment, uranium enrichment is suspended, but the world should not expect that this is open-ended. This has been just for a temporary time, just for confidence building.

Financial Times: So the suspension could continue beyond next week?

It could continue, yes. We are waiting for the result of the new, very important package of co-operation that we have raised with the Europeans. This is a package that is much more important than the nuclear issue. We may continue the suspension of enrichment until the coming days to see the result of the new negotiation.

Financial Times: Might you also suspend, as part of this package, enrichment-related activities?

No, for what? When all activities are under the supervision and control of the IAEA? While enrichment is a legitimate activity recognized by the NPT and the Protocol?

The reason the Europeans are asking us to continue is that they want Iran to continue suspension until they reach cessation, and this will never happen.

Financial Times: So although you may extend the suspension of the actual enrichment, you will not extend the suspension of enrichment-related activities?

Some important negotiations are on the way, and I'm not in the position to tell you what will be our final decision until we see the conclusion of these negotiations.

We have to wait and see over the coming days the reaction of the Europeans.

Financial Times: When you talk about a package, are you talking about nuclear technology or about a wider package?

We are talking about a wider package, including the security of the region, the elimination of mass-destruction weapons in the whole region, terrorism, human rights, comprehensive co-operation between Iran and the EU in trade and tourism, many important elements.

Financial Times: But this package could not include Iran losing full control of the [nuclear] fuel cycle?

The package would include Iran's full compliance with NPT, safeguards and protocol. Iran would be only committed to international mass destruction conventions. There is nothing more.

Financial Times: At the July meeting in Paris, the Europeans went beyond these conventions in their demands of Iran.

The Europeans have demanded cessation, which is beyond the NPT and the Protocol. Some days the Europeans invite Iran to be a full member of the international community, to respect international law and regulations. Now we are inviting them to be completely committed to international conventions, and not to discuss anything beyond. Not one word less, nor more.

Financial Times: So you cannot envisage circumstances, as part of a wider package, where Iran gives up control of the nuclear fuel cycle?

Iran would be prepared to give further confidences, which would relax the Europeans about Iran's future enrichment activities, that these would remain for ever peaceful and would never be diverted into military purposes. We are prepared for a very serious discussion to give all assurances.

Financial Times: Could than involve having European observers in Iran?

We can discuss [this], we do not reject [this]. This is something that experts should sit together and examine. But we are open. As we have decided not to go to military purposes for ever, we have no limitation for any kind of co-operation, openness, transparency and assurances.

But if they come and tell us that Iran's rights under NPT and Protocol be forgotten, if they want to deprive us from our rights, this is not something we will accept. It would undermine our policy û because we have decided to accept international conventions on mass-destruction weapons. We are the only country in this region that has signed all the major mass destruction weapons. If today someone comes to us and tells us that one article of the NPT is good for us but one is not, this is discrimination. Maybe tomorrow they would come on the chemical convention and say, 'We don't not trust you, only the articles of limitation apply, not the ones about technology'.

If you forget articles related to peaceful technology and insist only on the ones regarding control, then Iranian public opinion and politicians will see that the Europeans and Americans want only limitations and not rights. Then the serious question would be: why should we be members of these conventions?

Conventions have negative and positive sides û we take the negative side because we enjoy the positive side. If they deprive us of the positive side, why should we accept the negative side?

The propaganda is all concentrated on the fuel cycle, but here that is really not the issue. If we wanted to have a fuel cycle for atomic bomb, we should never have signed the Protocol so soon. We should never have implemented the Protocol so fast û one month after the Tehran statement. The 700 person-days' inspections in less than a year is unique in the history of the IAEA û it has never happened with any other member.

The issue is depriving Iran from any rights. All the controls and limitations are welcome because of the right to enjoy peaceful technology.

Financial Times: Are you under domestic pressure? There are many critics of your approach in the media.

Definitely, because they really do not trust the West. They say that the weapons of mass destruction weapons in the Middle East have their source in the western countries. They say they are lying about weapons of mass destruction, because they have been exporting them. They say they supported Saddam's invasion of Iran, they gave Saddam chemical weapons from which thousands of Iranians have been victims û and now today they come and tell us they don't trust us. Why should we trust them?

Who gave mass-destruction weapons to Iraq? Who has supported Israel to possess nuclear bombs today? Everything is the West.

So the opposition [in Iran] argues they [the West] are only against the ability of Iran to be powerful in technology and economy û they want a weak Iran. They say if we accept anything today, they [the West] will consider more discrimination [against Iran] in other conventions, and in five years we could have no rights to technology in nuclear, chemical or biological fields.

We are heavily under pressure from parliament, from public opinion, from a lot of politicians.

Financial Times: Do you feel, then, that you can reach agreement, at least with the Europeans?

I am still optimistic - if the Europeans come to be logical and realistic. Let's say they are worried about Iranian achievement in mass-destruction weapons, and we are worried about European support for the distribution of mass-destruction weapons in all regions. Each of us has our own accusation, so what can be the basis of trust? International conventions.

Iran is prepared for the full, comprehensive implementation of the NPT, safeguards and the protocol, with full co-operation with the IAEA in order to create maximum confidence.

If the Europeans come to compromise with us in this framework, I am very much optimistic that we will overcome the nuclear issue safely and that we will be able to compromise on other issues of concern û like peace and stability in the whole region, terrorism, al-Qaeda, all these issues.

Financial Times: Do you think your position internally is strengthened or weakened by pressure on Iran?

Pressure on Iran is counterproductive. What they did in June [the resolutions of the board of governors meeting of the IAEA] was counterproductive.

Financial Times:On Friday, there was an allegation [from the Iraq-based Iranian opposition group Moujahidin-e Khalq, MKO] that Iran has a secret enrichment plant at Bandar Abbas. Is that true?

Close to every Board of Governors meetings, there is a routine, especially with the Americans, they raise something. Just before the June meeting, they released indirectly an allegation about nuclear activity at Lavisan-Shian and it became a major point of concern.

After the meeting, the inspectors came and took samples and notified that 15 years ago a military site was there and then completely demolished to make way for a park. They took samples.

Well, now they have raised new issues.

Financial Times: Like uranium hexoflouride [a gas used in the production of nuclear fuel]?

Uranium hexoflouride is not something hidden. From the first day of the project at Isfahan, this was under the full supervision and control of the IAEA. This cannot be a point of concern, it was completely announced from the beginning.

Financial Times: But it is being talked about now because it is a uranium enrichment related activity.

The Europeans cannot bargain with us for ever about the suspension of enrichment. This was a voluntary decision. They cannot bargain with us about out legitimate rights under the NPT.

We did not promise to anyone to suspend enrichment for ever. Now they are going to bargain with us for continuation û because their aim is not the NPT, not the Protocol, but beyond, to deprive Iran of its legitimate rights.

Financial Times: Which is control of the nuclear fuel cycle à?

It is not control û we have no problem with control, which should be done by the IAEA. They [the Europeans] want to continue suspension until they reach a compromise with us about cessation.

Financial Times: Do you have any indications that the Europeans are turning away from this position?

This is a time for the Europeans to choose û should Iran be a full member of international conventions, with full compliance, about mass-destruction weapons? Will they recognize the right of Iran to peaceful technology within the framework of international conventions?

They should decide.

If they want to go beyond this, towards discrimination, then Iran will rethink the policy of signature, membership, ratification and implementation of international conventions.

Financial Times: Do you think the Europeans are capable of acting independently of the Americans?

No. Up till now, I believe there has been a compromise between them and the Americans, who cannot think of an embargo and military activities against Iran because they have enough problems in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have a good lesson not to invade another country in the region.

This is rather a gesture to frighten Iran, and give the Europeans the opportunities to get more advantages from Iran. This is somehow co-ordinated between the Americans and the Europeans.

Financial Times: Soft man, hard man?

This is a good game. Even if they take us to the Security Council, what do they want to tell us. They cannot ask Iran for anything more than the NPT, Protocol and Safeguards û the authorization of the United Nations is not more than this, and we have already done full co-operation and full access.

This is a political matter to single out and pressure Iran. We know this is a game.

Financial Times: When you spoke about a 'package' offered to the Europeans, you mentioned 'terrorism'. What did you mean by this? Does the package involve Iran's relationship with militant Palestinian groups?

We have not gone into detail on every subject. In the package we have informed the EU that Iran wants partnership and co-operation to fight terrorism everywhere, with no discrimination. We would not tolerate European or American support for the terrorist group, the MKO.

If they are ready for a policy to fight terrorism bilaterally, internationally, without discrimination or singling out any group, then we are prepared to go into details.

Financial Times: What do you mean by terrorism?

Terrorising innocent civilians for any reason.

Financial Times: Including a Hamas bomb in restaurant?

We are not supporting any assassination, terror, or killing of innocent civilians. We would be prepared to sit and discuss, if we agree, first of all, about the package. We would leave the details to the future. First of all, we have the idea of a global, comprehensive co-operation with the EU, including the security and economic issues.

Financial Times: Can you envisage circumstances in which Iran would abandon its relationship with Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas?

First of all, let us go to the package and see what is the Europeans' reaction. If they welcome this, then we would sit together on each of ten issues. We could agree principles and then go to details.

Financial Times: What are the ten issues in the package?

I am not permitted to announce them, but I have told you some important elements: the elimination of mass-destruction weapons, terrorism, human rights, security in the whole region including the Persian Gulf, central Asia, and the Middle East.

Financial Times:So the nuclear issue has to be situated within a wide framework?

No. The nuclear issue is completely separate. Even if we don't agree on the package we are prepared for full compliance with the NPT, the Protocol and safeguards û not one step less, not one step more. If they are prepared to work with us in the framework of international conventions, then the doors of Iran are open.

Financial Times: What is the timetable for discussions?

We don't have too much time because our public opinion and parliament are tired of this lengthy process. After the Tehran statement, everyone thought the nuclear issue would be concluded at the November 2003 board meeting of the IAEA governors û nobody expected this to go from November to March, from March to June, and from June to September [IAEA board meetings]. They have lost their patience. We, the people responsible for the nuclear process, know we don't have too much time.

Financial Times: It seems this will run until at least the November IAEA meeting.

That would be one year. This is the maximum we can wait.

Financial Times: Is the US presidential election a factor?

Definitely, no doubt about it. They have lost face with their claim of mass-destruction weapons in Iraq.

The IAEA was in the position in the June meeting to announce the remaining questions had been be resolved, and the issues could be followed within the Protocol and the safeguards. We have no doubt that only considerations about the US elections caused everyone to be cautious, because such an announcement would have created big damage for the Bush administration after they did not find weapons in Iraq.

The issue of laser enrichment was resolved in March, there has been no development since then, although it has been just announced now. The conversion was the most important claim of the Americans in the December 2003 meeting û this is resolved. The contamination 36percent and 54 percent is resolved. What else is there? Some small technical issues as a game to prolong the process. But really we cannot wait longer than November.

Financial Times: Do you think the IAEA is acting objectively?

The IAEA has done good work. It is a difficult position, because we know how much pressure there is on them to bring the Iranian file in some other direction. Up until now, they have been committed to a technical process. The only complaint we have is that we know and they know the remaining issues were resolved in March 2003 and the prolongation of these issues is for political reasons û with the Americans putting pressure on Mr [Mohammad] ElBaradei [head of the IAEA] not to close the file.

Financial Times: There has been a suggestion that the EU3 may press the IAEA [in the September 13 meeting] for a new, comprehensive analysis of Iran's nuclear programme.

They already have a comprehensive analysis. They know that Iran has nothing more to declare. Maybe this suggestion has something to do with the November election in the US.

Financial Times: Was signing the Additional Protocol and extending inspections a good move for Iran?

Definitely. We did this because the strategic policy of Iran, the religious verdict of our leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader], is that using mass destruction weapons is forbidden, is haram ['unlawful' in Islam]. For Iranians, this verdict is much more important than the NPT.

Therefore we have no problem with confidence-building, with openness, with co-operation.

Financial Times: Might the package involve handing over members of al-Qaeda held by Iran?

Iran is prepared for co-operation to fight terrorism, bilaterally, regionally and internationally. If we agree the principles, then we can go to details.

Financial Times: Can we be sure that Iran will resume uranium enrichment, at least by November?

The issue of suspension, for Iran, is finished. It is not important if we restart today, tomorrow, or even yesterday. This was done voluntarily to build confidence, and all confidence-building has taken place. They have inspected all the sites and delivered a full report. We have signed and are implementing the Protocol. As a normal member of the IAEA we have our right for enrichment. If they want to prolong the suspension in order the reach a cessation, they are making a mistake.

If they want to take it today to the Security Council, welcome.

Financial Times: But if they want to prolong the suspension in order to reach agreement on a package, this may be something Iran will go along with.

It depends. Let's see what is the reaction of the Europeans to the package.

The package was given - on the occasion of Mr [Hassan] Rowhani [Chief of the SNSC] to the Hague [earlier this month] - to the Netherlands foreign minister as head of the EU. We have asked them to distribute to all EU members.

Financial Times: Is Iraq in the package?

Yes. Peace and security in the region û including Iraq and Afghanistan. This is an interesting and sensitive time for Europe û [to choose] co-operation and partnership, or to go to confrontation.

Interview in English by Gareth Smyth and Mohsen Asgari

Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. Privacy policy.