Trust Is 'A Two-Way Street'

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki spoke with Newsweek-The Post's Lally Weymouth in New York last week about U.S.-Iranian relations. Excerpts:

Q. Do you believe there will be an Israeli or an American attack on your nuclear facilities?

No.

Q. If there were such an attack by Israel, would you regard it as an attack by the United States?

In the Middle East, [no one] makes a distinction between the U.S. and Israel.

Q. How do you feel about the recent events in Georgia and Russia's virtual annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

There is no doubt that developments inside the Caucasus will come to affect the whole region. A miscalculation and wrong information were behind the events.

Q. You mean a miscalculation by President [Mikheil] Saakashvili was behind the events in August?

The miscalculation was made by all parties involved in the military action.

Q. Including Russia?

Of course not. The miscalculation had everything to do with [Georgia] not expecting the Russians to deal with this in such a fashion. And the supporters [are also at fault].

Q. Do you mean the United States or NATO?

Any party that was "pro" [military] actions.

Q. Do you believe in the territorial integrity of Georgia?

This is a rule which must be respected in all places. One must not deal in double standards when it comes to the territorial integrity of a state. Certain parties -- in Europe for example -- insist on disintegrating a country and support the events that lead to that.

Q. Are you referring to the independence of Kosovo?

The example you refer to is a correct one and a good one.

Q. Both U.S. presidential candidates are calling for talks with Iran. Do you believe that bilateral talks at the highest level are a good thing?

Those who are not serving in the White House yet -- their positions sometimes are different once they are elected. We cannot seriously study the comments made by a candidate.

Q. President Bush called Iran part of the "axis of evil." Then, last July, he sent one of the top U.S. State Department officials, William Burns, to attend the negotiations with Iran. That was a pretty big change.

We welcomed the participation by Mr. Burns in the Geneva talks. We feel that if this is the real approach taken by the U.S. right now vis-a-vis the nuclear issue, they must continue with such efforts.

Q. Are [you] happy with the U.S. approach right now?

The American administration has taken the first realistic step. . . .

Previously, the U.S. administration attached certain provisos to their presence in the talks. [Burns's] presence in Geneva meant that those were no longer in play.

Q. The U.S. has been insisting that you shut down your systems, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has been insisting on more transparency. What do you mean when you say "resolve the nuclear issue"?

Westerners are calling for increased confidence and trust. We are saying that confidence building is a two-way street.

Q. But you are not going to abandon your nuclear program?

What we are doing is completely legal. The six ministers in their letter to me have clearly announced that they recognize and respect Iran's right . . .

Q. How do you gain confidence in a country if it says it intends to wipe another country off the face of the earth?

This is another question completely. Going back to the nuclear issue . . . our activities are completely legal.

Q. But the International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran has not reported a lot of what they have asked for.

We are continuing with enrichment, which we have every right to do.

Q. What about the other charges in the IAEA report?

The resolutions of the U.N. Security Council are unlawful and illegal. Last year, we responded to all the questions that were given to us by the agency. Later, it became quite clear that the questions were given to the agency by the Americans. After we were through with that set of questions, the Americans came back with new claims that they gave the agency to look into.

Q. The U.S. ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has said that Iran is applying heavy pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister [Nouri al-]Maliki not to sign the status-of-forces agreement.

Whenever the U.S. fails in imposing their policies, they say Iran is to blame.

Q. So you do oppose the status-of-forces agreement?

At the end of the day, the . . . wishes of the [local] people have to be respected.

Q. Do you think that Iran and the U.S. share any common interests in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and do you see any basis for the two countries working together in those areas?

Our position when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan [is] we want security and stability for those countries. We are calling for the determination of the fate of those two countries to be handed over to the people and to the legally elected governments of those countries. If the U.S. has the same point of view, we have to respond by saying that [it] has chosen the wrong policies to go about this.

Q. Didn't the U.S. invasion of Iraq result in increasing Iran's power?

The difference between us and some others is that they like to interpret everything through a lens of might and power. What we like to do is to look at issues through the perspective of justice and our principled ideas and positions. We feel that perceived power in today's world cannot be the only device utilized in playing a role and being influential.