Hard Line, Hard Times

Politically speaking, relations between Iran and the West couldn't be much worse.

TEHRAN,

Iran - Iran's decision to reopen its uranium enrichment complex on Jan. 10 set off alarm bells in the West. But Iranian officials insist the country has resumed nuclear research in the name of energy, not weapon-making.

I discussed the country's nuclear development program with a key leader in the Iranian parliament, Kazem Jalali, during a recent trip to Iran. Jalali is also a spokesman for Iran's Foreign Policy and National Security Committee.

We touched on other pressing issues including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent remarks about

Israel, the war in

Iraq, al-Qaida and future of relations with the West. The following is a partial transcript of our conversation; or, you can watch the exclusive video.

KEVIN SITES: Dr. Jalali, Europe and the United States are very concerned about Iran's nuclear program -- especially about the potential for uranium enrichment that could be used for nuclear weapons. Why does Iran feel it needs to develop its nuclear technology?

KAZEM JALALI: In the name of God, we're a country who signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, therefore we should be enjoying all these rights. There are countries who haven't even signed the treaty but they are doing experiments right now. Whereas our only intended use for atomic energy is a peaceful one.

Energy coming from petroleum [and] oil are finite energies, so we should think ahead about replacement for those kind of energies. The other thing is atomic energy and technology can be effective in other aspects of people's lives -- for example, in medical sciences, mechanics and agriculture. Can we stop a country in these modern days from using atomic energy?

KS: But how do you guarantee you won't develop nuclear weapons?

KJ: This can be seen at two different levels. One level is realistic -- in the realistic view we can solve problems together. The Europeans and Americans may be genuinely worried about their own security and that Iran might not use the energy in a peaceful way. This perception can be appreciated and we can provide and offer guarantees it will be used in a peaceful way.

The other point of view is the non-realistic point of view: to forbid our country to have access to nuclear energy so our nation is kept backward and we won't have modern technologies or, even beyond that, benefiting the Americans bent on the destruction of the Islamic Republic [Iran].

KS: In what way do you believe America is trying to destroy the Islamic Republic?

KJ: Generally speaking, Americans are against the development of the Islamic Republic, and in general, against the Islamic Republic from finding its own place in the international arena. They are always seeking excuses and pretenses. And they have opened up different contentions for us [on] several different issues. One is the nuclear energy issue, one relates to human rights problems, the other -- terrorism.

KS: Can you be more specific?

KJ: So these issues are how they try to weaken us. Regarding the same issues America is not being honest. If they are truly against nuclear weapons, why don't they have any confrontations with those that haven’t signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?

Likewise there is no confrontation with countries who don't even meet a minimum standard of human rights. And why don't they deal with state-sponsored terrorism like the Zionist regime of Israel?

KS: What kind of guarantees can you offer that you won't develop nuclear weapons?

KJ: Iran has cooperated with the

United Nations

International Atomic Energy Agency and continues to do so. Up to now, there have been more than 1,400 man-hours of inspections.

So the Islamic Republic, in addition to being a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, has signed the Additional Protocol [allowing for more intrusive inspections]. And even before the signing [of the treaty], the Iranian government started implementing the additional measures. We even suspended the fuel cycle development [uranium enrichment] as a trust-making gesture. Unfortunately the Western world did not respond to that equally.

If the European concern is that of security, that can be done by consistent inspection by agency specialists. In my view the Europeans could've come forward a lot earlier.

KS: What about the Russian proposal in which they would do the uranium enrichment for you, ensuring that the fuel is not enriched to weapons-grade, but only for energy applications?

KJ: If the intention of the Russians is to share the efforts then we can talk. But if it's about prevention, then it's a ridiculous suggestion.

KS: How far have you gone in your enrichment process?

KJ: We have reached the UF6 [depleted uranium] process and reached the capability of centrifugal technology. But since we suspended our technology development [in November 2004] as a goodwill gesture, we haven't moved beyond that.

KS: What is the status of your activities now?

KJ: We have written a letter to Mohamed El-Baradei and the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency to continue with our research efforts. We believe there are no international provisions stopping us. [Since the interview, Iran removed U.N. seals on uranium enrichment equipment and resumed nuclear research. See latest news.]

KS: A German newspaper reported that the United States has drawn up plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites if you continue with your program and that it had also notified its allies of those plans. What's your response to those reports?

KJ: The Americans are stuck now in Iraq. It's a little farfetched to think that they might open another front here.

KS: So you don’t give those reports much credence?

KJ: They are just analyses that appear in the Western press. I don't think the Americans are so unwise to make that kind of hasty decision. And if they do, we are also quite capable of defending ourselves.

KS: Last June, Tehran's hard-line conservative mayor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, won a run-off vote defeating cleric and former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani for President of Iran.

Since that time he has made inflammatory statements, renewing a call for the destruction of Israel and questioning the historical reality of the Holocaust. What possible purpose does this serve but to further isolate Iran from the West?

KJ: In a talk we held with Dr. Ahmadinejad he said his speech was not reported in its correct context -- that there were portions that were not relayed accurately.

About the Holocaust there is no doubt about the fact that innocent Jewish people were massacred by the Nazis. But within the past decade, two things have happened with the phenomenon: First, there was an exaggeration about this and, second, all the avenues of research have been closed and sealed. The Western world -- which believes in the fundamental right of expression -- why don't they look into this matter?

KS: Dr. Jalani, those atrocities have been historically documented, besides what's the purpose of even bringing up the Holocaust?

KJ: His aim was to bring up the question of injustice in the whole world and the fact that if humanity went wrong and committed the atrocity then it shouldn't be repeated.

In a sense the spirit of this discussion was to indicate there's injustice, that these injustices need to be alleviated from the world and that the West should not allow such events in the other parts of the world.

KS: Let's talk about Iraq. There have been reports that Iran has gotten very involved in the conflict in Iraq both politically and even militarily, that it has political alliances with certain Shia groups there and may even be a part of Shia militias like radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

KJ: These are rumors. Nevertheless, it's natural that we have the closest ties in the religious and cultural aspects to the Iraqi people. It is natural that we and the Iraqis be the most proactive nations in coming together.

And we and the Iraqi nation fought a common enemy called

Saddam Hussein, so these common aspects bring us closer together and today Iraq’s stability can bring us profitability, politically and otherwise. We are not seeking Iraq's instability.

But unfortunately the British and Americans have demonstrated they are incapable of establishing peace and security in Iraq. So many facilities, so many soldiers. Why are there so many stationed in Iraq? Isn't it supposed to be for more security?

Then why do we have to witness terrorist actions every day where so many innocent people [are] killed? The security should be turned over to Iraqis.

"Can we stop a country in these modern days from using atomic energy?"— Kazem Jalali, Iranian parliamentarian

KS: So you're saying all the coalition troops should withdraw from Iraq now?

KJ: This is what we imagine, yes. The Americans say they came into Iraq to build a new government and it is under way. But the Iraqis are quite capable of taking over. They're an ancient culture.

KS: What about the presence of al-Qaida in Iraq? Aren't you concerned about their influence once coalition forces leave?

KJ: All the world should be worried about al-Qaida being present anywhere in the world. They are terrorists and irrational. They are a big threat to the peace and security of the world.

And all the world should be coordinated to destroy this phenomenon. But unfortunately we do have to say the phenomenon's creation was helped by the West, and you know that Iran was among the first harmed by al-Qaida and the Taliban.

KS: You say the world should be coordinated to fight al-Qaida. Would Iran consider an alliance with the U.S. in that effort?

KJ: There are lots of issues [on] which we can cooperate with America. But the Americans have not contributed to that kind of dialogue.

KS: What if you were to receive an overture from the U.S. to join in that war on terrorism. How would Iran react to that?

KJ: America first must prove their sincerity in combating terrorism whether it's al-Qaida or other terrorism groups. They must demonstrate their willingness to fight terrorism everywhere and the biggest contributor to terrorism is the lack of justice.

KS: What kind of demonstration are you talking about?

KJ: If the Americans demonstrate justice within different geographic regions of the world, especially with Palestine -- and Palestine is a nation -- this would be one of the signs Americans are seeking justice globally.

The other signs would be payment of debt the U.S. has to Iran [for freezing assets and debt payment in the past] and apologize for meddling in internal affairs of Iran.

KS: What do you mean meddling? Can you be a little more specific please?

KJ: Since 1953 when the American coup d'etat destroyed the Mossaddeq government and until the outset of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the highest meddling in the affairs of Iran has been done by the Americans.

And they were the most supportive of the anti-human rights regime of the Shah. Since the revolution they have not stopped from trying any plot against the Islamic Republic: the coup d'etat, the support they put behind the regime of Saddam Hussein, the different economic sanctions, the pressure they have imposed on the international political arena and even shooting down an Iranian passenger airplane. America must apologize for all the black deeds against the Iranian people.

KS: That doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of room for dialogue.

KJ: We think the Western world is an over-demanding one. If they had responded to the Iranian approaches by former presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami, if their overtures were reciprocated and welcomed, we'd be in a much better position today.

Now many are raising the question what have we gained from detente and [a] peaceful approach to the West? And I have to agree with them: What did we gain from it? What positive response did we gain?

ALSO ON YAHOO!