Iran foreign minister interview about Syria, nukes and Israel

[Deleted]

http://www.euronews.com/2013/02/04/n...eign-minister/

Iran’s foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi has been speaking to euronews on the margins of a security conference in Munich.

The former head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, Salehi answered questions about Israel, nuclear enrichment, and the situation in Syria.

James Franey, euronews:

“Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, thank you very much for being with us here on euronews. Iran and Syria say they are going to respond to the reported Israeli air strike on a Syrian weapons base. Is that true?”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“Well, I have never heard of anyone saying that we will be responding, but what we have said is that what Israel has done is a serious issue. This air strike, I would call it an intervention (aimed at) inflicting harm on another country and another people, is not allowed by international conventions and by UN conventions. So what Israel has committed is against international rules and regulations and it may have serious consequences.”

JF, euronews:

“Such as?”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“When I say serious consequences – Syria is in a very sensitive region and if this crisis spills over to other countries we will be facing a huge fire that will burn “wet and dry”, this is a saying in my own language. “Wet and dry” (means) that everybody will be burnt by the spillover of the Syrian crisis to other neighbouring countries.”

JF, euronews:

“So how would that play out? Who would be the actors that are making this burn?”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“So with such actions that have been taken by the Zionist regime…”

JF, euronews:

“Which they deny, for the sense of fairness, they do deny that, that they carried out this air strike.”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“They do deny it? No, they have admitted that they have made an air strike…”

JF, euronews:

“That’s not what officials on the sidelines of the conference said to me.”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“Well, we are basing our information on what we have received from the Syrian government. (…) Even the UN has responded to this, the UN Secretary General. If this has not happened, how is it that the UN Secretary General has taken a position in this regard?”

JF, euronews:

“So, looking at Syria, if there is the fall of Assad, as many people in the West hope and expect to happen, what do you think will happen?”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“Certainly, that will lead to a vacuum, and if there is a vacuum in Syria, the integrity of Syria will be undermined and we will not be sure Syria will be kept as an integral country anymore.

“This will be a source of instability in the region and that source of instability will initiate instabilities all over the region. It will even go as far as, probably, Central Asia. Because the only way that could lead to the resolution of this issue is for the government and the opposition to sit down together and solve the problem within the Syrian community, within the Syrian people. In other words we, call it a Syrian-Syrian resolution of the issue. We should not expect that this issue be resolved through prescriptions, ready-made prescriptions written outside Syria then (…) imposed on the Syrian people. That will not work.”

JF, euronews:

“US Vice President Joe Biden said earlier at this conference that the offer of direct negotiations with America remains open if Iran is serious about it. Are you serious about it? Would you welcome that?”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“When it comes to negotiations on certain subjects, thematic negotiations I would call them, this time nuclear negotiations, there is no red line on this…..”

JF, euronews:

“I was about to ask you what your red lines were.”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“But, but this negotiation can only take place when we get enough assurances that this time the US comes forward with honest intentions, because our previous experiences, unfortunately, have shown the opposite.”

JF, euronews:

“Is that what made you decide to continue with the enrichment programme? Let’s imagine, I put myself in the Iranians’ position and, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you are seeking the capacity for an atomic weapon. You hear Obama’s nominee for secretary of defence, Chuck Hagel, talking about all the old expressions, “every option is on the table”, including the military option. Perhaps Israel has a nuclear weapon. You look at US action in the region and perhaps, based on this argument, that is why you would proceed down that path. It is a question of survival.”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“We have said it always, right from the beginning, that a nuclear weapon has no place in our defence doctrine, for a number of reasons. One reason is because of our religious tenets and principles, our beliefs. Also our leader has issued a fatwa, a religious decree, that would forbid anybody to go into nuclear weapons development in my country.

“The other aspect, when we look at it from the pragmatic point of view, suppose Iran develops one or two, three or four rudimentary bombs, can it really compete with a country like the US in this regard? Can it be on par with any other country that has been in this domain of developing nuclear weapons for decades? Certainly, that will not be a deterrent for us because with our neighbours we have no problem.”

JF, euronews:

“Many so-called experts state very frequently in the Western media and elsewhere that Iranian foreign policy is to wipe Israel off the map. So I am just looking for a very clear and unequivocal statement that is completely false.”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“You see we do not recognise the state of Israel, but we have never ever spoken of obliterating people. When we said, when I said when it comes to using weapons of mass destruction, we have completely denied ourselves this right.”

JF, euronews:

“Will you run for the presidency of Iran? Is that a job that you want?”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“No I am not fit for that job.”

JF, euronews:

“So you rule yourself out, we will not be seeing you at the next elections as a candidate?”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“Well I don’t know if I will be phased out it depends on the president who comes. He may keep me, he may not keep me.”

JF, euronews:

“Mr Salehi thank you very much for being here with us on euronews.”

Ali Akbar Salehi:

“Thank you.”

[N-7]

He seems like a reasonable person. I haven't seen anything that I consider wrong in what he said.

[Deleted]

He seems like a reasonable person. I haven't seen anything that I consider wrong in what he said.

Indeed he does. This is why I linked the interview, we see people all over claiming the Iranian leadership is full of crazy extremists and whatnot. Well here we go, not really.

Yes, it's true, they don't like Israel and wish it never existed as a state... on the other hand, there's many countries that wish other countries never existed. Serbia for Kosovo, North for South Korea, USA for Cuba and so on.

That said, I see not many people are finding the subject interesting, probably not conflicted enough.

[smelltheglove]

He seems like a reasonable person. I haven't seen anything that I consider wrong in what he said.

he does in fact speak very well. he is obviously gifted in this area. enough so that i want to believe him, although there were a couple of moments of double-speak that i noticed. i dont believe all was forthright, but i also dont believe iran to be the rabid dog that they are made out to be.

[Frozenbeef]

He seems smarter than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...that's for sure :S

[Mavett]

ah whats that smell... uhmm Taqiya, yes thats the one.

[Deleted]

he does in fact speak very well. he is obviously gifted in this area. enough so that i want to believe him, although there were a couple of moments of double-speak that i noticed. i dont believe all was forthright, but i also dont believe iran to be the rabid dog that they are made out to be.

About his way of speaking, he is, in the end, a politician. He can't just say "Well, we kind of hate Israel very much as a country, their gouvernment sucks and we're planning to try and take it down somehow", that would be political suicide and would worsen relationships with many countries even if that's what he most likely thinks in this matter.
He probably also saw the recent resolutions against Israel recently made by the UN, so he tempered the speech even more, saying they just don't recognize Israel, because it makes them look as the nice guys. Remember, in any conflict people see on tv, they mostly start to think one side is good and the other not so much. If he can show Iran is ok, just doesn't recognize Israel as ... China doesn't recognize Taiwan or something, while Israel also is blamed by the UN and such, it will start to turn the world favor on the Iranian side.

[smelltheglove]

About his way of speaking, he is, in the end, a politician. He can't just say "Well, we kind of hate Israel very much as a country, their gouvernment sucks and we're planning to try and take it down somehow", that would be political suicide and would worsen relationships with many countries even if that's what he most likely thinks in this matter.
He probably also saw the recent resolutions against Israel recently made by the UN, so he tempered the speech even more, saying they just don't recognize Israel, because it makes them look as the nice guys. Remember, in any conflict people see on tv, they mostly start to think one side is good and the other not so much. If he can show Iran is ok, just doesn't recognize Israel as ... China doesn't recognize Taiwan or something, while Israel also is blamed by the UN and such, it will start to turn the world favor on the Iranian side.

oh, i know. his talking was pretty much what i expect from a diplomat or politician, although i feel he is more eloquent than most. but he is far from the loony ranting about zionists and the great satan that some might expect from an iranian rep

[N-7]

ah whats that smell... uhmm Taqiya, yes thats the one.

Yeah because every fucking bad news is Islam and every good one is "Taqiya." I bet that you don't even know what the hell that does mean.

P.S. Do you know what Fatwa is for Shia Muslims?

Anyway, your posts have become more predictable the same usual stupid shit.

[Mavett]

Yeah because every fucking bad news is Islam and every good one is "Taqiya." I bet that you don't even know what the hell that does mean.

P.S. Do you know what Fatwa is for Shia Muslims?

Anyway, your posts have become more predictable the same usual stupid shit.

no need to get mad, im entitled to my opinion, i don't always agree on your stances but i don't start quoting you and saying what you write and believe in is "stupid shit" as you said.

and i know what Taqiyya is, i live among those people and have to deal with them daily.

[cFortyfive]

Wasn't half as entertaining as the ama with that guy who wants to run for presidency over there.

[Stir]

He seems smarter than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...that's for sure :S

Yes, but that seems to count for just about anyone in Iran who is nót Mahmoud Ahmedinejad...

[Biske]

More or less..

http://imgur.com/a/LdHsL#6

http://www.pagef30.com/2009/04/iran-...evolution.html

after all it's a weapon against human rights that men like to use with "awful misinterpretation".

Comparing the old Iran to the current Iran makes me depressed.

Regarding the topic, though, sounds like a reasonable fellow. The same cannot be said about Mahmoud, though.

[N-7]

no need to get mad, im entitled to my opinion, i don't always agree on your stances but i don't start quoting you and saying what you write and believe in is "stupid shit" as you said.

and i know what Taqiyya is, i live among those people and have to deal with them daily.

Please then state what Taqiya is...

[Deleted]

There are many examples of "leaders" being well spoken and seeming to be level headed, only to turn out so bat shit crazy that they make people in the loony-bin look positively sane. Actions will speak louder than words, especially with a state like Iran that has proven in the past that some of its leaders are not exactly level headed.

[Deleted]

nuke iran and nuke israel -> problem solved

[Deleted]

nuke iran and nuke israel -> problem solved

And turn both areas into radioactive wastelands for thousands of years, a Little extreme. Also what about the people trapped in those countries who are stuck there through no fault of their own. would you condone the mass murder of millions of innocent people just because they had the "Misfortune" of being born in those countries.

[N-7]

[QUOTE=silverequinox;20133403]More or less..

http://www.pagef30.com/2009/04/iran-...evolution.html << doesn't work.

http://imgur.com/a/LdHsL#6

After all it's a weapon against human rights that men like to use with "awful" misinterpretation.

The more we know about, the less we want it here. We have this beautiful pursuit called equality going on here in Europe. A collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. No brainwashing girls into burkkas "for their own good" or tempting boys to think them as "whores" if they don't or any ancient idiotic taboos are welcome either, call them "awra" or anything you want.

I can clearly see that you have no clue about what you're speaking about:

First of all, you speak like I am a foreigner to the way of life in Europe (hint hint location) which I am not. Secondly, you assume that because a Muslim does a certain thing that represents the Islam or other Muslims as whole. Frankly, it is as foolish as saying that those few bad apples in the army represent the army as a whole and that they're all a bunch of warmongering child killers.

Then, you go on about how Islam is unethical, calls for inequality, and some other bullshit on the same basis of your last assumption. So, a question for you Mr. smart-ass, what is the "required" (putting required between "" because even that is debatable) amount of wear by Islam for a woman or man?
hint: not a burkka. Islam is not Saudi Arabia (fortunately).

We've left (or atleast are trying) those things in history and so has anyone who can think open minded and constructively. Not the other way around. Islam is too easy channel into totalitarianism ideology. It (and the other 2 Abrahamic religions) are for people who wishes to be slaves and become victims of thought crimes and everything that are and should stay natural ways acceptable. The people of 21st century should know better that no monarchies/theocracies/dictatorships/facism or such are welcome anymore. Those are for the weak minded fools. It's time for any believer no matter what they believe, to accept it. We have no right to deny people from living the ways they wan't as long as they don't hurt others. Not even our childeren. They have right not to believe without any pressure coming from families and relatives. We are not sheeps and we can think for ourselves, thank you very much. So "you" (not really you, but moderate muslims who are half-assed about sharia-muslims) can keep your religion to yourself. We are not into bullshit lies and self and others contraignant ideologies.

That is quite funny since every attempt at establishing a democracy in the Middle East was shut down by the so called progressive west. Iran your enemy had democracy then the west came and replaced him with a puppet. The people revolted against him and AGAIN established a democracy and then yet again the west came and replaced him with yet another puppet. After being fed up a group revolted and established a theocracy in that country.

Saudi Arabia, the land of Wahhabi Muslims, one of the most disgraceful countries in the region is the second ally (after Israel) of the USA in that region constantly supplied by weapons from the west to help him subject his population. Saddam Hussain, Hussani Mubarak, and even Qaddafi at some point were employees of the so called democratic west. Lets toss in Bahrain too where the largest US base in the middle east is and human rights are being violated each and every fucking day by an oppressive regime supplied by the west.

And let us not forget yours truly "Islamic" terrorist Osama bin Laden trained, equipped, and supplied by the great USA. Yes Al Qaeda and by extension all of its allies are the product of a fucking democratic country. HOARY DEMOCRACY!

There are even more instance of the Middle East trying to be something good but getting fucked like a bitch by the western democratic countries. Where are your fucking so called "human rights" movements?

They can go and praise that illetarate naive prophet who lived in random desert 1400 years ago. A charismatic fool who was manipulated some smarter person (not a fucking angel, lol). Surprsingly it happened then and there and not places in far east like China, where people could actually read, think or do science and be sceptical, but in barbaric illetarate backward parts of middle east. And start spreading like disease trough wars between other religions, taxes for not believing etc. Trough the weak minded sheeps. Now that's a god I'd like to delete from "existence" in first place if I'd even believe in such things.

If that is how you think it happened then whatever I refuse to reply to hypocritical shit.

It's based on scripits of immoral thinking and actions by chauvinists cunts. So YES, it's very bad when it's among people who can't separate fairy tales from facts. Especially in religion that's as political as islam is. It's not a joke and it seriously needs a big ass renovation all the way to Quran, before it can have a pass as a tolerate religion.

I am going to assume that you've read the thing your calling immoral so I would like some examples of the "immoral thinking and actions by chauvinists cunts."

Humanism is not, since it's an evolving thing. You asked for it, so go figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Every culture / religion / movement has it's good sides and bads. Islam just happens to hold up for those bad things, as seen tons of times. Abrahamic religions are tools for evil people so that's why they should be objectively investigated and renovated.

Hold up for those bad things? You realize that every "Islamic" country or organisation was at some point created, supplied, or supported by the fucking west right?

[Mavett]

Please then state what Taqiya is...

Not really interested in being infracted for "religion bashing", *لى ج**ب ذلك، ك** أعر* جيد* م* هي *ل*قية.

[N-7]

nuke iran and nuke israel -> problem solved

Let Ahmadinejad and Benjamin fight a duel in the middle of desert the winner takes it all -> problem solved.

---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 02:10 PM ----------

Not really interested in being infracted for "religion bashing", *لى ج**ب ذلك، ك** أعر* جيد* م* هي *ل*قية.

If you know what it is then you should know that someone CANNOT create a Fatawh because of Taqiyya. Right?

---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 02:11 PM ----------

There are many examples of "leaders" being well spoken and seeming to be level headed, only to turn out so bat shit crazy that they make people in the loony-bin look positively sane. Actions will speak louder than words, especially with a state like Iran that has proven in the past that some of its leaders are not exactly level headed.

How did they prove that? It is not like that the fought a war almost every year since their establishment.