RT: Is Israel’s plausible nuclear stockpile a threat to Iran?

HM: I really do believe that neither Israel is an existential threat to Iran nor Iran is an existential threat to Israel. We’ve just had the Global Zero Summit [nuclear non-proliferation] conference. I told the conference that even today Israelis are always using the Iran issue to justify their nuclear bomb, saying that Iran is an existential threat for Israel. But in fact it is Israel that produced a nuclear bomb before the Islamic revolution [in Iran] when the Shah of Iran was the ally of Israel.

An Israeli nuclear bomb has nothing to do with Iran, because it was mastered and produced before the [Islamic] revolution [in Iran]. Now they are using the Islamic Revolution to justify [their nuclear bomb], but I would not buy this argument.

RT: Iran has been really stigmatized in the public domain in the past few years. What can Tehran do to persuade the west that it is not building a nuclear bomb?

HM: I believe Iran was ready for cooperation with the IAEA to remove the ambiguities. From 2003 to 2005 we implemented an additional protocol, the subsidiary code 3.1, we even suspended [uranium] enrichment, we gave the IAEA access beyond the additional protocol. We opened military sites to the IAEA. But the EU was not able to recognize the legitimate rights of Iran because the EU’s position was zero enrichment. That’s why negotiations during all time failed despite the fact we were ready for full transparency we had proved practically.

…Russia proposed in 2011 a step by step plan. The Russian step by step plan consisted of all major requirements of the IAEA, the UN atomic energy agency, and the UN Security Council’s resolution – and even beyond that.

Iranian officials welcomed the Russian initiative as a base for negotiations. It was the US and Europe which declined the Russian proposal.

Therefore I believe even today the Russian proposal can be a good basis for the negotiations.


RT: You personally worked with the IAEA monitor in Iran for several years. The international observers are known to have accused Iran of not letting them see everything they want. Tehran has been saying it cannot satisfy all of their demands. Who is right?

HM: It depends. They were asking Iran to implement an additional protocol. Implementation of an additional protocol is not mandatory for nations. Today 70 nations do not implement an additional protocol. Therefore this would be a gesture of good will from Iran to implement that protocol. But the IAEA was even requesting Iran to give access beyond the additional protocol. No nation in this world has given the IAEA access beyond the additional protocol.

I believe Iran is ready. If they (the west) recognize two issues: Iran’s right for the [uranium] enrichment and if they’re prepared to gradually leave the sanctions, to leave all sanctions at the later stage, I believe Iran will show good will to accept the additional protocol, to cooperate with the IAEA on possible military dimension issues, which would give the IAEA the [desired] access beyond the additional protocol.


RT: The EU has not been buying the Iranian oil for months now. Has Iran been able to find new markets?

HM: I believe Iranian oil’s export decreased 50-60 per cent. But believe me, even if Iranians cannot export even one drop of oil – they would not give up their rights. It really does not matter how much oil it can export or not.

During the war, the 1980 to 1988 invasion of Iraq, we had a much worse situation.


RT: Let’s move on to Syria. How do you think the conflict in Syria may affect the situation in Iran?

HM: It would affect more the region and the US allies. If they continue like this, Syria would go to sectarian civil war, spreading to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon and even Turkey. Iran would be the last to be affected by this spread of war.

Of course Iran may lose one friend, a partner like [Syrian President] Bashar Assad. But it does not mean the radical Muslims that would come to power, that they will be friends of Israel or America.

The Muslim Brotherhood – if they are in power – they would be much more [ideological]. And their base would be Muslim ideology, [while President Bashar] Assad is secular. That’s the difference.

­


RT: What is the biggest threat to the US in the region?

HM: The biggest threat for the US is coming out of the Arab Spring with Salafis, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and extreme Sunni radicals capturing Muslim countries…This is the real threat to the US.

RT: How do you see the situation developing with the Arab Spring spreading to other countries?

HM: Nobody knows. But as far as I can see, Islamists are coming to power through the whole Middle East. And this would affect the remaining US allies in the region.

Google;

Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel ‘Must Be Wiped Off the Map’

bobbythefap1 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2012 at 1:43pm:


PP,

So you do NOT believe that Ahmadinejad said words to the effect;

"We will wipe Israel off the map."

???

The words from the lips of Iranian President Ahmadinejad are...

"The ocean of rage of the people of the region will surge and eradicate the Zionist regime."

Watching this YOUTUBE clip, Ahmadinejad's intent seems very clear,
Ahmadinejad wants, 'TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP'

PP,

You are uninformed and ignorant.

Like so many of your ilk.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2012 at 2:47pm:




So remind me again PP,

what was it that Ahmadinejad said,

in that YT clip ???



Hmmmm?

As the Guardian columnist Jonathan Steele explained in 2006, a more direct translation of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks would be: “this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Yadda

Iran is innocent.

Israel/Zionists/Mossad/Jews, ....are the servants of SATAN and must be slaughtered.

....coz, it is Allah's will.

Yadda wrote on Dec 16^th, 2012 at 11:16pm:






It must irk you that you have to share your God with the Mussies, hey!