Diane Sawyer Interviews Iranian President Ahmadinejad

AHMADINEJAD: Who is the American government to talk about our nuclear issue? Who are they? What is the legal position of the American government that gives it the right to comment about our nuclear issue? They should answer who has given them this right? The nations?

SAWYER: But the President has said and the European Union have said that progress must be made on the nuclear issues by the deadline of this year or early next year at the very least and instead, instead, even defenders of Iran are confused because instead of progress, an agreement that was reached on shipping uranium, low grade uranium out of the country to France and to Russia has been backed out on, in addition to that a missile has been launched with discussion of being able to hit Israel, to hit Europe and added to that, there are announcements of more centrifuges for Iranian, for uranium, the question really is: Do you believe there will be stronger, new sanctions? Do you believe there will be a possible strike in the future by Israel?

AHMADINEJAD: I have already given your answer. We think that the American government and some European governments should raise their problem with clarity and honesty. They should say in a manly manner what their problem is. Otherwise, these nuclear allegations have lost their taste from our point of view. There is no ambiguity in Iran. The course of decision making is very clear. Our decisions are completely rational and legal. We announce them with clarity and we aren't afraid of anyone when we declare our decisions. We declare any decision that is based on our national interests and justice very clearly. There is no fear from anyone and therefore we declare our decisions openly. As far as the issue of swapping of fuel is concerned, it was our proposal to do this. Legally speaking, they are obliged to supply Iranian fuel.

SAWYER: But then why change the agreement?

AHMADINEJAD: This is the content of the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. It is the commitment of IAEA to unconditionally supply our fuel for peaceful consumption. We proposed the idea of swapping fuel in order to give a chance to the American and Western governments to enter into cooperation instead of confrontation. They say they want to give us fuel. We don't care if they don't give. Can they set conditions or deadlines or timelines? This is the literature of Mr. Bush's era. What has changed? We are expecting changes. They want to swap fuel with us, then they come up with deadlines and say until this time. We don't want fuel from Europe and America at all. Is it a sin to say we don't want fuel. Do we have to ask for fuel and on the basis of their conditions? They tell us let's negotiate, then from the other hand they are saying sanctions are coming -- they show the stick.

Respectable lady, the American people, this approach has failed, i.e. raising the stick of sanctions and then saying let's negotiate. It has failed. It's over. It's not repeatable. The world doesn't accept it either. If you want to talk with us under fair conditions, we welcome it. If you are saying you are going to impose sanctions, then go and do it.

SAWYER: (cross talk) Mr. President, many journalists...

Page
Join the Discussion
You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
You Might Also Like...