Iranian Foreign Minister Speaks to ABC News

TEHRAN, Iran, Jan. 6, 2007 — -- Iran's foreign minister spoke frankly to ABC News' Jim Sciutto about Iran's nuclear ambitions and its role in the Iraq War.

Jim Sciutto, ABC News: So President Bush said today that the U.S. would be willing to talk to Iran specifically about Iraq, but only on the condition that Iran stop its uranium enrichment. Is that a condition that Iran is willing to meet?

Manoucher Mottaki, Iranian foreign minister: In the name of God, thank you very much. I welcome you to visit Iran, and due to the question which you have raised, I think if any party is going to put any condition for any negotiation, that is the Iranian side not the American side. And that is why, due to nuclear issue, we always have announced that we are ready for negotiation, and our priority is the option based on having a comprehensive solution based on negotiation. Due to Iraq -- if you do mean for negotiation in our understanding the recent support of Mr. James Baker Hamilton could show 50 percent of the truth or the realities and even due to half of the realities -- we can very clearly find out that the American policies in Iraq is failed. And everybody now in the United States is talking about the necessity of changing the policies. And in our understanding that, that is the most important area which the U.S. administration should take into consideration. And changing the policy is not in talking. Only that must show itself in practice. And that's why without changing of, I mean practical changing of the policies towards Iraq, we don't see any, any, you know, result for any negotiation.

Q: Would Iran be willing to speak to the U.S. about helping to calm the situation in Iraq, and if so under what conditions?

A: Deciding about any negotiation needs some, you know, preparation. And the most prime preparation, as I mentioned, is the U.S. administration's decision to change its policies. For example, we have two main areas of difficulties in Iraq -- the two sides of a coin. One side is instability, terrorist activities. And the other side is continuation of the presence of foreign troops. Any solution should catch these two important elements, what is the policy of the United States. And parallely, there must be decision for solving the instability terrorist activity, and in secular situation in Iraq, as well as the necessity of the (inaudible) of the foreign terms…

Q: Does Iran--

A: …of that country.

Q: Iran wants a timetable for withdrawal. Is that Iran's condition?

A: We are not talking now for about how and when they should withdraw from Iraq. That should come through the negotiation between the Iraqi's government and the Americans. But it must be announced that that is the most important things.

Q: If it is announced, a date, a prospective date, would Iran, would that meet the conditions that Iran has to talk to the U.S.?

A: Definitely, definitely, announcing of the withdrawal. Then they needs, they need some, you know, plan of action and time table and any, any related preparation for such decision. And in such circumstances, Iran is in the position to help with the withdrawal of the foreign troops from Iraq. At the same time, we do believe that transferring the security management to Iraqi government will make possible the Iraqi government, the monarchy's government administration, will be able, is capable to, to manage the country and to, to solve the security problem. This is our understanding. Because the Iraqis know better than anybody else how to behave with the Iraqis. When I visited Baghdad just after forming of the permanent government of the monarchy, I raised this question to Mr. Rizbari: How you cannot make safe and secure your capital? When Baghdad is not safe and secure, how you want to rule the country all over the country? He told me, "We can make secure Baghdad, but the problem is there is no a concentrated center to make decision. And Dargon is there, CIA is there, secretary of state of the United State is there, our army's are there and everybody is there, and the most difficulty part is making decision." And if it goes to one place, which is the, the legitimate government of Iraq, I am sure they will be able to make secure their capital first then continue to guard the part of the country.

Q: Just so I am clear, is Iran willing to talk to the U.S. just about the Iraq issue, assuming, as you say, the U.S. had some sort of timetable and separate from the nuclear issue? Or are you saying that you have to discuss all these things in one comprehensive agreement?

A: This is the third time which you are asking this.

Q: Yeah I just want to make sure I am clear.

A; No, no, no. Iran is willing. Iran is not willing, you know-- This is some technical point which I should clarify that we, we are not asking for any negotiation. Negotiation is not in our agenda for the time being. United State has a problem in Iraq. First of all, they should accept that their policy is failed in Iraq. They should accept the basic approach to the situation is to change their policies, practical step is to make decision to withdraw from Iraq. If they are concerned about the security in Iraq, then we do believe transferring the management of the security to Iraqi's government, they will make them capable to, to have their prepared approach to the situation. This is the real picture. This is the reality on the stand and, you know, you know there are the problem or the question is not negotiations. We are not asking for a negotiation. I don't want to say we are against negotiation, but there must be some reason for negotiation.

Q: And what would that be?

A: If the negotiation is for Iraq, it needs preparation. We do not see yet any changes in the mind in the speaking and the most important in practice, practical approach of the Americans that they are going to change their policies in Iraq. Unfortunately, the same situation is going on in Afghanistan. We consider the situation in Afghanistan very shaky, and five years ago the American administration said we are going to Afghanistan for establishment of stability and security in Afghanistan. A few months ago Mr. Kofi Annan was here. He told me in the meeting that the main problem in Afghanistan is instability, is the stability and the security. It shows very easy that some part of the policies were wrong. And somebody do they, are they waiting for another Baker-Hamilton's report on Afghanistan to reconsider their policies? This is the realities in our region. We are living in this region. Unfortunately, most of the American people do not know what is going on in this region. They don't, maybe most of the people don't know where is the Middle East, and even one of the official -- of course not in the ministry of foreign affairs -- was asked where is Iraq. He said, "I think somewhere in (inaudible) in that region." They don't know about the situation here. Does the people of the U.S. know what is going on in Lebanon, what happened in Lebanon, what is going on in Palestine? The western countries and the U.S. are talking always about democracy. What does that mean? Do they mean that democracy is based, based on the people wish what they decide? Okay, they have made a decision through a free and fair election in Palestine for Hamas. Should we follow here the doublist and dart approach, or we have good democracy and bad democracy we have good Taliban and bad Taliban? No, no, no. We should have equal approach to the equal issues.