Khatami: Iran 'must look to the future'

Ann Curry:

So beyond words, what do you need to see first from President Obama?

Former President Mohammad Khatami:

One is that as an Iranian citizen, as a person who is really interested in dialogue among civilizations, peace, and development of all countries around the globe, I should state, it's amazing to me to have a President of the United States with the slogan centered and focused on change.

Having Obama in office is a change itself.  A change that was asked and struggled for by the American nation.  Even the policy making authorities, the politicians, that's a big change to have Obama in office in White House.  And his motto was also change.  But there is a kind of ambiguity.  What is this change?  Is it going to be an essential change?

Of course, I don't mean that the United States should forget about its national interests.  How to serve this national interest?  How they are going to do so?  You have to see it and wait and see what is the nature of the change President Obama is claiming in practice.

And President in an American administration, is a person, though he has a very crucial role.  But there is a system in the United States, like any other country.  For sure, there are some sources of power who are against the changes President Obama wish to implement.  And they are resisting against it.

We don't know how far President Obama would be able to stand against his resistances and these obstacles.  But anyhow, I strongly believe that President Obama would be better to clear the matter, that what kind of change he is seeking.

And he should be patient enough to stand against this resistance for the change he is aiming at.  He should continue his struggle for this change.  And I think Iran and the whole world should give him enough time so to implement the change and to show what change he's talking about, and what is his point of view to change, and he would get enough time in order to overcome these obstacles that are on the way for his change.

Ann Curry:

You are struggling for change here in Iran and so that is one reason why you are backing Mr. Mousavi.  Is Mr. Mousavi the kind of man who would stop the funding for Hezbollah and Hamas?  Slow down or stop the enrichment of uranium here in Iran?

Former President Mohammad Khatami:

You know, these issues that are talking about, it's because of some misunderstanding.  Sometimes misinterpretation.  We never invested to support Hamas and Hezbollah.  Of course we are supporting the resistance of the Palestinians against occupation as an ethical approach.  A moral.  It's the right of everyone to fight for his freedom.

I have stated this in in Howard University.  They asked me the same question and I responded that one of the greatest achievements of humankind that which belongs to the modern world, the Western world, is that power occupation is not the source for legitimacy.

So that's why when Adolf Hitler occupied France, the resistance of the French people is always admired by the people in history.  Hundreds of books and movies have been made on that, because occupation cannot be accepted as the source of legitimacy.  If somebody is occupying some nation's lands, millions of people would be pushed out of their homeland, even they do not have the right to go back to their home country.

So we see that something has happened against ethics, and it's against what we have achieved in the modern world.  So resistance is a value.  Even United States have seconded it.  But Hamas and Hezbollah, as the symbol of resistance against this occupation, they are supporter.

But intervention in the national affairs of the countries is not acceptable as far as I know as a president used to be during my eight years in office.  We never had such investment there, and during my time in office.  And the ones who are fighting the enemy so to get to freedom should not be called terrorists. And if some would go there and again, and say that we would terrorize these people who are resisting, they are receiving the support from some countries.  Why United States should under the pressure of some lobbies, should support one side who is posing pressure and the other side who is oppressed should be condemned as a terrorist.

So Iran does not have any kind of intervention there, but we are supporting their resistance but we do not have any intervention in their national policies.  It was never like such investment so Mousavi would be changing it.  The Palestinians should decide about their own future themselves, and we just give them some ideas that what would be the best solution.

So to have peace when Jews, Christians, and Muslims would be able to live in Palestine next to each other with great coexistence with equal citizenship rights.  And the nuclear issue, the nuclear program, we never intend, time and again.  We have stated that, time and again.  We never wish to have the nuclear bomb.  But as a member of nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we would like to have peaceful purposes of the nuclear technology.

That's our legitimate right.  We do not need anything more than this.  If you mean that we should change the plan for making a bomb, there hasn't been such a program so Mousavi would be changing it.  If there is this local approach that, okay, the world would like Iran to give them objective guarantee, I did the same and I'm sure Mr. Mousavi would do the same.

To give the objective guarantee that we would not get access to the military purposes of nuclear energy.  And what has been, I mean, the behaviors that contributed to this misunderstanding, would would never be seen during Mr. Mousavi anymore.

Ann Curry:

In your last comments you said that under Mousavi there would not be any kind of behavior that would cause for there to be a problem or increase in problems in the relations between the U.S. and Iran, if I understand you correctly.  So I guess the question I have is about do you think that Iran has been moving too quickly in its nuclear program?

Do you believe there is a real risk of confrontation between Iran and the West?  And what do you make of President Ahmadinejad's statement in recent days that a missile has been fired, which caused great alarm in the United States that this missile had traveled so far?  It was a new kind of missile that could reach Israel and parts of Europe.  When you say that Mousavi would not have this kind of-- this is the kind of behavior that is causing problems.  So what are you saying about Mr. Mousavi?

Former President Mohammad Khatami:

You know, if it's based on the stances we were taking, for sure we may have more of complaints toward the Americans because during my term in office they called Iran as a member of Axis of Evil, though we were the founder of dialogue among civilizations.  And for the first time ever after the revolution, I sat down with CNN addressing the American nation, and you know, I was always aiming at détente and confidence building.  And I had the vote of more than 20 million people.

But they called us Axis of Evil.  It was not during Ahmadinejad's administration.  But, of course, I do not believe whatever has been stated by this administration was proper.  They said something which of which was of no use.  But, anyway, it should not be a good excuse for the others to say that Iran is misbehaving.

We are not threatening anyone with this missile programs.  The defense budgets in the region, if you compare it with the Iranian one, Iranian defense budget is the least, the smallest one.  Hundreds of nuclear warheads are Israel and two nuclear powers in our eastern part, India and Pakistan.  So if there is any threat, they are the threat.  And we never intended to invade anyone.  It's not our national interest.  It's not in our favor.  Why should we attack Europe?  These are just some excuses to justify their policies.

I would like to recommend, and I have always recommended, their European and American friends that your viewpoint and analysis toward Iran is not proper.  Some come.  They are hard liners.  Some will come.  They are softer in the West.  But Iran is a historical reality.

But the problem is that they look at Iran as a problem.  But the fact is that Iran is a very strong nation and a strong country, with a very particular position which is not problem.  And on the other hand, with Iran, you may solve many problems.  If they change their viewpoint toward Iran, I believe most of the matters would be resolved.

And if we go more and more toward the compromise and understanding, then they, of course, some may stand up and have some harsh statements, but it shows that we are getting closer.  Some are underneath getting closer.  And I believe that Mr. Mousavi, with very bright ideas that he has, and while he is committing himself to the national interest, he never wants tension.  He would like to remove these tensions between Iran and the other countries.  And he would be able to devise policies, very moderate one, so not to give this justification to the other countries to put pressure over Iran.

Ann Curry:

Can you understand-- of course you can.  You have such-- I can see that you are a very reasonable man.  But to understand your point, you say that the Americans don't understand the history of Iran and don't understand the situation.  And that may very well be true.

But, may I ask you, sir, with all respect, when the President of Iran says that it has a missile that is a new missile.  And we now know it is capable of reaching Israel and southern, western parts of Europe.  And this president, President Ahmadinejad, has said that there's an interest in wiping Israel off the map.  Of course, why wouldn't the West be concerned about Iran's intentions?  Forgive me for asking this question if it seems impertinent.

Former President Mohammad Khatami:

Thank you for this question.  You know, we have heard a lot of harsh words toward Iran too.  I remember during the war against Iran, the Defense Minister of the United States stated that we have to dry out the roots of the Iranian nation.  Or Israel time and again states that Iran is the enemy number one.  Even they are talking about the military invasion to Iran.

So there is this concern in Iran to-- these are words.  These words always exist.  The words are not necessarily the reality what would happen in practice.  It's not in the best interests of Iran to get engaged in the warfare with any country.

And I strongly believe that we should not talk like that to irritate the other people and motivate them.  These aren't some words that would justify the policies of other countries to put pressure over Iran, and these words should be stopped.  These statements.  We should have very wise statement and very wise action in return in future.

Ann Curry:

So you are saying-- are you saying that Mr. Mousavi would be better for U.S. relations with Iran than Mr.-- than President Ahmadinejad?  There would be fewer of these words?

Former President Mohammad Khatami:

I believe Mr. Mousavi is a very wise diplomat.  A politician with with bright ideas.  He's thinking about the national interests.  He never wants tension with his administration and other countries.  And the Iranian policy, although these statements have been made very harsh, we never intend to have enemies around the world.

And in order to have a good understanding, both sides should be realistic with good hope and goodwill.  And as the Iranian nation wants the people around the world, would make steps to get closer for peace, rather than seeking enemies.  We have suffered a lot.  That's enough.  And I believe Mr. Mousavi is wise with bright ideas and he would not look for tension anymore, I believe.

Ann Curry:

After the U.S. invasion in Afghanistan, Iran, under your administration, and with the Supreme Leader's blessing, sent the Bush administration a letter offering reconciliation, including curbing Iran's nuclear program and stopping support for Hezbollah and Hamas.  The Bush administration did not answer.  Was this a lost opportunity, in your view, for the future of U.S.-Iranian relations?

Former President Mohammad Khatami:

Mr. Bush responded and couple of month after the occupation of Afghanistan and toppling down Taliban, they called us Axis of Evil, instead of appreciating our goodwill and cooperation, though we had discussions and negotiations resulted in solving the problem in Afghanistan in a cheaper and faster way.

You know, the ones who were ruling Afghanistan were our enemies.  First of all, were our enemies, Taliban.  And then the enemies to the United States.  We suffered a lot as a matter of narcotics, terrorizing people in Iran.  And it was a great pleasure for us.  Saddam was our great enemy too.  In both sides they removed our enemies.  It was great.

But how they did it was not the proper method.  It could be much better than this.  In regard to Afghanistan, we were wise.  Of course, we were serving our own national interests.  We were not in favor of, and we are not in favor of, occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.  But we were seeking the solution in these two countries.  We had to compromise and cooperation.

And if we were not cooperating with the Americans, either the Americans would never get to Kabul or they had to pay a very heavy price. We were there.  We cooperated, and in fact it was achieved very easily.  So this method of goodwill were supposed to get continued.  When the Americans were going in to attack to Iraq, I proposed Mr. Kofi Annan that this same experience in Afghanistan should be repeated in Iraq.

Five security members, as well as the neighbor countries of Iraq plus Egypt, which is a very important power in our region, under the supervision of United Nations to seek and think about the future of Iraq.  But President Bush was very proud.  He thought that he doesn't need anyone else's help and assistance, but we could help.

Without this huge losses to the Americans to Iraq, and Iraq is now the center for contagious diseases of terrorism.  Thousands of American children have died innocently there.  Terrorism is even reinforced there.  We could find other solutions and remove Saddam at the same time with less price and more understanding.

We gave this idea to the United Nations for Iraq.  But, you know, United States is not in a position to tell us what shall we do in Iran.  They condemn us first.  And then they say that you should stop this and then that will be the precondition to negotiate.  We are not supporting terrorists.  Hamas and Hezbollah is not terrorists, the groups to our own point of view.

That I don't say that whatever they do may be justified as a right action.  Yes, anyone, any group, may commit something which is not acceptable for sure.  But they say that I would terrorize the ones who are against me.  That's what Israelis say.  If we would like to condemn terrorist acts, we should condemn all sort of it.

But if we have the goodwill, then we may have a realistic approach to a Palestine issue with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan.  And get to conclusions that would be serving the national interests of these countries, as well as our national interests and the Americans.

And, but if we just concentrate and focus our own national interests, then devising force and military might, we would face such a thing that the Americans are facing in Afghanistan and Iraq.  That heavy price they are paying for this easy solution.  You know that we are on the same ship, on the same planet, so we have to work with each other in perfect coexistence.  And-- we should-- revise our viewpoints and many problems would be solved.

MORE FROM INTERNATIONAL

International Section Front

Billionaire's mysterious death in Monte Carlo Former drug dealer saving kids in Congo What happened to little Madeleine? To catch a baby broker Photos: Children of Jalapa Photos: Inside the Hogar Primavera orphanage Photos: At home with the Galicias Photos: Behind the scenes in Guatemala Missing: Enma Galicia Photos: Together again International Section Front   Add International headlines to your news reader: