Iran FM: US Talks Claim While Continuing Antagonist Policies Meaningless

Tehran, Dec 18, IRNA – IRI foreign minister said here Monday talks proposal can be surveyed under equal conditions and if other side's truthfulness is proved, otherwise, under continued pressure and antagonist policies what do claims such a direct talks mean? According to IRNA, the media office of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs quoted Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi as making the comment in reply to a question on possible US stand and behavior change now that top US officials, including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's comments on US readiness for direct talks with Iran. Pointing out that holding talk is the basic and low cost way for problem solving, he said, 'My colleagues are monitoring the US stands and practical behavior precisely and continually, but thus far no practical change has been notices in antagonist policies of that country against this country and the Iranian nation.' He reiterated, 'Various US officials and governments usually act contrary to their declared stands. Their praising for the Islamic Republic of Iran's contributions to the establishment of a national and democratic government in Afghanistan on the one hand, while placing Iran in the group of so-called axis of evil on the other hand, is merely one example of such dichotomous stands and acts by the US administration.' Salehi pointed out that the world public opinion has not forgotten the baseless US claim before the occupation of Iraq and massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians on pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, which is a well known record on US foreign policy. He added, 'Of course the Americans themselves confessed that no weapon of mass destruction was found in Iraq.' The Iranian top diplomat added, 'The former US secretary of state Collin Powel always considers making this baseless claim (by himself) at the UN Security Council as the dark day in his life.' Salehi said that the current US president, too, on the one hand calls for nuclear disarmament and on the other hand allocates a 70 billion dollar annual budget for renovation of the US nuclear arsenal in addition to launching nuclear tests!' The Iranian foreign minister added, 'therefore, we have learned from experience that it is not possible to rely on the spoken worlds of this or that US top official, but we do believe that the US policies can be judged based on that country's deeds; even though they are truthful in case of this recent claim, which we seriously have doubts about it.' He reiterated, 'This proposal (direct negotiations with Iran) is quite incongruous with their deeds. On the one hand their drones violate the airspace of the Islamic Republic of Iran that even their radar evading types have been navigated and either cast away, or capture by our mighty armed forces, and on the other hand by imposing the most unprecedented unilateral sanctions, they breach the entire legal, ethical and international laws.' Salehi added, 'In another corner they assist the assassins of our scientific elites, or arrest the innocent Iranian civilians, such as university professors, and after all such deeds now they put forth the issue of direct talks. Naturally, even a simpleminded person having seen these deeds would not have the impression of being honest of the US administration.' He emphasized, 'In fact abusing the broad media advantage at their disposal, they are after creating an international atmosphere to guide the world public opinion in favor of their own objectives, sine otherwise the logical and rational way for problem solving has necessities, of which they, too, are well aware.' Salehi said, 'Under the current conditions they are after achieving their illegitimate objectives by imposing pressure against the Iranian nation. Therefore, they have imposed unprecedented whose effects are inflicted against people of various walks of life in our society, including the patients. But as they have already experienced, such moves do not lead to the Iranian nation's surrendering in case of the peaceful nuclear program, or in case of advancements in other scientific and technological fields.' The former head of Iran's Nuclear Energy Organization added, 'Therefore, by proposing the talks issue they are after initiating a new way for imposing greater illogical pressure against Iran by that country.' He said, 'Basically, the Islamic Republic of Iran's interactions with the other countries are in accordance with the power of logic, and as a great nation with a glorious past that was abundant in sagacious deeds, we believe negotiation is the basic and low cost method for problem solving, but the talks option is pursuable at a time that there would be equal conditions for both sides, and the truthfulness of the other side would be proven, as otherwise under the conditions that the pressures continue, and the antagonist approach remains intact, what can the claims of the other side on issues such as direct talks really mean?' Representative of Supreme Leader at Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), too, said here last Monday that negotiation with United States is retreating of people and leader and their yielding to enemy's will, despite the people's will. According to IRNA, Hojjatoleslam Ali Sa'eidi who was speaking on Monday night at the First Conference of Friday Prayer Imams and Basij (mobilization force) Commanders at the Auditorium of Qom Seminary Teachers Association, added, 'The status of sanctions and the economic conditions of the country should not urge some people to argue that now that the United States is saying it is ready for negotiation, then we, too, must go for it.' Referring to the characteristics of a pioneer and standard bearer nation, reiterating, 'One of those characteristics is to understand well the necessities of the time.' Sa'eidi said, 'The enemy intends to drag us into its own café, but we have lots of strategic differences of opinion with the United States, including Hezbollah, Palestine, the Shi'a governance in Iraq, and the Bahrain issue, none of which can be solved in the framework of negotiations.' There are currently no formal diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States. Due to poor relations between the two countries, instead of exchanging ambassadors Iran maintains an interests section at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C., while the United States has maintained an interests section at the Swiss Embassy in Tehran. Opinions differ over what has caused the decades of poor relations. Iranian explanations include everything from the natural and unavoidable conflict between the Islamic Revolution on the one hand, and perceived American arrogance and desire for global hegemony on the other. Since 1995, the United States has had an embargo on trade with Iran. Two days after Barak Obama was elected president in November 2008, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad issued the first congratulatory message to a newly elected American president since 1979: 'Iran welcomes basic and fair changes in the United States' policies and conducts. I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority and seize the opportunity to serve the people so that you will be remembered with high esteem'. On March 19, 2009, the beginning of the Iranian New Year festival of Norouz, Obama spoke directly to the Iranian people in a video saying, 'The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right—but it comes with real responsibilities'. A former Iranian nuclear negotiator, Seyyed Hossein Mousavian wrote an article in the National Interest on Monday December 10th, under the title 'Iran-U.S. Hostilities Must Stop', whose last paragraphs read: … If the United States makes the right offer, it is possible to strike a deal that ensures Iran would remain free of nuclear weapons forever. However, Netanyahu continues to assert that Iran is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon and that the diplomatic track has failed. Such allegations are aimed at forcing the international community to decide whether to “bomb Iran” or live with an “Iranian bomb.”—in this formulation, the only options are war or containment and deterrence. Both are terrible choices for the United States and the West. The possibility for a diplomatic resolution is still high and needs to be given a chance. Iran is completely open to a maximum level of transparency with the IAEA and is willing to address all remaining issues, including the IAEA’s concerns about “possible military dimensions” to Iran’s nuclear program. Furthermore, Iran is ready to accept limits on its nuclear-power capacity, including a cap at a 5 percent level of enrichment. We should not let this opportunity for peaceful settlement become part of ever-growing pile of historical missed opportunities between Iran and the United States. This realistic approach has a chance if the United States—and not Israel—leads on Iran. Just as the former US undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas Burns wrote in a recent op-ed in the Boston Globe, Washington should not “remain hostage to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s increasingly swift timetable for action.” Let us hope the new US president has this wisdom and capability./end