Council on Foreign Relations on
Monday hosted an on-the-record meeting in New York with Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali
Akbar Salehi. Below are some of
the points he made during the event, which was moderated by New Yorker
staff writer Lawrence Wright. The text was provided by CFR.
On whether Iran with a nuclear bomb would mean regional stability: “No, no…Had Iran
chosen to go nuclear in the sense of weaponization…it would attract more
threats and invite more threats from the other side. Because suppose we wanted
to go nuclear and manufacture one or two rudimentary bombs, who is on the other
side? It’s not India and Pakistan. Seemingly, it is Iran and the U.S.”
Salehi himself posed the question whether any “rational” country,
including Iran, would think to challenge the U.S., and then answered:
“Certainly not.”
On the progress of Iran nuclear talks: “Each time that the two
sides came close to some kind of understanding, mutual understanding, somehow
it was disrupted…a phantom-third party has disrupted this. But we have not lost
hope.”
On regime
change in Syria: “We wish [the Syrian government] had taken a better
position…in the outbreak of the uprising. There were some mistakes committed,
but this does not justify in any way interference from outside. We are not in a
position…we never think, ever, to tell the president of a country, ‘please step
down.’”
On a question about Syria potentially using chemical weapons in the
current conflict: “If a country, any country, including Iran, uses weapons of mass
destruction, that is the end of the validity, eligibility, legality of
that government…It is something that is not at all acceptable. Therefore, if
your hypothesis, God forbid, ever materializes, I think nobody can justify it
anymore; Nobody can go along with anybody who has been involved in such
…inhuman acts.”
File photo: Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi (AFP)
7 comments:
Sounds good and logical for everybody who sincerely wants a peace on the Earth.
Dissident
yes, it does sound good......
....except maybe for that part about "just one or two little nuclear bombs is no big deal".
that doesn't sound good...or logical
THAT sound like what the world expects from the iranian government.
and of course, Iran blaming all lack of agreement in negotiations on an invisible third party sounds like the usual horse hockey
Anon 10:06AM
Looks like YOU WANT that Iran will always be WEAK .....
Dissident
Not at all. I want masses of strong and determined Iranians to rise and throw off the oppressive theocracy and rebuild the nation to greatness.
Anon 4:31 PM
North Korea has nuclear weapons and South Korea hasn't.
Which one is weak?
Soviet Union proved that having a powerful military with nuclear weapons alone doesn't make you strong.Their economy was in a shambles.
And now that Iran's currency is more worthless than even Somali, having nuclear weapons backed by a rotten economy doesn't make it strong.
Anon 7:05PM
Your propaganda tries to divert attention from a point, that during aggressions economies do not work by "marauders" wishes or standards.
If Soviet Union (Russia) would not have nuclear weapons they wouldn't exist then and today...
The positives which were achieved by Iran; under sanctions. agressions and sabotage have almost no examples in human history.
Anon 6:40PM
Look at Turkey and other countries of the region, they have embraced the West long time agou and they don't have so skilled scientists and engineers as well as programs that envision going into the space with humans...
Under "Iranian Theocracy's" policies you still can (privately) go to Turkey or other countries to drink their coffee and whisky (or be a nudist..) as long as your behavior on the teritory of the Islamic Republic respects its rules.
Dissident
Post a Comment