Turkey is trying to hammer out a compromise and is offering to store the uranium for Iran. But Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki says that the leadership in Tehran is insisting that the uranium be exchanged for fuel within Iran.

We need guarantees that we will get fuel in return for our uranium. Given the way we’ve been treated by the West over the last 30 years, we have plenty of reasons to be mistrustful.

That’s something that cuts both ways. The West doesn’t believe that Iran’s uranium-enrichment activities in Natanz are only for civilian purposes. You have already produced roughly 1,800 kilograms (around 4,000 pounds) of low-enriched uranium. If that were highly enriched, it could also be used to build a nuclear weapon.

It’s absolutely our right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. Everything is happening under the supervision of the IAEA. We have nothing to hide.

But you built a nuclear facility in Qom that is hidden deep within a mountain.

Our decision to build in Fordo was the consequence of our having been under constant threat of a military attack. We have an “organization for passive defense” that has introduced precautions for an emergency throughout the country. Having protected facilities should help guarantee that, even in the case of an attack, the sensitive parts of all Iranian organizations will be able to function.

Nuclear experts see Fordo as a very serious indication that Iran is pursuing a program to develop nuclear weapons.

That isn’t in the report of the IAEA’s director general. I refuse to tolerate such politically motivated interpretations. Iran’s nuclear agency does not have any other locations apart from Fordo.

On the basis of satellite images, IAEA experts say that the first work at Fordo started in 2002. The construction there is said to have reached an “advanced” stage in the meantime.

The earlier activities were the responsibility of our defense organization. The nuclear agency only took control of the premises in the first half of 2007. Since then, foundations have been laid, upon which the equipment will be placed. The experts from the nuclear agency [IAEA]  were recently in Iran for four days, and they spent two whole days in Fordo. There are still no centrifuges installed there, and no nuclear material is stored there. But, if there is an attack, we will continue our uranium-enrichment activities there so that this process is not interrupted at any time.

If Iran doesn’t come around, the Israelis might carry out just this kind of military attack, seeing as they feel particularly threatened. US President Barack Obama is considering new sanctions, and even China and Russia seem to be losing their patience.

Don’t threaten us. We’re not going to abandon our enrichment activities in Iran. We are proud that we have mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, and no one can strip us of this ability. We also aren’t going to allow ourselves to be blackmailed on the basis of our fuel problem. If other countries don’t want to help us, we’ll be forced to simply make highly enriched uranium ourselves. The material is vitally important for helping us treat cancer patients in our hospitals using radiation therapy.

“I’m also just a normal housewife,” she says, readjusting her black chador inside her apartment in the middle-class Tehran neighborhood of Apadana. “But in my homeland, if you want justice and freedom, you have to put everything else on hold.”

Fahimi’s apartment is a shrine, a memorial to her murdered son, Sohrab Aarabi. Dozens of photos of Sohrab line the walls, as if to make sure the memory of her beloved youngest son will never fade. There’s Sohrab serious over his schoolbooks, Sohrab energetic on the soccer field, Sohrab looking pensive during a break at school. Sohrab, who had so many plans, who wanted to discover the world and experience first love. Sohrab, who became a martyr — against his will.

Deep lines of sorrow have formed around his mother’s eyes, and her voice breaks as she tells her story. But then she composes herself again, holding tightly to her notebook, a last anchor documenting everything. She still finds it all so difficult to believe.

Women and children beaten

The third day after the “stolen election” on June 12, massive demonstrations took place on the streets of Tehran. Parvin Fahimi was there with her four sons, but they became separated in the chaos. The Basij militia, Ahmadinejad’s thugs, arrived. People fled into doorways and found detours home. By late morning, Siavash, 23, Siamak, 27, and Sohail, 25, had made their way back to the family apartment. Only Sohrab, 19, was missing.

The odyssey that followed was a dreadful emotional roller coaster ride for Fahimi. She took her son’s photograph to all of Tehran’s authorities. She visited police headquarters, spent the night in front of Tehran’s notorious Evin prison, and screamed at officials in the public prosecutor’s office, after having been told her son’s name was “marked” and he was being investigated as a potential ringleader. She was offered hope — Sohrab was under arrest but in good health, and would contact her soon.

During her desperate search, Fahimi viewed dozens of police photographs of unidentified bodies. Again and again, she saw women and children being beaten in prison cells. Then, after more than three weeks, came the awful truth — Sohrab was dead. The death certificate issued by a medical officer tersely stated that he had been hit in the chest with a bullet.

His mother still doesn’t know if her son really died the night of the demonstration, or if he was tortured and then killed in prison. Opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi visited to offer their condolences, and thousands showed their solidarity at the funeral march held 40 days after Sohrab was buried.

Fahimi also lost her husband two years ago to a brain tumor. That was fate, she says. But now, to lose her youngest child — that, Fahimi says, was a crime. “What keeps me alive,” she explains, “is the certainty that Sohrab didn’t die in vain.” As she shows her guests to the door on a Tuesday evening shortly before midnight, the call to prayer begins to sound from the rooftops — “Allahu akbar,” God is great. It’s also the code word for Iran’s resistance, whose symbolic color is green.

Last-ditch attempt

It’s now four months on from the election and tensely awaited talks between Iran and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, are about to begin. It’s the first time in decades that a high-level American government representative will be present. William Burns, under secretary of state under President Barack Obama, will travel to Switzerland on Oct. 1 to participate in the discussions — without preconditions. The Republican opposition in Washington has ranted that it’s an unacceptable concession to a “rogue” state. It’s more of a last-ditch attempt to get Tehran to see reason on the matter of nuclear weapons, counter Obama’s confidants. Together with the other participating countries, Burns will offer Tehran a packet of economic and diplomatic incentives if it will abandon or at least suspend its program of uranium enrichment, which many in the international community suspect is a possible first step toward building a nuclear bomb.

If Iran’s leaders persist in their stubbornness, however, America and its allies will push for significantly harsher sanctions. The mullah state doesn’t seem concerned, however. “Do you really believe there are sanctions that can hit us that hard?” asks Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, in a recent interview.

What will happen if the negotiating parties walk away from Geneva empty-handed? What if it comes to a gasoline embargo against Tehran, a move that — despite Iran’s assertions to the contrary — could hit the country hard, since Iran imports more than a third of its fuel? What will happen if Israel’s hard-liner Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decides on a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, sites Israel has come to view as a threat to its own existence in the wake of the Iranian president’s many provocative statements?

Ahmadinejad secures his power base

Ahmadinejad’s speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday evening last week did little to allay fears. It was the fifth time Ahmadinejad had attended the assembly in New York and the fifth time he had taken to the podium. During his speech he addressed such diverse topics as “monotheism and justice,” which can apparently save the world, and “moral values and spirituality.”

Again and again, he returned to his obsession with the “small minority” that controls the world with the help of its “private networks,” namely the Jews — although he never mentioned the objects of his hate by name. Accusations that Israel is committing “genocide” in the Gaza Strip and trying to establish “a new form of slavery” provoked an uproar, with many Western delegates walking out. But on the main question at hand — Iran’s nuclear program — he offered not a word, only vague hints of a willingness to engage in dialogue, and bitter derision toward Barack Obama, saying the American president’s promised changes have failed to materialize.

Ahmadinejad believes he has already weathered the worst of the reaction to his blatantly manipulated reelection. And indeed, there is little indication that either his government or the entire political system of the Islamic Republic is on the verge of collapse. After a period of tension, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei seems to have reconciled with Ahmadinejad, giving the president’s political power a boost. The parliament has not gone further than verbal criticism and has now approved all but three of the president’s 21 chosen candidates for the new cabinet. The country’s defense minister is now Ahmad Vahidi, whose alleged involvement in terrorist attacks in Argentina in the 1990s led to an international warrant for his arrest.

And yet, however well Ahmadinejad may seem to have succeeded in securing or even expanding his power base in the short term, he’s far from winning the battle over Iran’s future. There is something else bubbling under the surface, and it can be felt at large-scale demonstrations like “Jerusalem Day,” an annual event in support of Palestinians and against Israel. The government mobilized hundreds of thousands of supporters for a planned demonstration, but then watched as tens of thousands of them split off and began to shout opposition slogans. Mousavi and Karroubi as well as reformist ex-president Mohammad Khatami were there, publicly joining the protest. So far, the regime hasn’t dared to arrest these opposition leaders, instead persecuting less well-known dissidents in show trials reminiscent of the Stalinist era.

“Deep concern”

In the meantime, several prominent clerics could also prove dangerous for Ahmadinejad. Highly respected Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, 86, tells his followers in the city of Qom that this is a “criminal leadership,” describing revolt against it as a “religious duty.” Few of the country’s high-ranking clerics support Ahmadinejad. Hassan Khomeini, 37, who is a symbolic figure due to being the grandson of Islamic Revolution leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, has made his dissatisfaction with the current government clear.

Even influential Ayatollah Mohammad Mousavi Bojnurdi, 66, a man generally seen as apolitical, speaks in his unadorned office of his “deep concern” over developments in Iran. Bojnurdi, who heads the Imam Khomeini Research Institute in Tehran, spent more than a decade in exile in Iraq and France together with the revered father of the Islamic Revolution. He attests to the fact that Islam forbids “ruling with a stick.” And he prays daily for the people who have been injured in the demonstrations.

On the other side there is Mohammad Ali Ramin, 55, professor of morality and religion at Tehran’s Payame Noor University, who says, “Anyone you know my thoughts, knows what moves the president. And I think he’s doing everything right.” The university’s name means “message of light.” Ramin is the man who influences Ahmadinejad’s view on Israel — and the Holocaust. Whether the latter took place at all, says the professor, who has red hair and a gentle, disarming voice, needs “to be more thoroughly researched first.”

He himself has absolutely nothing against Jews, Ramin insists, only against the “Zionist regime,” which he describes as “criminal.” When Ahmadinejad says that Israel is doomed to destruction, he’s only articulating the conclusion reached in his many conversations with Ramin.

How, exactly, will Israel disappear from the face of the Earth? “It will be obliterated, as every unjust power in history has eventually been destroyed,” claims Ramin. He is Ahmadinejad’s adviser, although he doesn’t like being described as such, preferring to be called his “close friend and companion.” At the end of our conversation in the university library, he adds that he receives a great deal of support for his views over the Internet as well, especially from Germany.

A tough negotiator

Meanwhile, the man who will be taking center stage at the international talks in Switzerland is one who has previously served many presidents. From his finely manicured hands to his soft, slightly high-pitched voice and his smart appearance in pinstripes, Saeed Jalili is a consummate career diplomat. Critics call him an expert in the art of survival, always on the side of the powerful. Supporters praise his political intuition and strategic skill. He was discovered 20 years ago by then-President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who first sent Jalili abroad as an attaché, then soon afterward appointed him deputy head of the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s American division.

But Jalili, who holds a Ph.D. in political science, is most closely affiliated with one man — Ayatollah Khamenei himself. The smooth politician won the revolutionary leader’s favor, becoming director general of his office. Anyone who wanted access to the heirs of the Islamic Republic’s founder had to go through Jalili.

Jalili is not afraid of confrontation. Friends and enemies alike agree that Jalili, who comes from the holy city of Mashhad, is a tough negotiator who has few qualms about defending his position by any means necessary. The opposition movement accuses Jalili of having been one of the masterminds behind the brazen manipulation of the June 12 presidential election — an allegation he indignantly rejects.

Close links

No one doubts that Jalili, as head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, would have at least had the power and capabilities to do so. The location of the Council’s massive headquarters with its black marble facade in the center of Tehran’s government district — Khamenei’s office to the left, the presidential palace to the right — testifies to its central importance in the Iranian power structure.

Jalili sees no reason to deny his close links with Ahmadinejad. He proudly tells visitors that he and the president “have known each other for such a long time.” Both served in the paramilitary Revolutionary Guards, both taught at Tehran University. “That is probably one of the reasons why we both share the same visions,” says Jalili. He probably means the same vision of Iran as a nuclear power. When Ahmadinejad’s obstructionism drove out the former chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, two years ago, Jalili got the job.

Jalili isn’t impressed by the U.S. decision to take part in direct negotiations for the first time. He politely but firmly dismisses Western hopes that a Tehran government weakened by inner turbulence might be ready to make concessions. Compromises just aren’t Jalili’s thing. 

This article has been provided by Der Spiegel through a special arrangement with Salon. For more from Europe’s most-read newsmagazine, visit Spiegel Online or subscribe to the daily newsletter.

In recent years, however, as this consensus has become more virtual than real, the position of Iran’s leader has been eroded. Indeed, the current street battles are symptomatic of that erosion. Tears in the country’s religious establishment have become ever more visible in Iran’s recent past, the gap between the country’s rich and poor has widened, and the chasm between the Western-oriented youth and the religious fanatics has deepened. Indeed, the current crisis could very well spell the beginning of the end for the Khamenei system.

Even more ominous

The demonstrations in Tehran and elsewhere are not just in protest against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was declared the official winner of Friday presidential elections despite opposition charges that the election was fixed. Rather, the protest is also against Khamenei himself, a leader who has lost all connection to large swaths of younger Iranians. He seems not to have noticed the yearning for more openness, more freedom — and for jobs with a future.

The unrest is even more ominous for Khamenei and the Iranian theocracy because it clearly demonstrates how split the regime’s elite really are. On one side are the deeply religious and the fanatic pro-revolutionaries. On the other stand the reformers, the most popular of whom has been the former president of Iran Mohammad Khatami.

It is possible that the current conflict could have been avoided had the “third path” model developed by those in power not crumbled in the face of personal rivalries. The idea, based on the Chinese precedent, called for moderate conservatives to usher in a modernized, privatized economy along with a partially liberalized society.

But Khamenei himself is one of the main reasons the strategy failed. He committed the decisive error in the run up to elections four years ago. Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani had been hoping to stage a comeback as the embodiment of the Chinese model. Prior to Khatami, he had governed Iran for eight years — and he wanted another term.

Khamenei wanted to prevent Rafsanjani from attaining the highest political office at all costs. If he were elected again as president it would have posed a threat to his own influence. Even without the presidency, Rafsanjani was regarded as the second most powerful man in Iran.

Obedient employee?

Khamenei followed Rafsanjani’s candidacy with skepticism, though he refrained from giving voice to his objection. Ahmadinejad’s candidacy, on the other hand, suited him. Were the young engineer to win, Khamenei could be assured of his veneration. Indeed, soon after Ahmadinejad’s inauguration for his first term in office, he demonstrably kissed Khamenei on the hand. Since then, Ahmadinejad has been Khamenei’s man, despite attempts at keeping a formal distance in the run up to this election.

Still, it became clear early on that Ahmadinejad was not going to act like Khamenei’s obedient employee. Indeed, that fact quickly became one of Khamenei’s greatest leadership problems in the last four years. Supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi, however, was not an option. The opposition leader’s mentor, after all, is none other than Rafsanjani.

It is said that preventing Ahmadinejad from winning a second term was a top priority for Rafsanjani. He pumped money, advisors and the weight of his influence into the candidacy of opposition leader Mousavi. The fact that Mousavi also had the blessing of the reformer Khatami quickly turned him into an icon for the opposition movement. Indeed, Mousavi, hardly a radical reformer, could very well have been a useful embodiment of Khamenei’s preferred third path.

But Khamenei, it became clear, began shying away from the path of controlled reform, for fear that it could become uncontrollable. The images of Mousavi’s euphoric followers, with their green headbands and headscarves, were impressive. This “green tsunami” threatened to sweep away not just Ahmadinejad but him too. On election night Khamenei interpreted Ahmadinejad’s victory as a triumph of the theocratic state and of his system. Concerns that Ahmadinejad and his apparatus may have manipulated the vote was, initially, merely a minor concern.

From the ballot box to the streets

It remains unclear how many people actually voted for Mousavi. The challenger claims that Ahmadinejad stole his victory. Mousavi is claiming he got double the 34 percent reported by the election commission. And now the battle has moved from the ballot box to the streets. Over the weekend, the largest public protests since the fall of the Shah 30 years ago took place in Tehran.

Iran’s consensus politics of the past created the illusory hope there might be some kind of political compromise after the election. But the anticipation that built up was too great — and the stakes were large for both parties. The fighting on the streets isn’t just between supporters of the reforms and hardliners. Behind the scenes, the different wings of the government are fighting over the best path forward to ensure theocratic Iran’s survival.

If its leader, Khamenei, wants to save his system, he is going to have to mend the deep rift that has opened up. To do so, he will need to get Mousavi and his mentors Rafsanjani and Khatami back on his side. Either that or he will have to clear them out of his way. But even for a man described by the Iranian constitution as “God’s representative on earth,” that would be a suicide mission. And Khamenei, who just gave his blessing to Ahmadinejad’s re-election, isn’t likely to do anything that would directly harm the president.

Currently, Khamenei is showing loyalty to his protégé and appears to have decided in favor of confrontation rather than compromise. But even if Khamenei manages to find a compromise in the end, it will likely be only an illusory one. That it can hold for an additional four years with Ahmadinejad in office seems wishful thinking.

When you took office, you wanted to make the world a safer place; but now the threat seems greater than ever. Nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of the Taliban in Pakistan. North Korea has announced plans to test another nuclear weapon. And, in Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasts about being able to close the nuclear cycle. Have you failed?

No, I don’t think so. We did what we could. We at the IAEA are merely a tool as strong as our member states allow us to be. We cannot make political decisions; nor are we in a position to implement them. We cannot simply march into any country without its consent. It was others who failed.

Whom do you mean?

The international community. The world has ignored our warnings. Take the case of Iraq, for example. Even though we had no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, they were used as justification for the war — the most dangerous moment of my tenure. Or take Pyongyang. Efforts to engage North Korea in ongoing disarmament talks have failed. And the dialogue with Tehran was tied to preconditions that were unacceptable to the Iranians.

It was because of assessments like these that you were accused of being naive, especially by the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush.

That’s unfair. In the case of North Korea, for example, we pointed out in 1992 that the country was in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). And we have consistently pressed the Iranians to respond to unanswered questions about their nuclear program. The world has the IAEA to thank for almost everything it knows about Iran’s nuclear progress.

Information coming from the exiled opposition led to the discovery of the uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.

Unlike some nations, we do not have our own satellites for aerial photographs. Sometime they give us something because it suits their geopolitical goals, and sometimes they withhold things.

The Bush administration was so suspicious of you that U.S. intelligence agencies tapped your phones.

That didn’t bother me so much because I never had anything to hide. On the contrary, it gave me a shot in the arm because I knew that I was doing the right thing. But my daughter was deeply disturbed that people were listening in on her private conversations.

Would you have thought the Bush administration was capable of that sort of a wiretapping campaign?

It didn’t really surprise me. What can you expect from an administration that — in a mixture of ignorance and arrogance — passed over countless diplomatic opportunities to conduct a dialogue with Tehran? The entire Middle East was turned into a complete mess.

The new American administration has announced a change of course.

Indeed. [President] Barack Obama has turned U.S. policy around by 180 degrees. For instance, he announced plans to double the IAEA budget in the next four years. The Europeans, including Germany, want to freeze the budget, which I find alarming.

But you also gained a great deal of recognition in 2005, when you and the IAEA were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes, that’s true. It was a vote of confidence in the organization, and it strengthened my immune system against attacks, especially because this recognition was triggered by the policies of the powerful. We managed to draw attention to the organization; the letters of our name were always being mixed up by politicians. I am also pleased to see that, after two more or less wasted decades since the end of the Cold War, nuclear disarmament is now a central issue once again. This reflects the realization that the risk of the use of nuclear weapons has actually increased considerably and that the bomb could fall into the wrong hands.

Such as the hands of fanatics in Tehran.

We still have no ultimate proof of a military nuclear program in Iran. However, we do have some unanswered questions.

You are choosing your words with extreme caution. As the IAEA concluded in its last report, the Iranians have now reached breakout capacity, meaning that they have enough low-enriched uranium to build a functioning bomb within a few months.

I have told the Iranians that they have to clear up inconsistencies and address unanswered questions if they want to reestablish trust.

But the Iranians have already forfeited their right to uranium enrichment. In the past few years, they have given the IAEA the runaround with their tricks and deception.

It is true that the Iranians have given us false information in the past and have not declared facilities and materials that they were required to declare. This led to a trust deficit. However, it was the Americans’ mistake to insist on the suspension of all forms of uranium enrichment as a precondition for talks. This should have come at the end of negotiations. As a result, Washington stayed away from the negotiating table …

… and the Iranians continued to develop their technology and played for time by conducting halfhearted nuclear talks with the Europeans.

The Americans thought they could threaten Iran with a big stick and force it to back down. But the arrogance of treating a country like Iran like a donkey led to a hardening of positions. But there were two times when we were close to a solution, brokered by countries I cannot identify.

You are referring to the secret plans of the Russians and the Swiss …

… I can’t comment on that. Under one of these proposals, Iran would stop when it reached a scale of 31 uranium enrichment centrifuges. That’s enough for research purposes, but not nearly enough for bomb production. In any case, they already have the know-how. What worries me is when a country reaches an industrial capacity that could enable it to turn this knowledge into weapons production. The United States immediately rejected the proposal because it believed that Iran should not have a single centrifuge. Later, in 2005, when the Iranians were already much further along, there was a plan drawn up by a European country that called for limiting the number of centrifuges to 360.

Were you involved in the negotiations?

I was in North Korea when the Iranian chief negotiator, Ali Larijani, called me to say that this would be a very good basis for negotiation. But Washington’s answer was again no. Now that it appears that the Iranians have more than 5,000 to 6,000 centrifuges, it looks as though Obama is prepared to negotiate without preconditions because he knows that there is no other solution than a political one.

You are one of the very few people to have met the Iranian revolutionary leader in person. How did it happen? What was your impression of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

I was surprised by how much he knew about the smallest technical details and the progress of negotiations. But during our discussion, it became clear to me just how deeply he mistrusts the West, especially the United States.

Were you at least able to reduce his reservations about your organization?

I believe he understood how determined we at the IAEA are to achieve a solution acceptable to all sides. But that also includes confidence-building measures on the part of the Iranians. I want Iran to ratify the so-called Additional Protocol, which would allow us to conduct more comprehensive inspections. Now when I advise my Iranian counterparts, I tell them: “Take the hand Obama is holding out to you.”

What exactly do you mean by that?

I believe that freeze for freeze is the next realistic step. The Iranians would not install any additional centrifuges, while the West would refrain from imposing any further sanctions. This would start a period of intensive negotiation. And because the problem is so complex, it would go on as long as necessary.

That doesn’t seem to be happening.

It’s important to understand the difference between what the Iranians demand publicly and how they act pragmatically. You are sitting across from the experience of thousands of years of bazaars: They know how to bargain for the best price, but they also know when to give in.

At what price do we have to negotiate?

They want to be treated as equals, and they want security guarantees for their country. For them, complete control over nuclear technology is a means to achieve these goals. But I am not certain what that really says about their willingness to compromise.

The Israelis would not get involved with such vague hopes. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz recently wrote that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is determined to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities in a few months.

It would be completely insane to attack Iran. It would transform the region into one big fireball, and the Iranians would begin immediately with a project to build the bomb — and, in doing so, they could be sure to have the support of the entire Islamic world.

The new U.S. government is distancing itself from Israel. For the first time, a member of the U.S. administration has referred to Israel as a nuclear power and is demanding that the Israelis declare their nuclear weapons. Is this the right approach?

Yes. We have to stop applying different standards in the Middle East. It is this duplicity that is constantly criticized in the Arab world. The goal should be to turn the Middle East into a nuclear-weapons-free zone.

Do you seriously believe that Israel will give up its nuclear weapons?

Not tomorrow. About five years ago, I said to [former] Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon: “In the past, the bomb might have been useful as a deterrent, but after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, terrorism has taken on a completely new dimension. If terrorists get their hands on the bomb, they will not be deterred by your arsenal, and they will detonate it.” I believe Sharon understood my point.

The Israelis accuse you of partisanship because you have sharply criticized the government in Jerusalem for the bombing attack on a Syrian military facility in September 2007.

What the Israelis did was a violation of international law. If the Israelis and the Americans had information about an illegal nuclear facility, they should have notified us immediately. The fact is that I only learned about it long after the strike was completed. And when everything was over, we were supposed to head out and search for evidence in the rubble — a virtually impossible task.

But your inspectors did travel to Syria, and they did find suspicious evidence.

Yes, traces of uranium. Where they came from is unclear. There are still questions. Syria is not giving us the transparency we require.

Isn’t it an eternal cat-and-mouse game, like the one we are seeing once again in North Korea, which expelled your inspectors in April?

North Korea is obsessed by the fear that the Americans want to topple their regime militarily. As far back as 1992, the foreign minister in Pyongyang gave me a two-hour lecture on how much the Americans had it in for North Korea. Their obsession was only reinforced when George W. Bush placed North Korea on his “Axis of Evil” in 2002. Pyongyang decided then to embark on the road to the bomb.

Violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an attempt to blackmail the world. The regime wants economic aid and guarantees to abandon nuclear weapons in return. Should blackmail be rewarded?

That’s the moral dilemma. To help the starving population, we could very well be supporting a bankrupt, illegitimate regime. Nevertheless, I do believe that food aid should never be tied to political conditions.

But it is also correct that a regime that we are propping up is selling nuclear know-how on the international black market.

There is that risk. As far as I’m concerned, the risk of terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to the world. Last year alone, we had 200 cases of illicit trafficking in nuclear and radioactive substances.

Do you have any evidence that the al-Qaida terrorist network is using the black market?

I have no evidence that al-Qaida has abandoned its ambitions to obtain a so-called dirty bomb or even a nuclear weapon.

If the Taliban is able to continue its advance in Pakistan, fundamentalists could gain control over an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons for the first time. The Americans see this as a real danger.

I am also very concerned about this development.

In a speech in Prague a few weeks ago, President Obama proposed his vision of a nuclear-free world. Is this realistic?

The world is at a turning point, and it is also a race against time. Fortunately, there is support for the idea that complete nuclear disarmament is not a utopia, but both necessary and possible. I think it’s encouraging that President Obama has come out so clearly in support of this goal.

But can he keep his promises?

That’s the million-dollar question. In my opinion, we can easily reduce the 27,000 warheads — 95 percent of which are in the hands of the Americans and Russians — to 1,000 or 500. Deep in my heart, I would like to see a world without a single nuclear weapon. But I can also imagine that a small number of nuclear weapons will remain in existence. In that case, they ought to be supervised internationally, for example, by the United Nations Security Council.

Is that naive or visionary?

You know, if [former U.S. Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger says it, it’s considered visionary. If I say it, it is rather seen as naive.

Do we detect a note of bitterness at the end of your time in office?

You cannot please anyone in this position, and perhaps one shouldn’t try in the first place. Many in the Arab world treated me as an agent of the West; and, in the West, I was considered overly sympathetic toward Muslims. But I have no reason to complain. This work is important, and I have actually achieved quite a bit. 

This article has been provided by Der Spiegel through a special arrangement with Salon. For more from Europe’s most-read newsmagazine, visit Spiegel Online or subscribe to the daily newsletter.

The new U.S. president, Barack Obama, directed a video address to the Iranian nation three weeks ago, during the Iranian New Year festival. Did you watch the speech?

Yes. Great things are happening in the United States. I believe that the Americans are in the process of initiating important developments.

How did you feel about the speech?

Ambivalent. Some passages were new, while some repeated well-known positions. I thought it striking that Obama attached such high value to the Iranian civilization, our history and culture. It is also positive that he stresses mutual respect and honest interactions with one another as the basis of cooperation. In one segment of his speech, he says that a nation’s standing in the world does not depend solely on weapons and military strength, which is precisely what we told the previous American administration. George W. Bush’s big mistake was that he wanted to solve all problems militarily. The days are gone when a country can issue orders to other peoples. Today, mankind needs culture, ideas and logic.

What does that mean?

We feel that Obama must now follow his words with actions.

President Obama, who has called your aggressive anti-Israeli remarks “disgusting,” has nevertheless spoken of a new beginning in relations with Iran and extended his hand to you.

I haven’t understood Obama’s comments quite that way. I pay attention to what he says today. But that is precisely where I see a lack of something decisive. What leads you to talk about a new beginning? Have there been any changes in American policy? We welcome changes, but they have yet to occur.

You are constantly making demands. But the truth is: Your policies, Iran’s disastrous relations with the United States, are a burden on the global community and a threat to world peace. Where is your contribution to the easing of tensions?

I have already explained this to you. We support talks on the basis of fairness and respect. That has always been our position. We are waiting for Obama to announce his plans, so that we can analyze them.

And that’s all?

We have to wait and see what Obama wants to do.

The world sees this differently. Iran must act. Iran must now show goodwill.

Where is this world you are talking about? What do we have to do? You are aware that we are not the ones who severed relations with America. America cut off relations with us. What do you expect from Iran now?

Concrete steps, or at least a gesture on your part.

I have already answered that question. Washington cut off relations.

Are you saying that you would welcome a resumption of relations with the United States?

What do you think? What has to happen? Which approach is the right one?

The world expects answers from you, not from us.

But I sent a message to the new U.S. president. It was a big step, a huge step. I congratulated him on his election victory, and I said a few things to him in my letter. This was done with care. We have been and continue to be interested in significant changes taking place. If we intend to resolve the problem between our two countries, it is important to recognize that Iran did not play a role in the development of this problem. The behavior of American administrations was the cause. If the behavior of the United States changes, we can expect to see important progress …

 … that could lead to a resumption of diplomatic relations, perhaps even to the reopening of the U.S. embassy, which was occupied in 1979, the year of the revolution?

We have not received an official request in this regard yet. If this happens, we will take a position on the matter. This is not a question of form. Fundamental changes must take place, to the benefit of all parties. The American government must finally learn lessons from the past.

But you should not?

Everyone must learn from the past.

Then please tell us which lessons you are learning.

We have been under pressure for the past 30 years, unfairly and without fault on our part. We have done nothing …

 … according to you. Americans see things quite a bit differently. The 444-day hostage crisis during which 50 U.S. citizens were held from late 1979 until early 1981 in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran is still a collective American trauma today.

But think of the things that were done to Iranians! We were attacked by Iraq. Eight years of war. America and some European countries supported this aggression. We were even attacked with chemical weapons and [Western countries] aided and abetted those attacks. We did not inflict an injustice on anyone. We did not attack anyone, nor did we occupy other countries. We have no military presence in Europe and America. But troops from Europe and America are stationed along our borders.

The Western governments are convinced that Iran supports terrorist organizations and that Iran has had dissidents killed abroad. Perhaps mistakes were not just made by the one side?

Do you wish to imply that the troops are deployed along our borders because we allegedly support terrorist organizations?

We neither said nor implied that. But the accusation of support for terrorism has been made. Where is your constructive contribution?

First of all: We do not commit terror, but we are victims of terror. After the revolution, our president and prime minister were killed in a bombing attack in the building adjacent to my office. Our faith forbids us from engaging in terrorism. And when it comes to the constructive contributions we are being asked to make, we have contributed to stabilization in both Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years. While we were making these contributions, the Bush administration accused us of doing the opposite. Do you believe that problems can be solved with military force and invasion? Wasn’t the strategy employed by America and NATO wrong from the start? We have always said that this is not the way to fight terrorists. They are stronger than ever today.

Again, we see no evidence of any self-criticism.

Then why don’t you tell me what mistakes we are supposed to have made. We have no interest in a historical settling of accounts.

You are not insisting that America apologize for the 1953 CIA coup against the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh?

We don’t want to exact revenge. We merely want the Americans to correct their course. Do you truly see any signs that this is happening?

Yes, we do. George W. Bush declared Iran a member of the Axis of Evil and he threatened Tehran, at least indirectly, with regime change. There is no longer any mention of these things under Obama.

There are changes in the choice of language. But that isn’t enough. For the past 30 years, European countries have been under pressure from the Americans not to improve their relations with Tehran. That’s what all European statesmen tell us.

‘All Peoples Are Fed Up With the American Government’

It is true that America’s reputation in the world suffered under George W. Bush. But with all due respect, Mr. President, Iran’s reputation has also suffered tremendously during your term in office.

Where? With whom? With those in power or with the people? With which people and with which governments? During my more than three years in office, I have visited more than 60 countries, where I was received with great affection by both the people on the street and those in the government. We have the support of 118 countries in the Non-Aligned Movement. I agree that our reputation with the American government and some European governments is not positive. But that’s their problem. All peoples are fed up with the American government.

But you are not even giving the new administration a chance. Your attitude is characterized by mistrust.

We speak very respectfully of Barack Obama. But we are realists. We want to see real changes. In this connection, we are also interested in helping correct a faulty policy in Afghanistan.

What do you propose to do?

Look, more than $250 billion has been spent on the military campaign in Afghanistan to date. With a population of 30 million, that comes to more than $8,000 a person, or close to $42,000 for an average family of five. Factories and roads could have been built, universities established and fields cultivated for the Afghan people. If that had happened, would there have been any room left for terrorists? One has to address the root of the problem, not proceed against its branches. The solution for Afghanistan is not military, but humanitarian. It is to the West’s advantage to listen to us, and if it does not, we wash our hands of the matter. We are merely observers. We deeply regret the loss of human life, no matter whose lives are lost. This is just as applicable to Afghan civilians as it is to the military forces that have intervened.

That doesn’t sound at all like you have any interest in helping the Americans and NATO fight the Taliban. Obama is placing more emphasis on civilian reconstruction, but he also believes that radicals who seek to stand in the way of this reconstruction must be dealt with militarily.

I am telling you now that Obama’s new policy is wrong. The Americans are not familiar with the region, and the perceptions of the NATO commanders are mistaken. I am telling you this as a trained teacher: This is wrong. As far as the $250 billion is concerned: If the money had been spent in America, perhaps it would have solved the problem of unemployment, at least in part. And perhaps there would be no economic crisis today.

Are you seriously insisting on an American withdrawal from the region?

One has to have a plan, of course. A withdrawal can only be one of several measures. It must be accompanied by other, simultaneous actions, such as strengthening regional government. Do you know that narcotics production has grown fivefold under the NATO command in Afghanistan? Narcotics! That kills people. We have lost more than 3,300 people in the fight against drug smuggling. Our police force made these sacrifices while guarding our 1,000-kilometer border with Afghanistan.

Iran has always been opposed to the Taliban. But its return to power cannot be prevented without military force.

The people should be given the power. This requires economic aid, as well as a clear political process. The Afghan government should have been given more responsibility in the last seven years. President Hamid Karzai said to me once: They don’t allow us to do our work.

Everyone, including Americans, stresses that the people must be respected. Obama and NATO have agreed to a comprehensive list of measures for Afghanistan and they are banking on Iran supporting these measures, out of an interest in a stabile Afghanistan. Do you intend to refuse all cooperation?

I believe that the right approach to looking into such an option is the diplomatic path. You are journalists, not representatives of NATO, which is why I will not explain my position to you in this regard. If we receive a request through diplomatic channels, we will respond to it.

But some politicians in Tehran fear contact with America. According to U.S. officials, your deputy foreign minister, Mohammed Mehdi Ahundzadeh, shook hands with U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke at the Afghanistan conference in The Hague last week, but then the Iranian foreign ministry vehemently denied the encounter. How can we have any faith in your willingness to cooperate if a  handshake presents a problem to you?

I don’t think that this is truly relevant. A handshake, a pleasantry, this is not a problem in my view.

You are downplaying it. But perhaps there is more to the turmoil over the handshake than meets the eye. Perhaps it is a symbol of how deep the divide is between Tehran and Washington — and of the fact that you are actually unwilling to do without your favorite archenemy.

Naturally, we cannot expect to see problems that have arisen over more than half a century resolved in only a few days. We are neither obstinate nor gullible. We are realists. The important thing is the determination to bring about improvements. If you change the atmosphere, solutions can be found.

Do you, like the Americans, distinguish between the incorrigible Taliban, who must be opposed, and moderate Taliban, with whom talks are possible?

I would not venture a conclusive verdict in this regard. I don’t know what is meant by that. Don’t forget, the Afghan people have close historical ties to Iran. More than 3 million Afghan citizens live in our country.

If the American troops withdraw from Iraq, the security situation there will presumably deteriorate dramatically. Will you fill the power vacuum in neighboring Iraq, where your fellow Shiites make up two-thirds of the population? Do you advocate the establishment of a theocracy, an Islamic Republic of Iraq?

We believe that the Iraqi people are capable of providing for their own security. The Iraqi people have a civilization that goes back more than 1,000 years. We will support whatever the Iraqis decide to do and which form of government they choose. A sovereign, united and strong Iraq is beneficial for everyone. We would welcome that.

American intelligence services have concluded that Tehran plays an entirely different role in Iraq. The CIA claims that Iran is stirring up resistance to U.S. troops through the Shiite militias.

We pay no attention to the reports of American intelligence services. The Americans occupied Iraq and are responsible for its security. In the past, they sought to divert attention away from their own failures by holding us responsible for the unrest. They must correct their own mistakes. Things have improved for the Americans since they recognized this and began to respect the Iraqi people. Our relations with Baghdad are very close. We fully support the Iraqi government. As always, our policies are completely transparent.

Mr. President, that is not true. You oppose the world’s most important nations in one of the central international conflicts. Iran is strongly suspected of building a nuclear bomb under the guise of civilian research. Only recently, U.S. President Obama warned of this very real danger during his visit to Europe. There are four U.N. resolutions calling upon Iran to stop its uranium enrichment activities. Why do you not finally comply with this demand?

What do you mean by that?

Mr. President, we mean that the world is waiting for a sign from you, that we are waiting for a sign. Why do you not at least temporarily suspend uranium enrichment, thereby laying the groundwork for the commencement of serious negotiations?

These discussions are outdated. The time for that is over. The 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement support us unanimously, as do the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. If we eliminate duplication between the two groups, we have 125 countries that are on our side. If a few countries are opposed to us, you certainly cannot claim that this is the entire world.

We are talking about Europe and the United States, where not a single politician wants to meet with you. Senior Italian politicians avoided you at a U.N. conference in Rome last year.

We see that too, of course. But we are saying that Europe is not the whole world. Why do you believe this? Besides, I didn’t even want to meet the Italian politicians.

Even if you refuse to believe it, the most important international body, the United Nations Security Council, is often unanimously opposed to you. Not just the Western powers, but also China and Russia have already approved sanctions against Iran.

Allow me to set things straight, both legally and politically. At least 10 members of the U.N. Security Counci l…

 … which includes, in addition to the permanent members, U.S., Russia, Great Britain, France and China, 10 elected representatives based on a rotating principle …

… have told us that they only voted against us under American and British pressure. Many have said so in this very room. What value is there to consent under pressure? We consider this to be legally irrelevant. Politically speaking, we believe that this is not the way to run the world. All peoples must be respected, and they must all be granted the same rights.

What right does Iran feel deprived of?

If a technology is beneficial, everyone should have it. If it is not, no one should have it. Can it be … [that] we are not even permitted to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear energy? Our logic is completely clear: equal rights for all. The composition of the Security Council and the veto of its five permanent members are consequences of World War II, which ended 60 years ago. Must the victorious powers dominate mankind for evermore, and must they constitute the world government? The composition of the Security Council must be changed.

You are referring to India, Germany, South Africa? Should Iran also be a permanent member of the Security Council?

If things were done fairly in the world, Iran would also have to be a member of the Security Council. We do not accept the notion that a handful of countries see themselves as the masters of the world. They should open their eyes and recognize real conditions.

Those real conditions include your refusal to abandon your nuclear program, despite international pressure. Does this mean that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, can save themselves the trouble of holding talks with Iran? Will uranium enrichment not be discontinued under any circumstances?

I believe that they already reached this conclusion in Vienna. Why did we become a member of the IAEA? It was so that we could use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. When a country becomes a member of an international organization, must it only do its homework or is it also entitled to rights? What assistance have we received from the IAEA? Did it provide us with any know-how or knowledge? No. But according to its statutes, it would have been required to do so. Instead, it simply executed instructions coming from America.

“We Are Concerned and Deeply Mistrustful”

With all due respect, Mr. President, Iran has concealed, tricked and misled, thereby arousing the world’s suspicions. Unfortunately, the suspicion that you are abusing your rights and secretly developing a bomb is not so far-fetched.

Where did we use trickery? That’s a huge lie! We cooperated with the Atomic Energy Agency. And besides, wasn’t the IAEA founded so that the nuclear powers would disarm? Where are the reports that document who has disarmed, and to what extent? It simply has not happened. We are concerned, and we are deeply mistrustful.

The world distrusts you, and the world’s greatest concern is that you are building the bomb, because you feel surrounded by nuclear powers, the United States, India and Pakistan, and not least because Israel possesses the bomb.

We have no interest in building a nuclear weapon. We have sent the IAEA thousands of pages of reports and made thousands of hours of inspections possible. The IAEA cameras monitor our activities. Who is dangerous, and whom should the inspectors distrust? Those who secretly built the bomb, or us, who are cooperating with the IAEA?

One can certainly not speak of a true willingness to cooperate on your part. Director General ElBaradei has repeatedly said this in our conversations and this is also documented in publicly-available IAEA reports.

Allow me to make two final observations regarding the nuclear dispute. First, as long as there is no justice, there can be no solution. One cannot measure the world with a double standard — that was Mr. Bush’s big mistake. The Americans should not make the same mistake again. We say: We are willing to cooperate under fair conditions. The same conditions, and on a level playing field. The second observation concerns the warmongers and Zionists …

… your eternal enemy of convenience …

… whose existence thrives on tension and who have become rich through war. And then there is a third group, the intolerant, those who are only interested in power. Mr. Obama’s biggest problem has to do with domestic policy. On the one hand, America needs Iran and must newly realign itself. On the other hand, the new U.S. president is under pressure from these groups. Courageous decisions are needed, and the ball is in Obama’s court.

Until recently, your views about America included the conviction that a black man could never become president of the United States. Is it possible that you have a faulty and completely distorted image of America?

No, it wasn’t the way you describe it. We hope that the changes in American policy are of a fundamental nature, and that more has changed than the color. And that American policy will become more equitable, for the benefit of Africa, Asia and, most of all, the Middle East.

You have become one of the most powerful political players in the region because you have become a champion of the Palestinian cause.

We are defending more than the basic rights of oppressed Palestinians. Our proposal for resolving the Middle East conflict is that the Palestinians should be allowed to decide their own future in a free referendum. Do you think it right that some European countries and the United States support the occupying regime and the unnatural Zionist state, but condemn Iran, merely because we are defending the rights of the Palestinian people?

You are talking about Israel, a member of the United Nations that has been recognized worldwide for many decades. What would you do if a majority of the Palestinians voted for a two-state solution, that is, if they recognized Israel’s right to exist?

If that were what they decided, everyone would have to accept this decision…

… and you too would have to recognize Israel, a country that you have said, in the past, you would like to “wipe off the map.” Please tell us exactly what you said and what you meant by it.

Let me put it this way, facetiously: Why did the Germans cause so much trouble back then, allowing these problems to arise in the first place? The Zionist regime is the result of World War II. What does any of this have to do with the Palestinian people? Or with the Middle East region? I believe that we must get to the root of the problem. If one doesn’t consider the causes, there can be no solution.

Does getting to the root of the problem mean wiping out Israel?

It means claiming the rights of the Palestinian people. I believe that this is to everyone’s benefit, to that of America, Europe and Germany. But didn’t we want to discuss Germany and German-Iranian relations?

That’s what we are talking about. The fact that you deny Israel’s right to exist is of critical importance when it comes to German-Iranian relations.

Do you believe that the German people support the Zionist regime? Do you believe that a referendum could be held in Germany on this question? If you did allow such a referendum to take place, you would discover that the German people hate the Zionist regime.

We are confident that this is not the case.

I do not believe that the European countries would have been as indulgent if only one-hundredth of the crimes that the Zionist regime has committed in Gaza had happened somewhere in Europe. Why on earth do the European governments support this regime? I have already tried to explain this to you once before …

… when we argued about your denial of the Holocaust three years ago. After the interview, we sent you a film by Spiegel TV about the extermination of the Jews in the Third Reich. Did you receive the DVD about the Holocaust, and did you watch it?

Yes, I did receive the DVD. But I did not want to respond to you on this question. I believe that the controversy over the Holocaust is not an issue for the German people. The problem is more deep-seated than that. By the way, thank you once again for coming. You are Germans, and we think very highly of the Germans.

There will be a presidential election in Iran on June 12. You are considered the favorite. Are you going to win?

Let’s see what happens. Nine weeks is a long time. In our country, there are no winners and, therefore, no real losers.

If you are reelected, will you be the first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran to shake the hand of an American president?

What do you mean?

Mr. President, thank you for the interview.

 Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan