Iranian Reformist Mousavi Would Talk To America If Elected, But Won't Bend On Nuclear Program

TEHRAN, Iran — The leading reformist candidate in upcoming Iranian presidential elections said Monday that if elected, he would negotiate with the U.S but that Iran would not give up its nuclear program.

Speaking in his first news conference since declaring his candidacy, Mir Hossein Mousavi said if Barack Obama's administration changes the U.S.'s policies toward Iran, Mousavi would be open to talks. But, in comments that echo other top Iranian officials, Mousavi said the country is still waiting to see how Obama's administration differs from that of his predecessor.

"We will definitely negotiate with them. Why not?" Mousavi said. "Peace with any country would benefit our interests."

The Obama administration has said it wants to engage Iran, a different tactic than that of the Bush administration which sought to isolate the country. But Obama has also said that Iran's nuclear and missile programs pose a threat.

The U.S. and its allies have charged Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear program is designed for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

Mousavi said talks with the United States would be beneficial, as long as Iran does not have to "pay heavy costs such as the deprivation of advanced technologies," a reference to Iran's disputed nuclear activities.

"We have to have the technology," Mousavi said, adding that the consequences of giving up the country's nuclear program would be "irreparable" and that the Iranian people support the nuclear program.

Many Iranians across the political spectrum have rallied behind the country's nuclear program which is considered a source of national pride.

Story continues below

advertisement

Mousavi said he would attempt to "lessen the costs of having the (nuclear) technology," a reference to the fact that Iran is under U.N. sanctions over its refusal to halt its nuclear activity.

Mousavi, 67, is seen by many as the candidate with the best chance of defeating current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hard-liner who's often been at odds with the United States.

Mousavi's hard-line past and spotless revolutionary credentials appeal to conservatives. Mousavi's reformist past _ he was a senior adviser to former President Mohammad Khatami who served two terms before Ahmadinejad was elected _ also appeals to Iranians eager for reform.

Mousavi came to prominence after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed shah.

He served briefly as foreign minister, then was prime minister from 1981-1989. His premiership spanned the destructive eight-year war with Iraq, in which at least a million people on both sides were killed.

Mousavi Monday also condemned the killing of Jews in the Holocaust, a much different stance than Ahmadinejad who in 2005 called the Holocaust a myth.

"Some people were killed there, some Jews were killed there, we condemn the killing of a single innocent person," said Mousavi. But he added that the world should not stand by and watch the killing of Palestinian people by Israel.

Comments

[skialethia]

Iranians should stand their ground. They have a right to nuclear technology, for economic and security reasons.

While I wish the entire world would rid itself of nukes; I recognize that this is a very unrealistic expectation.

So the next best thing is "balance of power". I blame Israel for whatever escalation happens. They have been terrorizing the area using GWB to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam who made them feel "insecure".

They invaded Gaza with irrational, disproportionate force. This upset even Turkey that has diplomatic relations with Israel. Then it carries out assassinations, wherever and whenever.

Therefore, Iran is very concerned. However, I believe they really want nuclear technology essentially as an alternative energy source to be able to export more of their resources, since their economy is suffering the sanctions.

Necessity is the mother of invention. It's just a logical outcome. The Iranian people want this and it's got less to do with Ahmedinejad and more to do with practicality and survival.

[xjug1987]

You're insane. Iran's Govt has said numerous times, Israel will be wiped off the map. Yes, the Arab Dictators advocate the elimination of the only Democratically elected nation in the region and you support them. You're insane, plain & simple. Oh, and by the way "The Iranian People" have no voice. To say they want Nuclear technology for Energy purposes is insane. Are you an ostrich? Pull your head out of your .... and you get to vote. God help us.

[motlagh]

xjug, Iran's regime has proved numerous times to be a rational government.

A few points:
1. Having a command of Farsi, I can tell you, for all the disfavor I have towards the comment all the same, that President Ahmadinejad said: "This Israeli government will disappear from the page of history." Only a hothead would interpret that statement as warmongering. (Unfortunately, there are many hotheads in the world.) In context, his point was that the current Israeli regime is sowing the seeds that will force it to change; e.g., perhaps exist as a smaller Jewish state, or a larger nondescript state.
2. Iran is using anti-Israeli rhetoric for political reasons. Because other Middle-eastern governments are intertwined with Western interests, they cannot speak out meaningfully against Israel's actions in Palestine. Iran, on the other hand, very much can; and thus can politically benefit from the general anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middle-east, in order to be seen as the only strong Muslim country.

[motlagh]

3. Iran is not an Arabic country. It has for the length of its existence edged for political influence over its Arabic neighbors in the Middle-east. So, being given the chance to galvanize the peoples of the Middle-east in their favor on the Israeli issue, its government is doing just that. This is entirely rational for their situation, and has thus far benefited them well.
4. War with Israel or the United States is not wanted by Iran. Iran knows it would lose, and its regime would change. The regime's negotiations with Reagan, buying weapons from the 'great satan' U.S. to combat Iraq, ought to be proof enough that the Iranian regime will do what it needs to do keep itself in power.
5. The population of Iran is very young and surprisingly Western. For this reason, it is in the interest of the (30 yr old) Iranian regime, which is admittedly backwards, to give reasons for its existence to its subjects. A very potent reason is made when other countries gang up on Iran, isolating it; the Iranian regime is then able to claim legitimacy on nationalist grounds, which is exactly what it is doing.

[motlagh]

6. Given that Iran's regime is sitting upon nationalist support, based upon the notion that other nations are working against its rights for peaceful energy, and that the Ayatollah himself issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, do you imagine that the populace would still adhere to their nationalist support of the regime if suddenly it turned out that the regime had been lying to them all along?
7. Iran's democracy was overthrown by the C.I.A. in 1953. When fighting Saddam, the U.S. sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran, though much more extensively to the former. Do not be surprised that the Iranians, even the liberal Iranians, do not entirely trust the West.
8. Iran is not a dictatorship. It is a religious republic, which admittedly does limit the field of candidates. Regardless, this next election will be very important for Iran. If Mousavi wins, you can expect a good rapport with the U.S., and likely extensive inspections of the nuclear sites. Expect more of the same, if Ahmadinejad wins.

How can you think of a peoples so plainly? How do you say that they have no voice? How do you not consider history? I apologize for speaking bluntly, but your comments are ignorant. You ought to save your tongue when declaring others insane.

[zaz33]

It's been reported by Scott Ritter and others that Iran has not been as successful as claimed in it's enrichmen process. Juan Cole, on C-SPAN the other day stated that Iran's enrichment has not been successful enough to even power a reacter. ( 2.6% ? )

It should also be noted that Iran has offered to turn the enrichment activities into a consortium. This means that a company like GE could buy into, and be a "hands on" invester. As I understand it, the US has been turning down this "problem solved" offer.

Hopefully Obama will normalize relations with Iran and take it off the MIC and Israel's wish list.

[JohnnyLee]

I hope you are right. I wonder what the issue is? Could the Russians be selling them junk (like they did with Saddam's first reactor)? Have the Israelis been successful in sabotage? Or do they not have the funds.

If you know more please post a link.

[xjug1987]

Dream on, and Scott Ritter.... ????? what like he knows ANYTHING? Good grief.