Part II: Zarif & Iran on the Nuke Talks

            Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif reemphasized that Iran is prepared to take the necessary steps to prove that its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful in an interview with NBC television. “We don't see any benefit in Iran developing a nuclear weapon,” Zarif told David Gregory on “Meet the Press.” Zarif also argued that attaining a nuclear weapon would actually reduce Tehran’s influence in the region. He said that he would stay in Vienna beyond the July 20 due date for an agreement if necessary. The foreign minister has met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry three times since the final round of talks started.  

          July 14 Update: Iran released the most detailed report to date explaining its practical needs for its nuclear program. It was posted on the quasi-official website NuclearEnergy.ir.

            The following is a transcript and video clip of the NBC interview, which aired on July 13, with tweets from Zarif’s personal account and other remarks.

 

 
 
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF: Well, actually, I think what we have said, should give confidence to people that we're not looking for nuclear weapons. We have said that our entire nuclear energy program can fit in a very clear and well defined picture. That is we want to produce fuel for our own nuclear reactor. Nuclear power reactor. And we have a contract that provides us fuel for that reactor. But that contract expires in seven or eight years.
 
DAVID GREGORY: Because reupping that is not a problem. As the American have told you-- right?
 
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF: Actually, it's more complicated than you'd think. The United States built the reactor for us in the 1950s. And for the past 20 years we've been searching all over the world for fuel for that reactor. And the United States is not holding up providing the fuel itself, but that’s prevented other from providing fuel to Iran.
 
To the point that a few years ago, three, four years ago we had to announce that if you're giving us 20% of fuel for the American built reactor in Tehran, we have to produce it ourselves. They thought that we couldn't do it, but we did it. And now that reactor Iraq running on fuel. We want to be able to work with the international community. We want to ensure that nobody is concerned about Tehran's nuclear projects.
 
DAVID GREGORY: So to that point, if that's what you want to do, it's important that our audience understands. When we talk about centrifuges and nuclear power, centrifuges are how you enrich uranium. Enriching uranium is the key component, ultimately, of making a nuclear weapon, if it's done at a certain speed. And then it has to be weaponized. If you really want to say to the international community, "We don't want a nuclear weapon," are you prepared to dismantle a good portion of the nuclear capacity, the number of centrifuges you now have?
 
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF: I don't think it would do the job. As somebody who has worked all his life for non-proliferation I can tell you that the best way to ensure that Iran will never break away, will never break out, is to allow an internationally monitored nuclear program.
 
Because we have the technology. We have the know how. We have the equipment. So the only way, realistically, to deal with this, is to have a genuinely peaceful program that can be worked in a transparent fashion, without the need for the imposing arbitrary restrictions.
 
DAVID GREGORY: So with respect, the international community is divided about a lot of things. They're actually not divided about one thing. They think Iran is up to no good and wants to build a nuclear weapon. So why not say definitively that you will eliminate the bulk of your capacity, the bulk of your centrifuges to say to the world, "We really won't fight. We really won't build a weapon."
 
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF: Yeah. First of all, that’s a different international community. They day I went to a meeting of 5 plus 1 or E-3 plus 3 in New York, they said we represent the internationally community, and I told them “I'm just coming to you from chairing a meeting of 120 countries called the Non-Aligned Movement, where Iran has been the chairman and is the chairman. And they support us.” They believe, actually, 180-some members of the NTC believe, and they repeatedly said it in 1990 and in 2010, that countries' choices, of their fuel cycle, should be respected.
So it's not the international community. A few countries who have concerns. And we are talking to them in order to address those concerns. But those concerns, there are international criteria in order to address those concerns. And we have given them opportunities to find resolutions, realistic resolutions, in order to address those concerns.
 
One of those is to freeze, as the leader pointed out, that you don't need this capacity tomorrow. You can produce this capacity over a length of time. And we are prepared to work with Five Plus One, with members of the Five Plus One, with others in order to make sure that the confidence is created.
 
DAVID GREGORY: But you won't commit to a specific number of centrifuges. Another way of saying that is you won't commit to dismantling a bulk of your capacity.
 
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
No, I will commit to everything and anything that would provide credible assurances for the international community that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, because we are not. We don't see any benefit in Iran developing a nuclear weapon.
 
DAVID GREGORY:
How could you not see a benefit? I mean you're a Shia state surrounded by Sunni states, many of whom are your enemies. You know full well the deterrent factor that a nuclear country like Pakistan can wield in the international community. You can have more of the influence regionally. Cynics would say, "Why wouldn't you want to have a nuclear weapon?"
 
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF:
Actually, all these calculations are wrong. In fact we need to go out of or way in order to convince our neighbors that we want to live in peace and tranquility with them, because the politics of geography, the fact that we're bigger, the fact that we're stronger, that we're more populous, the fact that we have a better technology, the fact that our human resources is by far more developed than most of our neighbors. All of these provide us with inherent areas of strength that we don't need to augment with other capabilities.
 
That is why nobody considers our neighbors in Pakistan as a stronger force in the region than Iran, simply because they have nuclear weapons. In fact, I believe nuclear weapons reduces countries' influence in our region. It doesn't help anybody.
 
The fact that everybody in the international community believes that mutual assured destruction that is the way the United States, Russia and others, get seek peace and security through having the possibility of destroying each other 100 times over is simply mad.
 
And that is why I do not believe that you need to inculcate this mentality that nuclear weapons makes anybody safe. Have they made Pakistan safe? Have they made Israel safe? Have they made the United States safe? Have they made Russia safe? All these countries are susceptible. Now you have proof that nuclear weapons or no amount of military power makes you safe. So we need to live in a different paradigm. And that's what we are calling for.
 

Click here for more on Zarif's interview.

 

Interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour


            "Of course we have a lot of gaps to fill in order to reach comprehensive deal. We have made some progress. People have started to listen because you won't reach solutions if you try to simply give a position. Positions will not resolve problems. An approach to problem solving is the approach that we require to resolve problems.

            "And I think that has started, rather late in the process, but its better late than never. So we're there. But also on the extension, there are technicalities to be worked out and colleagues are talking about them, also a political decision needs to be made whether we have enough to warrant an extension and that is in the process of being discussed and decided upon.
            "Numbers [of centrifuges] are not that important. What you need to make sure is that this [nuclear program] is geared towards a specific purpose and at the same time it cannot be misused for non-peaceful purposes.

            "The way you guarantee it is geared towards a specific purpose, is to have a purpose. And if you don't have a purpose, then it's for naught.

            "The other thing is to have inspections, to have verification, and also to make sure that there is no uranium to be re-enriched, that all the uranium that is produced to 3.5 percent is immediately converted to oxide. And oxide cannot be re-enriched. It requires another process, which Iran doesn't have, and if you have international inspectors in Iran, watching us, you can make sure.

            "But there is also a possibility of phasing, as the leader pointed out, we don't need this in a year or two so we can phase this to reach that level with the international community and with others involved.

            "So there are a whole range of measures. That is why I said numbers are not the primary issue. Some people try to make numbers a primary issue. But the primary issue is to make sure that this program will remain always peaceful. That is as much my intention as anybody else’s."
 
Click here for more of the interview.
 
            "We are striving to end this artificial deadlock which is based on an illogical framework and reach a comprehensive agreement. Of course, we still need serious discussions at the level of the political directors.
           "Washington needs to take a political decision... to end the deadlock. We had a good exchange of views."
           July 15, 2014 to the press
 

            "We haven’t resolved any problem, but we have made some important headway in probably removing some of the misconceptions and moving forward with making more serious decisions."
            July 13, 2014 to the press

 

Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi

           “We have made almost good progress in the text and maybe 60 percent to 65 percent of the text has been agreed, but this doesn’t mean that we have made progress in the contents. We have not yet reached a major agreement on the key content issues.”

           July 12, 2014 to the press