On December 15, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that talks on implementing the Geneva nuclear deal were “derailed” but not dead. Iranian officials had slammed Washington for blacklisting 17 companies and individuals for sanctions invasion three days earlier. “We are committed to the plan of action and the implementation of Geneva - but we believe it takes two to tango,” Zarif warned in an interview with CBS. In an interview with The Washington Post, Zarif emphasized that statements that “run counter to the very aim of the negotiations” from within the Obama administration are “extremely counterproductive.”
Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly called Zarif on December 14 to discuss the way forward. “What I have heard from Secretary Kerry and Lady [Catherine] Ashton is that they are committed to an early finalization of the Geneva process with a view to reaching a comprehensive agreement,” Zarif told The Washington Post. In his interviews, Zarif also discussed Syria and the case of Robert Levinson, a retired FBI agent who went missing in Iran. The following are excerpted remarks on key issues.
U.S. Sanctions
“That [blacklisting] was a very wrong move… We are committed to the plan of action and the implementation of Geneva - but we believe it takes two to tango.
“The process has been derailed, the process has not died. We are trying to put it back and to correct the path, and continue the negotiations because I believe there is a lot at stake for everybody.”
Dec. 15, 2013 on CBS’ “Face the Nation”
“When you hear voices from inside the administration question the very raison d’etre of the negotiations, it becomes intolerable — whether it is in the strict sense of the term a violation of the term of the Geneva plan of action or not… So we needed to bring that to the attention of our negotiating partners in very strong term terms. And we believe we did. That does not mean that negotiations are dead. That means negotiations have hit a snag...”
Dec. 15, 2013 to The Washington Post
Opposition to the Deal
“Now, there are statements coming from Washington — we understand that Tehran and Washington, as well as many other members of 5 + 1 [the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China and Germany], are not monolithic societies, not even monolith polities. We have various views in Iran. Some of them have been very frankly and vehemently expressed by the opponents of the agreement, to the extent that some have asked for my removal. I believe that’s only natural in a democratic society where you have different forces, different political views and different branches of government operating to check and balance the exertion of political power. The same is true in the United States. I believe it is only natural for U.S. lawmakers to be concerned.”
Dec. 15, 2013 to The Washington Post
The Way Forward
“What I have heard from Secretary Kerry and Lady Ashton is that they are committed to an early finalization of the Geneva process with a view to reaching a comprehensive agreement. I share that objective. I’m sure that we will hit other obstacles on our way. This is going to be an extremely difficult process — not because the objective is difficult to attain but because the modalities of reaching the objective are difficult — because of the lack of confidence that we certainly have in Iran, particularly the Iranian people and leadership toward the intentions of the other side, and some misgivings that they may have about our intentions. So it is going to be difficult; it’s going to be a bumpy road. There are very strong forces that are working to undermine, unfortunately, this process. We need to be aware of this, and we need to work with an open mind.”
Dec. 15, 2013 to The Washington Post
Uranium Enrichment
“Iran did not decide to enrich. Iran was forced to enrich, because we had a share in a consortium in France called “Eurodif,” which we had paid for fully, but we were not able to get a gram of enriched uranium, even for our research reactor that was built under the “Atoms for Peace” Program of President Eisenhower. We did not decide to enrich to 20 percent. We tried for 20 years to buy 20 percent-enriched uranium for fuel for that reactor. We were intimidated, insulated, pushed back and forth to the point that we said we’ll do it ourselves: We’re not going to take this from anybody!
“Now this doesn’t mean that if they provide us with fuel now we will accept it, because first of all we have made this investment domestically, and secondly we do not have any trust and, third we do not see any reason now that we have put so much time and effort in it and brought them to the point of abandoning the illusion of zero enrichment in Iran, why should we accept anything less.”
Dec. 15, 2013 to The Washington Post
Heavy Water Reactor at Arak
“We offered the option — every single program that Iran has was sought from the West first; they refused, we then relied on our own technology. We did not want to start from scratch in building all these research reactors. We wanted to use the technology. Everybody wants to use sophisticated technology. It was denied to us, in denial of the NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty], because mind you, it requires countries to provide energy for peaceful purposes. It’s not just a right, it’s a requirement — it’s an obligation to provide. So they have been in violation of the NPT for the past at least 22 years, since 1990, almost every single Western country…”
Dec. 15, 2013 to The Washington Post
Fordo
“Fordo is a facility that is under daily inspection by [the International Atomic Energy Agency]. Daily! So we cannot do anything in Fordo. The only difference that Fordo has from the enrichment facility at Natanz is that Fordo cannot be hit. So if you insist that I should dismantle Fordo, or do something with Fordo, that means that somebody has an intention of a military strike. And I have to say that a military strike is a violation of the most fundamental principles of international law. I mean, that is not a basis for negotiation… So they’re asking me to consider an issue that is fundamentally unreasonable.”
Dec. 15, 2013 to The Washington Post
Robert Levinson
Elizabeth Palmer (CBS): Let me move ton another story that surfaced at the end of last week in the United States. And that is the case of Mr. Levinson. Where is he?
Mohammad Javad Zarif: I have no idea.
Palmer: Your security services, very professional and very good have done an extensive investigation according to your government. What do you know about that last day? What were you able to discover about -- he walked out of the hotel, got in to a taxi and...
Zarif: And then they don't know. That's all...
Palmer: Nothing?
Zarif: ...what they have told us that is what people have been told outside. If that's why it's a mystery. What we know that he is not incarcerated in Iran.
Palmer: How do you know that?
Zarif: If he is he is not incarcerated by the government. And I believe the government runs pretty much good control of the country.
Palmer: If he did surface here, could you give him back to America now that we know his CIA connections?
Zarif: I cannot talk about hypothetical situations but if we find -- if we can trace him and find him we will certainly discuss this.
Palmer: So, it is possible.
Zarif: Anything is possible. But I'm saying that we have no trace of him in Iran.
Dec. 15, 2013 on CBS’ “Face the Nation”
Syria
“We all know that there needs to be an agreement in Geneva and that agreement has to be a Syrian agreement. Others cannot decide for the Syrians. Others can only facilitate a Syrian solution based on the consent of the Syrian people. And I believe that at the end of the day the best way to make permanent that consent is through the ballot box, and we should not be afraid of the ballot box. I’m concerned that people who believe in democratic principles are worried about the outcome of elections and are trying to put preconditions [in place]. A serious precondition can be fair elections... I believe Iran can play a positive role in the Syrian case, but it’s for them to decide. I’m not running that show.”
Dec. 15, 2013 to The Washington Post
Gulf States
“I wrote an oped piece in the Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq al Awsat in which I proposed the establishment of a regional security and cooperation scheme. And I believe that we should have done this a long time ago... So we believe that confidence-building measures, dialogue and cooperation between nations of this region are not only necessary, but unavoidable. All of us need it. All of us have to come to our senses. We cannot choose our neighbors…
“I’ve had very good meetings [earlier in December] with leaders in the states of the Persian Gulf. I believe we all agree that what has been taking place in Geneva is good for our future and is not against anybody. We don’t see any reason for those who have shown some anxiety. All of them who talked to me [in the Gulf] told me that they welcomed this.”
Dec. 15, 2013 to The Washington Post