Interview with Iran's UN ambassador Javad Zarif on PBS

www.pbs.org...

In the above link you can read an interview I found rather interesting with Iran's ambassador to the UN. He presents Iran's point of view regarding the current debate and save a few shots he takes at the US and Israel he seems to make a rather pragmatic assessment of the situation. One of his statements I found interesting was:

"The question that needs to be asked is whether Israel and the United States are prepared to make the same statement that Iran has repeatedly made, and that is: We have not and will not attack or threaten to attack another country."

It seems that the official line of Iran regarding Israel and the US is not, as it is widely perceived in the western world, one of military aggression against Israel and the US, or that is what he has claimed here in either case.




[edit on 30-4-2006 by Sep]

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Sep]

Originally posted by Sep
"The question that needs to be asked is whether Israel and the United States are prepared to make the same statement that Iran has repeatedly made, and that is: We have not and will not attack or threaten to attack another country."

Yeah, I found that mention to be quite ironic myself.
There is no doubt that hypocrisy roams the face of this planet and comes in all shapes, sizes, and forms, but has or is Iran's ambassador to the U.N. willing to answer the same question that he poses to the U.S. and Israel, and if so, when, because as it stands, Iran's el'presidente' continues to level, insinuate, and hurl military threats to the U.S. and Israel, including the Europeans. Let him answer the "question that needs to be asked" himself, first? The Iranian ambassador sounds more and more like Kim Jong II from North Korea who wanted assurances that he will not be hit militarily while continuing to pursue those alleged "peaceful intent" nuclear weapons.

It seems that the official line of Iran regarding Israel and the US is not, as it is widely perceived in the western world, one of military aggression against Israel and the US, or that is what he has claimed here in either case.

Key word here, Sep: "is what he has claimed."
Furthermore, perhaps the reason that the "official line" continues to be perceived in the "western world" is because Iran has yet to have answered that "question that needs to be asked"? Europe may continue to buy into Iran's continued brinkmanship with modes of appeasement, but the U.S. will continue to play hardball as long as Iran continues to do likewise. So in short, the diplomacy card really should played by who here: the violator or the ones seeking to have the violations corrected, Sep?







seekerof

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yeah, I found that mention to be quite ironic myself.
There is no doubt that hypocrisy roams the face of this planet and comes in all shapes, sizes, and forms, but has or is Iran's ambassador to the U.N. willing to answer the same question that he poses to the U.S. and Israel, and if so, when, because as it stands, Iran's el'presidente' continues to level, insinuate, and hurl military threats to the U.S. and Israel, including the Europeans. Let him answer the "question that needs to be asked" himself, first? The Iranian ambassador sounds more and more like Kim Jong II from North Korea who wanted assurances that he will not be hit militarily while continuing to pursue those alleged "peaceful intent" nuclear weapons.

As I have mentioned in several threads before, Iran's president may proclaim that he wants to invade the entire world, but as long as Iran's constitution stands, his role is to sign international agreements (after they have been accepted by Khamenei), make national budgets (after they have been accepted by Khamenei), and make laws regarding the internal affairs of Iran (after they have been approved by Khamenei). Of course after his election Khamenei saw that the president is somewhat unstable, so he created another body, headed by Rafsanjani to supervise him. Therefore to cut this short, Ahmadinejad has no say whatsoever, in Iran's defence and military portfolio and his other policies are supervised by the parliament, Rafsanjani, the "Guardian Council" and Khamenei. So whilst his threats may scare some people in the west, most people in Iran and the Middle East distinguish between where he speaks his personal opinion and where he talks about Iran's policies.

Regarding whether "is Iran's ambassador to the U.N. willing to answer the same question that he poses to the U.S. and Israel" I may not fully understand what you are saying, but it sounds to me as though you are asking him to guarantee that neither Israel nor the United States will be militarily attacked by Iran. I think he made it clear that Iran is willing to guarantee that she will not pursue any aggressive action or a first strike policy.