Iran's president Rouhani: We will never develop nuclear weapons

[Jesus Malverde]

Source: NBC

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told NBC News on Wednesday that his administration will never develop nuclear weapons and that he has full authority to make a deal with the West on the disputed atomic program.

In Rouhani's first interview with a U.S. news outlet since his election, he spoke to NBC News National and International correspondent/anchor Ann Curry at the presidential compound in Tehran. The interview will air on NBC Nightly News at 6:30 p.m. ET.

Rouhani spoke after a slew of signs that he is cautiously open to defrosting relations with the U.S., which were in deep freeze under the isolating leadership of his predecessor, the inflammatory Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

Elected in June with just over 50 percent of the vote, he was the only non-conservative in a field of hard-liners. In his inaugural address, he spoke of engagement with the West to end sanctions over Iran's disputed nuclear program.

Read more: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/18/20561148-irans-president-rouhani-we-will-never-develop-nuclear-weapons?lite

[Fantastic Anarchist]

1. Something tells me that the US will not care a bit.

[Control-Z]

3. How do you mean?

Could you explain a little more about your thought on this?

[Scootaloo]

5. We're so invested in "Iran is the Great Satan" that it's hard to imagine stopping now.

Consider: We hated them so much that we armed Saddam fucking Hussein with chemical weapons - after he invaded Iran. You did know that Iraq invaded Iran, and not the other way, right? The US' official statement was that Saddam as "containing the revolution." He not only used these weapons against the front lines, but also fired them into Tehran and Qoms, along with other towns and cities far from the fighting. Throughout the war we supplied Saddam with intelligence against the Iranians, and when even that wasn't enough to get him to win, we used the US navy to strike at Iranian ships and ports and conduct a blockade against the nation.

Consider: During Ahmedinejad's presidency, the airwaves were full of stories about how iran is going to attack this, bomb that, nuke here, etc. Pointing out that the president of Iran doesn't make the military decisions of iran was ignored. However when he (and now Rouhani) denied that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons (being the government spokesperson IS the Iranian president's job) those people who ignored the existence of the "Supreme Leader" suddenly remembered, and pointed out that yeah well, the President isn't the one claling the shots - a shift in goals and standards that assure no matter what, iran is evil and sinister and militaristic.

Consider: when the above argument is continued, and it's pointed out that the Supreme Leaders have issued fatwahs - legally binding in iran - against not just nuclear, but also chemical and biological weapons, this is dismissed... because these men are Muslims. No shit. Because they are clerics, and even because they are citing religious law against these weapons, they are secretly seeking those weapons - Muslims are crazy, hate everyone, and besides, they want to create the end of the world so the Imam Ali can come back. While not so crudely and uninformedly articulated in the media, the assumption that the iranians are crazy and dangerous liars because Islam is clearly folded into the narrative.

All this, because they threw out a bloody rapist and dictator that we had installed during our coup against Iran thirty years prior... and threw the CIA out a year later.

While I Hope that Barack Obama will Change our position on Iran.. .I don't think he will. It's too deeply ingrained in US foreign policy, just as is our view of Russia as a creeping, sinister evil.

[Control-Z]

7. Thank you for your thoughts.

I tend to believe President Obama will nurture the possibilities for a better relationship with Iran.

[Scootaloo]

8. As I said, I hope so

It would be nice to abandon the dried husks of Republican foreign policy.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

13. Very well said.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting for me.

[Celefin]

32. Good post, thank you. -nt-

[Fantastic Anarchist]

11. The Powers-that-Be ...

... if they want conflict with Iran, it won't matter what they say. In fact, they've <Iran> been saying this since 2003, and yet, a large portion of the power players still want to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

Edit for clarification

[karynnj]

9. Don't be so sure - there is a chance that the US will reach out to Iran

Here is the State Department's nice words for Persian New Year. http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/03/20130320144531.html#axzz2OZAesg3H

(The Iranian Americans he references in his own family are Vanessa's husband and her in-laws --- which makes his extremely cute grandson part Iranian. )

[JI7]

19. and Obama said there have been letters between him and Rouhani

[RiverNoord]

24. Actually the Pres is actually doing real Diplomacy

with the new Iranian President on this issue. He's sending strong signals that we're ready to talk seriously.

Rouhani's win, without even the need for a runoff, shook the Iranian Far Right very hard. By all accounts, the hardliners didn't see it coming at all. This matters. It matters a lot.

[jenmito]

26. Then you didn't see this: "Obama Tells Rouhani He Sees A Way To Resolve Nuclear Issue - White House"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014598148

[yurbud]

37. yep--nukes are the excuse not the reason

[snappyturtle]

2. I just watched a documentary on Iran from 1953 forward. The

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)

U.S. has never gotten over the Shah being deposed and
contrary to what the UN and the IAEA say we want to
propagate Iran's intentions with nuclear elements as
evil.

[Sand Wind]

4. Even the Shah wanted the bomb in his time...so cut the bullshit.nt

[Scootaloo]

6. What bullshit is that?

And what does the Shah's ambitions have to do with the current government of Iran?

[Sand Wind]

10. The Shah itself start the nuclear bomb program research. It never stop since that time, whenever

the government in Iran. There is very good reason for Iran to build nuclear bomb. And the fact that the Ayatollah recently change their mouthpiece to tell their lies do not change anything in the reality of the program.

So someone can defend the right of Iran to build whatever they want, but to say that their nuclear program has nothing to do with the bomb is pure bullshit from RT.

[Scootaloo]

12. Ah huh

Thank you for providing a sterling example of my post upthread, about how no matter what, Iran is always evil. The president says "we're not doing this," people like you say "well, he's not in charge." The guy who is in charge says "we're not doing this," and people you say he's lying. If this happens to include a fatwah - it does - you just shrug and say "so what?"

No matter what, nothing is good enough, right?

So. What's your evidence and why haven't you brought it to the IAEA's attention?

[Sand Wind]

14. The IAEA don't need my help, they already have all they need.nt

[Fantastic Anarchist]

15. Which is, of course, your way of saying you got nothing.

QED

[Sand Wind]

16. Hey go read some books on the Iran history...nt

[Fantastic Anarchist]

23. I actually have ...

... but that's a red herring. You said you have nothing to offer the IAEA. My rejoinder was appropriate to what you were discussing with Scootaloo.

[Scootaloo]

17. In fact, they don't

The IAEA has found nothing pointing to Iran seeking a nuclear weapon. Flat-out nothing. Iran is perhaps not being completely transparent on its activities, but that is not proof of anything - and can easily be explained by the fact that Iran's rights are simply not being respected, including confidential information provided by Iran being leaked by the agency.

Even so, Iran continues to work with the IAEA, and as we see here, has pledged to open up more.

As I said. Nothing will be good enough.

[snappyturtle]

22. I just read your replies.....thank you. nt

[EX500rider]

28. Common sense says they do..

.....if all you need enriched uranium for is medical research and one above ground easily put out of action nuclear power plant then why would you have industrial scale enrichment done deep in a mountain? And most countries with nuclear power seem to be able to satisfy the IAEA but not Iran.

[Scootaloo]

31. Ah yes, like "following your gut."

Common sense also says that if a nuclear power that just utterly destroyed two of your neighbors, calls you "evil," and whose politicians go on stage to sing about bombing your people, is talking about your nuclear program, you put that program somewhere safe.

[EX500rider]

44. Why, what's the point?

.....of protecting the fuel source deep in a mountain for a power plant that is above ground and easily knocked out ? Don't need one with out the other.

[nebenaube]

29. they could go thorium... hell, we all could go thorium. n/t

[snappyturtle]

21. I so wish I had it in my makeup to be as rude as you have

been to me.

The Iranian revolution was over 30 years ago. I'm
talking about present day. AND, you are wrong....but to explain
it to someone as knee jerk as you seem to be, I won't waste my
time.

It was not RT either.

Hope the rest of your day goes better for you.

[RiverNoord]

25. You've got one thing wrong

Rouhani isn't a mouthpiece for the Ayatollahs. Or the Republican Guard. His election was a major shock to the Establishment, and it sent very serious warning signs to the ruling elite. They managed to disqualify just about everyone who might shake things up from the presidential election, but Rouhani somehow slipped in with over 50% of the vote - which is very big in Iranian politics. The Ayatollahs are worried about their place in future Iran and elections like this tell them they'd better get in line with their population or they will eventually be toppled by another genuine revolution.

[Sand Wind]

33. Well, I hope I'm wrong on this, will see.nt

[jessie04]

34. Really ?

The Ayatollahs are worried about their place in future Iran and elections like this tell them they'd better get in line with their population or they will eventually be toppled by another genuine revolution.

I really find that impossible to believe.

I hope we aren't played for fools.

To show his truthfulness, Rouhani can open up all his nuclear sites including than hidden one we picked up on. If he doesn't , he's hiding a nuke and he's a lying sack of shit.

Words mean nothing.

[yurbud]

38. if they got a nuke, why would they use it on us, Israel, or any of our allies, knowing...

the retaliation would wipe them off the map?

Do you think the leaders, both political and religious of Iran have a death wish?

Do they want to commit auto-genocide?

[RiverNoord]

39. Ditto

They're not fanatics - they're rulers. They know Iran/Persia is an civilization with thousands of years of history. Iran/Persia hasn't engaged in an offensive war in decades - their last offensive conflict was the seizure of 3 uninhabited islands in the Persian Gulf in '71. The eighties they spent repelling Iraq's invasions. They're not really all that excited about war...

Israel has lots of nukes - that makes every government in the region very nervous. Completely apart from ideologies, a country that has nukes amidst lots of countries that don't might just decide to use a few someday - Israel knows that it is unlikely that there would be any world power that would directly retaliate with nuclear force...

Anyway, they appear to be interested in the 'Japan option,' which means they could build a nuke at somewhat short notice if they absolutely had to. Why should that be treated as some calamitous threat? The Russians could wipe us out 20 times over, and their nuclear security is less than ideal. 'Loose nukes' are much more likely to come from Russian or Pakistani stockpiles than Iran, which, if it actually developed a deployable nuclear weapon, would be very likely to keep such very limited capabilities under exceptionally tight security.

[yurbud]

43. Our foreign policy on Iran (at least as publicly stated) is based on Iran as action movie villains

whose sole reason for existing is to earn being killed by us.

Few people and probably no countries have such aspirations.

[RiverNoord]

40. The idea of a genuine nuclear threat

emanating from Iran is complete Isreali and American propaganda. The only point is to maintain the country as a bogeyman so as to keep it from expanding its general influence in the region. Iran is big and quite populous. Big and populous countries tend to develop a lot of influence - political, cultural, military - in their neighborhoods. It's simple geopolitical reality.

We are being played for fools - by AIPAC and many, many very wealthy interests in the US and Israel (and Saudi Arabia, which needs its particular form of strict Sunni Islam to maintain its monarchy) that push a completely bogus story about scary Iran. It's not about Iran - it's about US getting conned by the great anti-Iran propaganda machine.

[jessie04]

42. uhhhh....ok.

oooo....its all AIPACs fault , huh?

I would argue with you but , after reading that, I wont waste my time.

enjoy your stay.

[RiverNoord]

41. Just a suggestion -

If you're serious about an informed opinion on Iranian politics, try to research its formal power structure - it's very convoluted and the president has very limited powers. Then do some research on the extreme surprise win of Rouhani's presidential victory. It came after the 'Green Movement' was put down hard and 'reformers' were blacklisted, as is common, from running for the office. He is a very moderate voice, and it appears that he wasn't blacklisted because he wasn't considered a serious threat to Supreme Leader-supported candidates. Big surprise.

It appears that the population of Iran is reaching a critical mass of support for assuming an appropriate place on the world stage, and not being demonized by the West and Israel.

[roamer65]

18. The problem for Iran is now Israel and Saudi Arabia.

I doubt these two countries will buy it and they won't want sanctions lifted.

[tabasco]

20. What's he gonna say?

"We're working on that shit right now, please come and bomb us."

[Kingofalldems]

27. PNACers in shock.

[jessie04]

30. Blah, Blah,Blah...Bullshit.

Let the IAEA get into all the sites.

Lets see that new secret nuclear facility.

Explain those new centrifuges.

Words mean nothing. Don't believe it till you see it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

47. Why not remove all WMDs from the Middle East?

Would that make you more comfortable?

[freshwest]

35. At least one person will be heartbroken, if this is true...

[ronnie624]

36. "Still, the tension between the U.S. and Iran

— which cut diplomatic ties in 1980 after the hostage crisis — remains palpable."

Notice how the narrative doesn't include the US history of intervention and the support of a nasty dictatorship for 25 years. In the eyes of corporate owned media, this doesn't even bear mentioning as a possible source of tension between the two nations, when, in fact, it is the source of tension.

An obvious lie by omission by NBC news.

And this is a gem:

"Western diplomats remain wary of Iran."

You know, because Iran is the one that has been attacking the West for decades in order to control our oil.

"Fortune brought us a prize from fairyland beyond our brightest hopes" -- Winston Churchill on obtaining control of Persian oil resources.

[yurbud]

45. that's great Churchill quote

[yurbud]

46. I would prefer politicians today state their sociopathic ambitions as openly