You Are In: USINFO > Products > Webchats > jeffrey_16_nov_2006

Ambassador Jeffrey Discusses U.S. Iran Policy

USINFO Webchat transcript, November 16

Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, principal deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, discussed U.S. policy on Iran in a November 16 USINFO Webchat.

Following is the transcript:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of International Information Programs
USINFO Webchat Transcript

U.S. Policy Toward Iran: A Discussion with Ambassador James Jeffrey

Guest:     James F. Jeffrey
Date:      November 16, 2006
Time:      1:00pm EST (1800GMT)

IIP Moderator: Welcome to our online discussion with Ambassador James Jeffrey.

The live webchat will take place today, November 16, at 1800 GMT. You are invited to begin sending in your questions any time before then or during the chat. Questions and answers will not appear on the screen until the live event begins.

Ambassador Jeffrey: Hello, I am James Jeffrey, from the US State Department Near Eastern Bureau, and am here today to answer questions on Iran policy.

Question [Mizanur Rahman Khan]: How do you sure that Iran will give up its nuclear programme if moderate forces come to power?

Answer [Ambassador Jeffrey]: While we cannot be certain, our belief is that international inspections by the UN's IAEA will provide a reliable indicator of what is actually happening on the program. We work closely with the IAEA and rely on its judgments.

Q [JohnD]: Mr. Ambassador, do you believe the current government in Iran truly represents the majority of people in Iran? Do the Iranians want to live in a theocracy?

A: The current government is not in our view fully democratic, as many candidates for parliament and other key positions are excluding in a non-transparent, undemocratic fashion. We do believe that the Iranian people thirst for democracy, and we are seeking ways to support them.

IIP Moderator: The Bush administration is willing to talk to Syria and Iran under the right circumstances, but both countries continue to demonstrate behavior that is destabilizing to the Middle East, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says.

The United States, Rice said, has made “multiple overtures” to Iran to discuss its nuclear activities on condition that it suspend its uranium enrichment “which has been a demand of the international community for more than two years,” as well as other issues such as the situation in Iraq.

Q [Tim]: How are the Europeans helping you on Iran? What countries have been most helpful during the talks with Iran?

A: We are working in the UN with Germany, Britain, France, and Russia, along with the EU and China, to craft common positions on Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. We are also in constant contact with our European friends and allies about ways beyond the nuclear issue we can send signals to Iran to change its behavior on supporting terrorism and undermining regional security. I do not want to single out any one nation, as so many are being helpful.

Q [Mizanur Rahman Khan]: How do you evaluate if it is argued that Iran's latest nuclear policy may further destabilize the security equilibrium of South Asia?

A: Thank you Mizanur. We believe that not only South Asia but the entire world is menaced by the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Of course those countries within range of Iran's arsenal of long range rockets are most at risk, and this includes much of southern Asia.

Q [andry]: Would the US react differently if it was non-islamic country?

A: Andry, absolutely not. The US has led the international community in military responses to Serbian oppression of Muslim communities in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we have fought wars in East Asia to prevent, for example North Korea, from invading its southern neighbor. For us, the question correctly is not a country's ethnic or religious make-up, but rather its behavior. Which in the case of Iran is alas not good.

IIP Moderator: For the latest on U.S. policy in Persian visit.

Articles are also available in Arabic, French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and English on a daily basis.

Q [andry]: Do you have clear evidences about the supposed military Iranian nuclear program?

A: andry, we rely on IAEA reports from the UN, which have repeatedly documented suspicious findings consistent with a nuclear weapons program. Of course it is difficult to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is why we want the Iranians to cease the suspicious activities and submit fully to international inspection, which they currently resist.

Q [Hanif]: Despite the wealth of concessions the U.S. gave the Iranian regime prior to the 2003 war on Iraq, Iran sent thousands of its agents and Revolutionary Guards to create unrest there. Democratic and nationalist Iraqis unanimously agree that the U.S. is not the real occupier of Iraq; rather, it is the Iranian regime. The Ayatollahs back virtually all terrorist groups in Iraq, including the Badr Organization and the Sadr militia, and are the primary winners of sectarian violence which has crippled the democracy movement in that country. So, why now does the U.S. believe it is appropriate to hold further discussions with the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism, presumably to offer it further concessions? Is it not true what Iraqi citizens say, that Iran is the problem and not the solution? Would this new overture not undermine President Bush’s war on terror? Would the U.S. have negotiated with Hitler?

A: Hanif, no, the US would not have negotiated with Hitler. Our position is that we will speak with the Iranians if certain conditions are met, such as the cessation of enrichment of uranium, or possibly if we have a specific operational issue, such as, in principle, operations in Iraq. We do not consider negotiations to be an end but a means, and we would have to see the specific means, and what the end would be, before we take any specific step.

Q [Guest Translation]: Greetings, As an Iranian and as a Shiite Moslem I support the US policies toward Iran, and I thank this country very much for separating the government and regime of Iran (from its people) and defending Iranian freedom-seekers and fighters.

And I must say that the Iranian people have never been with the dictatorial Islamic Republic. My question is if some day Iran stops its nuclear enrichment and does what the international community is asking, will America continue to object to Iran’s human right situation, or will America come to an agreement with the regime in Iran over the nuclear issue? Will we, the struggling people of Iran, lose our only supportive foreign country, and the US will no longer pay any attention to the violations of human rights in Iran?

I would be very happy if you respond to my question, which is a question for many Iranians.

Greetings to the good people of America and death to the regime in Iran, the shelter for Islamic terrorists. And thank you.

Hoping for the day the Americans are close to us. Good-bye.

mohamad mehdi

A: Mohamad. This question comes up all the time. Let me assure you that the United States always is on the side of democracy and freedom, anywhere in the world. We do not negotiate away our principles with any state. We hope very much to achieve a compromise with your government on the nuclear issue, but whether we do or not we will continue to press for democratic reforms.

Q [Bahadyr]: Iran has oil, outside influence through other Shiites, strong state tradition, cunning leaders, ideology (although defunct at home), nationalism, youth, geography. If they also have the bomb they may be some kind of a superpower at the regional level. Apart from the question whether this is inevitable and desirable or not, Israel cannot be persuaded to accept this. Iran's seeming recent successes only makes it a more urgent military target, notwithstanding the difficulties, costs and risks of such an operation. Apart from the fact that whether Iran would be willing and able to help Washington in Iraq, it is not clear that this help would be enough for a dignified US exit. The problem in Iraq may already be beyond that kind of fix. US should give up its regime change policy, should not impose sanctions on Iran and certainly give some king of regime guarantee, however hurtful it will be. But adding the permission for bomb to this list will make the price of help in Iraq just too much. TurcoPundit

A: Bahadyr. Thank you for the question. At this point our focus is on diplomatic, not military means with Iran. We are not seeking the change of the regime, but rather fundamental change in many of its behaviors. We have no desire to impose sanctions on Iran, but are prepared to do so with the support of the UN if nuclear weapons programs continue. Let's all work to stop these programs now.

Q [andry]: Do you think that Iran could be involved into nuclear terrorism?

A: Andry, in view of the regime's involvement in mass casualty terrorism around the world, as we have seen for example in Argentina I am afraid that we can rule nothing out. The purpose of our efforts in the UN is thus to remove the capability of the regime of carrying out such actions. Only then can we be sure that they will not occur.

Q [Siamakk]: Hello Ambassador Jeffery. It seems that for US government and Europeans, the nuclear issue is more important than the human right affairs in Iran.

Is there any possibility that western countries look more seriously to the human rights standards in order to solve the nuclear issue?

A: Siamakk, we do not believe that you can separate the nuclear security issue from that of democracy and freedom. Free democratic nations even when, such as the case of France or the UK, they possess nuclear weapons, do not threaten the security of their entire region. Iran currently is a very different sort of state, and we fear exactly this sort of intimidation. But in any case, as I have written already, we will not prioritize between democratic reforms and nuclear issues. Both are vital to all of our security.

Q [Arash R]: When will US attack Iran?

A: Thanks Arash for your question. The US has no plans to attack Iran, and as President Bush has said many times, our priority is a diplomatic solution. Of course we will defend our own personnel and our allies in the region, but right now you should focus on the political track, especially in the UN.

Q [Guest]: Hello, I would like to ask whether the president of the United States is really aware that the people of Iran are against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program and consider Bush a very brave man.

Feri

A: I can assure you that President Bush is very brave, and that one his very top priorities is ending Iran's nuclear weapons program, but also reaching out to the Iranian people, with whom we have no issues or complaints.

Q [noghte]: Why Iran's nuclear program is very important for U.S but you ignore the Israel's program?

A: First, Noghte, please recognize that it is not just the US which is concerned with Iran's program, but the entire Board of the UN's IAEA watchdog organization, as well as the entire UN Security Council. The US concern and that of many other countries is linked to Iran's past aggressive behavior and, frankly, many aggressive statements issued by its leadership.

Q [andry]: What would the US do if tomorrow Iran made its first nuclear bomb test?

A: Andry, I cannot answer adequately what we call a hypothetical question of this sort, other than to say that you should look to the extraordinarily strong reaction of the entire international community to North Korea's detonation to give you some idea of what many would advocate.

Q [Guest]: Hello, As an Iranian, how can go about joining the United States military?

Mohsen

A: Mohsen, thank you for the thought. Generally, you must be a permanent resident of the US to become a member of the military. We of course do have many fine Iranian - Americans serving in our military forces, and are proud of their service.

Q [Hamlet]: What is the objective of the American policy in Iran nuclear weapons?

A: Hamlet, to answer both of your questions, our objective is an Iranian nuclear program restricted to civilian, peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and in compliance with international norms. Unfortunately, the current program is neither. And, yes, we will be pursuing a diplomatic strategy to achieve the above goal.

Q [Arash R]: Dear Ambassador, current things like sanction has no effect on current government they don't give a damn that all people in Iran die of hunger as long as their bank accounts are full and they are sit on top of oil fields should Iran start 3'rd world war, that you realize the problem is from Iran and do some thing?

Do you know Mr "Hassani"? in city of Eurommie?

A: Arash, I can assure you that any actions we take against the nuclear program are targeted on those deeply involved in or profiting from it, not normal Iranians.

Q [andry]: Is the situation in Iran a real threat for US national security?

A: Andry, absolutely, from many standpoints, from support of terrorists to threatening to destroy a UN member state, Israel, to the effort to obtain nuclear weapons. But, more importantly, the situation in Iran is a threat to the entire international community, which is why we are working in the UN to counter it.

Q [Mizanur Rahman Khan]: How do you evaluate the danger in terms of real politick between a Shia bomb and a Sunni bomb?

A: We see no difference between a Shia and a Sunni bomb, we see a difference between a bomb in the hands of a reliable, stable state supporting international order, and a state that does not meet this criterion. Unfortunately Iran falls in the latter category.

Q [Arash R]: is the reason US will not attack Iran is that as Iranian government claims, United States is very scared of Iranian military power?

A: The United States has sufficient military power to respond to any contingency. However, we believe that in any situation, before military force is contemplated, we should exhaust every diplomatic effort.

Q [qarabaqi]: Well, it seems that the discussion time is ended. Is there anybody at the time being?

Ambassador Jeffrey: Dear chatroom participants. Thank you for your interest and your attention. Let us hope that we can work together for peace, democracy and freedom in Iran and around the world.

IIP Moderator: Thanks to Ambassador Jeffrey and all of our participants. The chat was very short notice and you saved the day.

The chat is now closed.

Siamakk: Thank you Ambassador Jeffrey for your answers, and thank you dear moderator.