Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
Добавлено: Среда, 20 Май 2009, 20:58:20 Заголовок сообщения:
A video frame grab shows an Iranian surface-to-surface Sejil 2 missile flying past a weather balloon as it was launched from a site in Semnan May 20, 2009. Iran launched a missile with a range of close to 2,000 km (1,200 miles) on Wednesday.(Xinhua/AFP Photo)
TEHRAN, May 20 (Xinhua) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday that the country successfully launched an advanced surface-to-surface missile with a range of about 2,000 km., the official IRNA news agency reported.
Ahmadinejad made the announcement during his visit to the northern Iranian province of Semnan, where the Sejil 2 missile was launched, IRNA reported.
"The Sejil 2 missile has high technology ... and exactly landed in the pre-planned target," he was quoted as saying.
The Sejil missiles use solid fuel and perform in two stages, which is different from the country's already tested Shehab missiles that utilize liquid fuel and perform in one stage, according to the report.
In November, Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar announced that the Islamic Republic has successfully test-fired a new generation of surface-to-surface missile, named Sejil.
Sejil had a range of about 1,200 miles (2,000 km), Najjar added.
State television showed the missile being fired from a platform in a desert and soaring into the sky with a long white vapor trail.
Najjar reiterated then that Sejil was manufactured in line with "Iran's detente policy" and only for defensive purposes of its territory and in order to strengthen peace and stability in the region.
Iran had already test-fired its another Shehab-3 missile capable of hitting targets within a range of 2,000 km, vowing that its missile capabilities are "a defensive tool against invasions." _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
Добавлено: Среда, 20 Май 2009, 21:06:25 Заголовок сообщения:
http://www.irna.ir/En/View/FullStory/?NewsId=497675&idLanguage=3 Advanced surface-to-surface missile successfully launched: President
Tehran, May 20, IRNA -- Iran launched advanced surface-to surface missile called 'Sejjil-2', President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday.
President Ahmadinejad, who is in the northeastern province of semnan at the last leg of his 60-province tour, said the surface-to-surface missile was launched Wednesday morning in the province and successfully hit its pre-determined target.
The missile which belongs to the advanced generation of surface-to-surface missiles was first tested in November, 2008.
The Sejjil missile has a range of almost 2,000 kilometers and is different from Shahab-3 missile. It operates in two stages and uses solid fuel, whereas, Shahab-3 missile is one-stage operator and uses liquid fuel.
Sejjil's range is longer than Shahab-3. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
А Иран между тем ссылаясь на отчёт ООН заявил что его ядерная программа мирная (в который раз!).
Может, конечно, она и не совсем мирная, в смысле сейчас мирная, а потом, в определённый момент, станет совсем не мирная. Но тут доказательства нужны, или хотя бы основания.
На данный момент, как я понимаю, ни доказательств, ни оснований нет. Отчёт ООН тому подтверждение.
Iran said on Saturday a new report from the United Nations nuclear watchdog showed Tehran's nuclear program was peaceful, despite Western suspicions it is aimed at making atomic bombs.
Friday's report said Iran had significantly expanded uranium enrichment with almost 5,000 centrifuges now operating and this had made it harder for UN inspectors to keep track of the disputed nuclear activity.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report said Iran had increased its rate of production of low-enriched uranium, boosting its stockpile by 500 kg to 1,339 kg in the past six months.
Advertisement
Iran's improved efficiency in turning out potential nuclear fuel was sure to fan Western fears of the Islamic Republic nearing the ability to make atomic bombs, if it chose to do so.
But Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, said the report made clear again there was no evidence of any diversion of nuclear materials or pursuit of military aims and also that the agency was able to carry out its supervisory work.
"This is in fact a clear and categorical document in demonstration of the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities," he said in remarks broadcast by state television.
"We will not suspend our nuclear activities and we will not, at the same time, suspend our cooperation with the agency," Soltanieh said.
Tehran says its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity and has repeatedly rejected Western demands to halt uranium enrichment, which can have both civilian and military purposes.
But Iran has stonewalled an IAEA investigation into alleged past research into bomb-making, calling U.S. intelligence about it forged, and continues to limit the scope of IAEA inspections.
The latest IAEA report highlighted the challenges facing U.S. President Barack Obama as he seeks to work toward reconciliation with Iran after three decades of mutual mistrust.
Obama has set a rough timetable for negotiating results with Iran, saying he wanted serious progress by the end of the year. He has underlined that any U.S. overtures will be accompanied by harsher sanctions if there is no cooperation.
"This [IAEA] report will increase Washington's sense of urgency over the need to deal with this issue," said Cliff Kupchan of Eurasia, a risk consultancy.
Kupchan said it could also help conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his bid for a second four-year term in a June 12 election, in which he faces a challenge from moderates seeking a detente in Tehran's international relations.
"Voters ... are proud of Iran's technological accomplishments; the Ahmadinejad camp will probably trumpet the agency report with gusto," he said in an e-mailed commentary. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
В понедельник, 22 июня, военно-воздушные и военно-морские силы Ирана начинают крупномасштабные совместные учения в Персидском заливе и Оманском заливе. Об этом вчера сообщило иранское государственное агентство IRNA.
- Современные иранские ВВС. СЛАЙД-ШОУ
Согласно опубликованной информации, данные учения должны будут "продемонстрировать обороноспособность иранской армии и взаимодействие различных родов войск".
В сообщении IRNA также говорилось о том, что ВВС Ирана будут отрабатывать дальние полеты – на 3.600 км – с дозаправкой в воздухе, как с самолетов-заправщиков, так и с истребителя на истребитель. Кроме того, будут осуществляться полеты на низкой высоте на расстояние до 700 км.
Иранские военные заявляют, что данные учения были запланированы еще в прошлом году и проводятся строго по плану. Вероятные противники: Израиль и американские военные базы в Персидском заливе.
Однако на фоне продолжающихся акций протеста и кровавых столкновений, которые начались в стране после президентских выборов, крупномасштабные учения иранской армии многими воспринимаются как демонстрация силы правящего режима.
На вооружении иранских ВВС состоят американские истребители F-4, F-5, F-7, F-14, боевые машины российского КБ "Сухой" Су-24 и Су-27 (способные нести "крылатые ракеты"), самолеты иранского производства класса "Саеге" ("Гром") и "Азаракш" ("Молния"), аналоги американских F-5 и F-18. Кроме того, Иран производит собственные беспилотные самолеты. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
В понедельник, 22 июня, военно-воздушные и военно-морские силы Ирана начинают крупномасштабные совместные учения в Персидском заливе и Оманском заливе.
"Кто с мечом к нам придет, от меча и погибнет!" - советский писатель Петр Андреевич Павленко _________________ Тempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
National Intelligence Estimate полагает (2007) что Иранская ядерная программа - мирная. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
На этой неделе израильское армейское издание "Бе-Махане" опубликовало статью о модернизации тактических истребителей F-15 и F-15I, состоящих на вооружении ВВС Израиля. На этих боевых машинах устанавливаются две новые системы "Барад Пелада" (Стальной град) и "Барак" (Молния).
"Барад Пелада" представляет собой систему управления "умными бомбами", обеспечивающую исключительно точную доставку бомбы к цели, пояснили источники в Армии обороны Израиля. Данная система гарантирует верную идентификацию цели, которая должна быть уничтожена в результате атаки. Система "Барад Пелада" использовалась в течение 4 лет на израильских истребителях F-16 и была адаптирована для F-15, способных совершать дальние перелеты.
Кодовое обозначение "Барак" используется израильскими военными в названиях самых разных систем – в том числе, систем ПВО наземного и морского базирования, истребителей F-16C и другой техники. Однако в случае модернизации F-15 речь идет об усовершенствованной системе ведения огня, которая также доказала свою эффективность на истребителях F-16 и заменит на F-15 надежную, но устаревшую систему "Инбар". На F-15I планируется использовать обе системы – "Барак" и "Инбар", пишет "Бе-Махане".
Кроме того, израильские F-15 получили "умные бомбы" под кодовым названием "Барад Кавед" (Мощный Град), которые впервые прошли боевые испытания во время антитеррористической операции "Литой свинец" в секторе Газы (декабрь 2008 – январь 2009). Согласно армейским источникам, эти бомбы безошибочно поразили все цели в Газе.
О публикации в газете "Бе-Махане" в минувшее воскресенье, 28 июня, сообщил по-английски сайт Arutz Sheva. В публикации также обращалось внимание на то, что в прошлый четверг начальник генштаба ЦАХАЛа Габи Ашкенази, выступая перед молодыми летчиками, выпускниками академии, говорил о необходимости быть готовыми к тому, чтобы противостоять любому врагу – в том числе, Ирану.
Сегодня, 30 июня, иранский сайт Press TV в качестве главного материала опубликовал изложение воскресной статьи на Arutz Sheva о модернизации израильских F-15. Статья была озаглавлена так: "После выборов в Иране Израиль усиливает свои воздушные силы".
Напомним, что вскоре после президентских выборов, результаты которых вызвали волнения по всей стране, 22-24 июня в Иране были проведены крупномасштабные совместные учения военно-воздушных и военно-морских сил. В ходе учений ВВС Ирана отрабатывали дальние полеты – на 3.600 км – с дозаправкой в воздухе, как с самолетов-заправщиков, так и с истребителя на истребитель. Кроме того, осуществлялись полеты на низкой высоте на расстояние до 700 км в Персидском заливе и Оманском заливе. В качестве вероятных противников были обозначены Израиль и американские военные базы в Персидском заливе.
23 июня, во время проведения этих маневров, командующий ВВС Ирана бригадный генерал Хусейн Чифторуш заявил, что учения направлены на выявление и уничтожение "Ахиллесовой пяты в обороне врага", в том числе, мобильных командных пунктов.
Тогда же командующий ВВС Израиля генерал-майор Идо Нехоштан заявил, что израильская военная авиация отрабатывает разные сценарии, в том числе атаку на ближние и дальние объекты, подчеркнув при этом, что израильские военные пристально следят за учениями иранских ВВС. Говоря о возможной атаке на ядерные объекты Исламской республики, Нехоштан тогда сказал, что любой другой вариант решения кризиса предпочтительнее, но от ВВС требуется обеспечить возможность реализации всех вариантов.
На вооружении иранских ВВС состоят американские истребители F-4, F-5, F-7, F-14, боевые машины российского КБ "Сухой" Су-24 и Су-27 (способные нести "крылатые ракеты"), самолеты иранского производства класса "Саеге" ("Гром") и "Азаракш" ("Молния"), аналоги американских F-5 и F-18. Кроме того, Иран производит собственные беспилотные самолеты.
Основными боевыми машинами сегодняшних ВВС Израиля являются различные модификации американских истребителей F-15 и F-16. Израиль является одним из мировых лидеров в создании и боевом применении беспилотных летательных аппаратов. В скором времени Израиль должен получить истребители пятого поколения F-35.
По оценкам специалистов, Израиль в случае вооруженного конфликта будет иметь очевидное преимущество над Ираном в воздухе. Однако нанести значительный урон иранским ядерным объектам израильской авиации будет крайне сложно. В случае поставок в Иран российских зенитно-ракетных комплексов С-300, при атаке на Иран израильские ВВС могут понести значительные потери. Особую опасность для Израиля представляют ракетные силы Ирана. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
(IsraelNN.com) The Israel Air Force’s F-15 fleet is undergoing an upgrade, with systems that make it better equipped for complex long distance attack scenarios. The systems are being installed in both the F-15 and the F-15I -- a model of the F-15 that was developed by its U.S. manufacturer specifically for the IAF.
According to IDF journal BaMachaneh, the F-15I model is currently being fitted with two new systems – one called “Barad Pelada” (“Steel Hail”), and another named Lightning.
The Barad Pelada advanced weapons system has been operational in the IAF’s F-16s for almost four years, but had to be modified in order to fit the F-15.
Barad Pelada is an advanced Israeli armament that operates like a smart bomb. “The system is unique in that it is able to plan the bombing in an accurate way by identifying the target from above,” a knowledgeable source in the IAF explained. “After the identification, the system carries out guidance to the target and only then is impact made.”
The Lightning advanced attack system has also been in use in the IAF’s other jets. Until now, the F-15I jets had to rely on the older Inbar system, which used to be fitted in all of the IAF’s jets but was gradually phased out.
The Inbar system is capable of providing an operational solution in some ranges, but other attack scenarios require advanced systems like the Lightning, IAF sources said. “The need for the new system led to an accelerated procedure of development of advanced means,” a source in the IAF’s Weapons Department explained. “Once the testing at the Flight Experiment Center is finished, we will complete the system’s integration in the aircraft.”
A combination of two systems
For the time being, however, the F-15I jets will not part with the older Inbar systems. “From now on, the aircraft will enjoy a combination of both attack systems and will enjoy a meaningful advantage in their operational activity,” the sources said.
The F-15 jets, meanwhile, recently received a new weapon system named “Barad Kaved” (“Heavy Hail”) and used it for the first time during operation “Cast Lead” in Gaza in early 2009. IAF sources said the use was a success. The F-15 fighters used Barad Kaved in attacks with zero malfunctions, and “we are very pleased with its performance in the operation,” the sources said.
'Sharp as a razor'
“The reelection of Iran’s president, his grave utterances regarding his will to harm the state of Israel and Iran’s continual effort to achieve unconventional weapons require us to maintain an army that is coiled and ready to spring into action, and an Air Force that is skilled and sharp as a razor, that will stand up to any enemy and remove any threat from our citizens and residents,“ IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi said Thursday in an IAF ceremony for new pilots at the Hatzerim Air Force Base. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
Israel has moved to upgrade its air force fleet after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected.
The Israeli Air Force has launched an upgrade of its F-15 fleet, equipping the jets with complex systems that would enable them to carry out long-distance attacks.
Both the Israeli F-15s and F-15Is -- another version of the F-15 developed by an American manufacturer for the IAF -- are currently being equipped with two advanced weapons systems.
The IDF journal BaMahaneh described the two new systems as Barad Pelada (Steel Hail), and Lightning.
A source in the IAF familiar with the Barad Pelada system explained that the advanced Israeli armament operates like a smart bomb.
"The system is unique in that it is able to plan the bombing in an accurate way by identifying the target from above," said the source. "After the identification, the system carries out guidance to the target and only then is impact made."
A source in the IAF's Weapons Department said the need for an upgrade of the F-15I jets, which previously relied on the less advanced Inbar system, "led to an accelerated procedure of development of advanced means."
Earlier on Thursday, IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi cited the re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the reason behind the latest efforts in the Israeli army to speed up military upgrades.
"The reelection of Iran's president, his grave utterances regarding his will to harm the state of Israel and Iran's continual effort to achieve unconventional weapons require us to maintain an army that is coiled and ready to spring into action, and an Air Force that is skilled and sharp as a razor, that will stand up to any enemy and remove any threat from our citizens and residents," Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi told a crowd of IAF pilots.
Tel Aviv accuses Tehran -- a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- of pursuing a nuclear program with military objectives and argues that the use of military force is a legitimate option in halting Iran's nuclear progress.
Iran denies the Israeli claim, insisting that its nuclear enrichment program is solely directed at the civilian applications of the technology. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
Добавлено: Понедельник, 13 Июль 2009, 00:33:35 Заголовок сообщения:
I began with the personal questions. You are short-tempered, I hurled at him; you have fits of rage. It's true that I am short-tempered, Uzi Arad replied, but I lose patience because of the importance I attach to things. Because I am not cynical. It is important for me to have a high level of professionalism in the Prime Minister's Office and for high standards to be the criterion. I am not a born elitist, but it is important to me that we have a government that sets criteria of superb achievement.
You are an advocate of brute force, I threw at him. Me? Brute force? He smiled. I thought I was actually sensitive. In national and international issues, force is also a language. But I do not like wars between Jews. I prefer to direct the brute-force energies within me at the goyim.
You are a technocrat, I lashed out. This time I hit the mark. The national security adviser was offended. Maybe so, he replied candidly, reflectively. But there are technocrats and there are technocrats. The political party I supported as a youth was Rafi [a party formed by David Ben-Gurion in 1965 after he broke with Mapai, the precursor of Labor; its members included Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres]. The Rafi ethos was security activism: to get results. On a number of matters I also did things that were innovative and constituted breakthroughs. In any event, I am a proud technocrat. I always strive to do the best for my country.
Advertisement
Arad was born in 1947 in Kibbutz Zikim, just north of the Gaza Strip, and attended the Tichon Hadash high school in Tel Aviv. An outstanding student, he went to Princeton and the most important American research institutes. He served in the Mossad espionage agency for more than 20 years. Afterward he was the national security adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu during the latter's first stint as prime minister (1996-99). He initiated and managed the annual Herzliya Conference on national policy. He specialized in nuclear strategy, a subject he also taught. He was a pioneer in the realm of risk-management policy. In varied and diverse ways, he has been a player in the Israeli security and intelligence drama. A hundred days ago, Dr. Uzi Arad returned to the center of power, as national security adviser.
Arad holds tremendous power. He holds the Iranian portfolio, he conducts the sensitive dialogue with the United States and he is the closest person to the prime minister. Some observers say that Arad has become the strongman of current Israeli policy.
Arad does not say so explicitly, but he believes that his whole professional life has prepared him for this post. As a control freak, he does not rely on others. As a perfectionist, he is highly critical of the work of others. But, being very loyal to the boss, he finds no flaws in him. According to Arad, Netanyahu is a talented, efficient person; no one is better suited to be prime minister. Imbued with a deep sense of mission, Netanyahu and Arad feel they are the right people in the right place at a tough time. It is incumbent on them to be the salvation of the State of Israel.
Do you see any prospect that the conflict will come to an end in the coming years?
Regrettably, we have not so far been successful in bringing about Arab internalization of our right of existence. The Arab and Muslim refusal to recognize Israel's legitimacy is sometimes suppressed and amorphous, at other times sharp and violent, but it is all-embracing. I have not yet encountered an Arab personage who is capable of saying quietly and clearly that he or she accepts Israel's right of existence in the deep historical and conscious sense. Accordingly, it will be difficult to reach a true Israeli-Palestinian agreement that does away with the bulk of the conflict. I don't see that in the coming years it will be possible to forge that different reality which so many Israelis want.
Will a Palestinian state be established on the watch manned by you and Netanyahu?
That is a different story. I don't see among the Palestinians a process of truly drawing closer to acceptance of Israel and peace with Israel. I also do not see a Palestinian leadership or a Palestinian regime but a disorderly constellation of forces and factions. But possibly someone might come along and say I am an engineer of events; the depth doesn't interest me - I am going to produce an event. And within three years - presto - four Annapolises, two disengagements, global pyrotechnics. And then suddenly, in 2015, there is a Palestinian state. Stamps, parades, carnival. That could happen. A fragile structure, yes; an arrangement resting wholly on wobbly foundations. But it could happen. There could be a Palestinian state.
What you are saying is that there will not be true peace, but there might be an American peace event with Hollywood trappings.
Everyone with eyes to see, sees that there is a failure of Palestinian leadership. There is no Palestinian Sadat. There is no Palestinian Mandela. Abu Mazen is not vulgar like Arafat and not militant and extreme like Hamas. There could be worse than him. But even in him I do not discern the interest or the will to arrive at the end of the conflict with Israel. On the contrary, he is preserving eternal grievances against us and intensifying them.
After Olmert offers him almost everything, he says wide gaps remain. And then you reach the conclusion that there really is a receding horizon here; The more Israel moves toward the Palestinians, the more they move away. And they do that because even the moderates among them do not really want a settlement. At most, they are striving toward a settlement in order to renew the confrontation from a better position.
What you are saying is that there is no Palestinian partner for a true peace.
At the moment, there is no one on the map. There are no true peace leaders among the Palestinians. But I am not deterministic. I do not think this is part of the Palestinians' genetic makeup. I want to believe that in the future a different type of leadership will arise. I hope that a Palestinian - woman or man - will emerge who is able to recognize that there is some justice on the Israeli side, too. Because, you know, in Israel there are so many who see the justice of the Palestinians' cause and write about it and make a living from it. Read the paper you work for, for example. But true peace will come when Palestinians emerge who recognize there is also Israeli justice - that there is also a little Israeli justice. At the moment there are none.
Can peace with Syria be achieved during the Netanyahu government?
Here we have a different problem. The majority of Israel's governments insisted that Israel would stay on the Golan Heights. That is also the position of the majority of the public and most MKs. The position is that, if there is a territorial compromise, it is one that still leaves Israel on the Golan Heights and deep into the Golan Heights.
From your point of view, is that the right position to take? That this must be the essence of a settlement - a compromise deep into the Golan Heights? That even in peace we must ensure that a large part of the Golan Heights remain in our hands?
Yes
Why?
For strategic, military and land-settlement reasons. Needs of water, wine and view.
So you say unequivocally: Peace yes, Golan no?
Correct.
What about the "deposit" of Yitzhak Rabin, in which he undertook to leave the Golan Heights?
There is no such thing. In 1996, Netanyahu asked [Secretary of State] Warren Christopher to have the deposit returned to Israel, and so it was. In his letter, Christopher pledged that the deposit was not valid.
What about the concessions made by Netanyahu himself in the negotiations he held with the first President Assad at the end of the 1990s?
Netanyahu's position was that Israel should remain on the Golan Heights at a depth of a few miles. A few miles translates into a lot more kilometers. If you draw a line from Mount Hermon to Al Hama at a depth of a few miles, you will see this leaves a great deal of the Golan Heights, from the south to the north.
Is this still the position of the government today?
The government's position is readiness to resume the negotiations with no prior conditions and with each side aware of the other's position. The Syrians are certainly aware that the Netanyahu government and the majority of the public will not leave the Golan Heights.
Will the Americans accept that? Won't they try to impose a different approach?
The impression is that there are deep differences between Israel and the United States. Israel is saying, first Iran, then Palestine, whereas the United States is saying, first Palestine, then Iran.
Both cases need treatment. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and freeze one issue in order to deal with the other. From the Americans' viewpoint, the achievement that is required in the Israeli-Arab dimension is the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The achievement required in the Iranian dimension is not to allow Iran nuclear capability that will enable it to produce nuclear weapons. When Israel says that it feels a more acute need to deal with the Iranian problem, it is right on three counts. First, because the urgency there is overriding; second, because if we succeed there, it will be easier here; and third, because if we do not succeed there, we will not succeed here. If Iran goes nuclear, everything that might be achieved with the Palestinians will be swept away in a tidal wave and go down the tubes overnight.
You have not been able to persuade the Americans of this. On the Palestinian question they have appointed a high-profile senior envoy who is engaging in intensive activity. But in regard to Iran, nothing is happening. As Washington sees it, Ramallah is more urgent than Tehran; the settlements are more dangerous than the centrifuges.
Dov Weisglass [former adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon] built the first stage of the Road Map well, but created catastrophes in the second and third stages. He did so because he was certain that the first stage was a dam in the face of the coming stages. But then came the disengagement which undermined the Road Map on the ground. And then Annapolis undermined the Road Map politically. Olmert and Livni acted contrary to Weisglass's logic and jumped straight to the third stage. So what we had was a series of typical Israeli makeshift exercises. Every two years they came up with a move that completely contradicted the previous move. The result, of course, was the policy debacle that Netanyahu and I had warned against. The Netanyahu government inherited scorched earth from its predecessors.
Do you feel that as a result of Israeli mistakes, the international attitude toward Israel today is extremely unfair?
Completely unfair. I say this in English openly: "extremely unfair." If you want to enforce the clauses of the Road Map, you have to enforce all of them. And security violations are more serious than building violations: Qassam rockets kill people, settlements do not. But I am a formalist. I am in favor of formalism. The thing is, that if they come to us and count every settlement, they have to apply the same indices and the same principles to the Palestinians. Anyone who does not do this is behaving unfairly, but he is also behaving unwisely. He is not advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace that he would like to see.
Maybe the real problem is the settlements have made Washington fed up with us. Maybe the problem is that Obama and Clinton have lingering issues concerning Netanyahu, hence their chilly behavior toward him.
Isn't the alliance between Rome and Jerusalem wobbly? Don't you have the feeling that just as de Gaulle terminated a 15-year French alliance with Israel after the war in Algeria, Obama will terminate a 40-year American alliance with Israel after the war in Iraq?
Each of them has an interesting potential from our point of view. We must also strive to join NATO and to conclude a defense alliance with the United States. If there is an Israeli-Palestinian settlement that will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state, membership in NATO and a defense alliance with the United States should be part of the quid pro quo that Israel will receive.
There are some in Israel who fear such developments.
They fear the loss of Israeli freedom of action and that essential elements of [Israel] will be put at risk. But I think that just as France and Britain possess capabilities even within the NATO framework, the same can be true in regard to Israel. Membership in NATO is a logical step and can provide us with a guarantee of mutual security and even add a layer to our deterrence if the Middle East goes nuclear. It is possible that membership in NATO or a defense alliance with the United States will be a condition of a regional settlement.
Point of no return
Your main front as national security adviser will be the danger of a nuclear Iran and a nuclear Middle East. But as far as we know, Iran has already crossed the point of nuclear no-return and has enough fissionable material to assemble a first nuclear bomb.
The point of nuclear no-return was defined as the point at which Iran has the ability to complete the cycle of nuclear fuel production on its own; the point at which it has all the elements to produce fissionable material without depending on outsiders. Iran is now there. I don't know if it has mastered all the technologies, but it is more or less there. However, the term "no-return" is misleading. Even if Iran has fissionable material for one bomb, it is still at a low grade of enrichment. And if it wants to conduct a test, it will not have even one bomb. It follows that Iran is not yet nuclear and not yet operational. Serious obstacles still lie in the way. The international community still has enough time to make it stop of its own volition.
Still, looking back, we see a dramatic failure here. A red line was defined and Iran crossed it.
I told you that the Netanyahu government inherited scorched earth. That is true in any number of spheres. The tragic and heartbreaking story of Gilad Shalit is one example. It was not resolved in any way, shape or form. The same holds true for the Second Lebanon War and for Operation Cast Lead [in Gaza], which caused a great decline in our political status, particularly in Europe. Annapolis got us nowhere, nor did the disengagement. But most serious of all, by far most serious, is Iran's progress toward nuclear capability. I am not saying that nothing was done. Things were done. But if at the end of the day it turns out that Iran is drawing closer to its goal, obviously not enough was done. And what was done was too late, too little and too feeble.
What you are actually saying is that the national leadership in Israel over the past six or seven years understood about Iran and talked about Iran but did not address the Iranian issue with the prioritization, intensiveness and concentration of forces needed?
That is exactly what I am saying. In one case, because the leadership scattered its efforts and resources instead of concentrating them. It preoccupied itself with other issues, such as the disengagement and Annapolis. In a second case, because it did not home in on the main issue - Iran. I will give you an example. Look at how many speeches were delivered here about a democratic Jewish state, democratic and Jewish. The subject was discussed until it was coming out of people's ears. In contrast, look at how many moves were made to curb nuclear Iran by political and diplomatic means. There is no comparison between what the previous government devoted to the two issues. I want to tell you that Javier Solana [the European Union official in charge of foreign policy] racked up more kilometers traveling around the world to address the Iranian issue than the Israeli foreign minister did. Western statesmen did more to prevent Iran from going nuclear than their Israeli counterparts.
Are you contending that there was a monumental political failure here?
A gross failure. Between 2003 and 2007, it was far easier to contain Iran. The Iranian program was lagging behind. American power was more blatant. Various big powers were inclined to cooperate. Iran was more cautious and more vulnerable. But what preoccupied us in 2005? The disengagement. And what preoccupied us in 2007? Annapolis. We mobilized our national resources for empty moves. We wasted political assets on nothing. We talked about the red line of the point of nuclear no-return in Iran, but in practice we were committed only to the artificial red line that stipulated arbitrarily that there would be no more Jews in Gaza by the end of 2005. I tell you that if those mental resources and the determination and tenacity that were displayed in regard to the disengagement had been devoted to preventing Iran from reaching the point of nuclear no-return, Iran would not have got there.
And now that point is behind us?
Yes - in the technological sense, it has been crossed. I believe that in practice we will be able to block Iran. But the line that was termed a "red line" has been crossed.
Was there a policy eclipse here?
Certainly. The Winograd Committee exposed the functional eclipses in the Second Lebanon War. But even though it was a painful and costly event, the limited war of 2006 bore no historic significance. In regard to Iran, if history develops badly, the failure is liable to turn out to be of historic proportions.
I am confident that Netanyahu will know how to cope with the harsh reality he inherited. He is the first Israeli leader to identify and understand in depth the Iranian threat. He is the first who did not talk about a publicity campaign or about military action but about applying levers of economic pressure. Contrary to others, he did not talk about moves involving force and did not issue threats. Netanyahu understands that Iran is the great challenge of this period. He is dealing with the challenge intelligently, responsibly and with the state's interests uppermost.
Isn't it too late? Isn't it time to accept that Iran will be a nuclear power?
I am not at liberty to say what the government of Israel thinks. Nor will I tell you what the U.S. administration thinks. But I will tell you the opinion of professionals from serious research institutes in the United States and Europe. The major fear among professional circles is that a nuclear Iran will burst the dams and cause nuclear proliferation in the region. According to these experts, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey have certain capabilities. Syria, Libya and Algeria have already tried. Therefore, if Iran goes nuclear, those countries will consider following suit. There is already evidence of this. Those who understand are aware how baseless is the argument that one can extrapolate from the reality of the Cold War to the reality in the Middle East. It is wrong to say that just as we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union and with a nuclear China, we will also be able to live with a nuclear Iran. The subject is not just a nuclear Iran; the subject is a multi-nuclear Middle East. A Middle East in which there are quite a few countries that resemble Pakistan.
Serious experts who are not Israelis look at the Middle East and say that if Iran is nuclear in 2015, the Middle East will be nuclear in 2020. And a multi-nuclear Middle East is a nightmare. Five or six nuclear states in a jumpy and unstable region where the world's energy resources are located will not create nuclear quiet but nuclear disquiet. A nuclear Middle East will be exactly like a pyramid that stands upside down.
It's unlikely that the Iranians will stop after the dialogue that the Americans will perhaps hold with them in the months ahead. The probability of containment without pressure is low.
Unquestionably.
If so, three possibilities remain: them with the bomb, them getting bombed or a maritime blockade.
I hear about a maritime blockade from unofficial American analysts - no one enters or leaves. Iran is very much dependent on the importation of oil distillates and on the export of unrefined oil. So an effective blockade could threaten Iran with bankruptcy within months. In that case, Iran might yield. But it might also decide to challenge those who are cutting it off. From there the road to escalation is short.
So this scenario says that the only way to prevent Iran from getting the bomb is to impose a closure on the country.
Again I want to introduce a cautionary note: what I am saying here does not reflect official Israeli policy or American policy. But there are those in the West who believe that this is the way. The prospect is to confront the Iranian government with a dilemma: Going nuclear or flourishing, going nuclear or survival of the regime. If that will be the dilemma, Tehran might conclude that regime survival is more important than the nuclear project.
What will the West do if there is no maritime blockade or if there is one that fails? In that case, will there be any choice but to prevent the bomb by bombing Iran?
Balance of terror
I was fascinated by Robert Oppenheimer, the Jew who created the first atomic bomb at Los Alamos. Another figure who riveted me was Henry Kissinger, one of the first nuclear strategists. But above all I was drawn to Herman Kahn, with whom I worked at the Hudson Institute.
Kahn is the original Dr. Strangelove. He was a Jewish-American genius who was a salient nuclear hawk and dealt with the planning and feasibility of nuclear wars. Kahn was a towering figure. He was a beacon of intelligence, knowledge and pioneering thought. He combined conceptual productivity, humor and informality. He attracted a group of devotees of whom I was one in the 1970s. But he also had bitter rivals who criticized him for even conceiving of the idea of a nuclear war. In the Cold War it was precisely those who talked about defense and survival who were considered nuclear hawks. The doves talked about "mutual assured destruction," which blocks any possibility of thinking about nuclear weapons. Like Kahn, I was one of the hawks. One of my projects was a paper for the Pentagon on planning a limited nuclear war in Central Europe.
On the face of it, what is the point of this? Why execute the enemy after deterrence has failed? But according to Dror, it is important to ascertain that the deterrence will work, even if you yourself have been destroyed. He sees this as a contribution to the repair of the world [tikkun olam]. When we say "never again," this entails three imperatives: never again will we be felled in mass numbers, never again will we be defenseless and never again will there be a situation in which those who harm us go unpunished.
Is the Holocaust relevant to our strategic thought in an era of a nuclear Middle East?
Look at the way memory guides people like Netanyahu, who refers time and again to the 1930s. Bernard Lewis also said a few years ago that he feels like he is in the late 1930s. What did he mean? On the one hand, an imminent threat, rapidly approaching, and on the other, complacency and conciliation and a cowering coveting of peace. When I visited Yad Vashem [the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem] not long ago, I could not bear the psychological overload and left halfway through. I don't think there is an Israeli or a Jew who can be insensitive to the Holocaust. It is a painful black hole in our consciousness.
When you look around today, what is your feeling? Are we alone?
We are always alone. Sometimes we have partners and lovers and donors of money, but no one is in our shoes.
I still remember Roosevelt and all the wise and enlightened types of the American security hierarchy in the period of Auschwitz, and I have retained the lesson. In Jewish history and fate there is a dimension of unfairness toward us. We have already been alone once, and even the good and the enlightened did not protect us. Accordingly, we must not be militant, but we must entrench our defense and security prowess and act with wisdom and restraint and caution and sangfroid. Never again. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
The United States and five partner countries have decided to accept Iran's new offer to hold talks, even though Iran insists it will not negotiate over its disputed nuclear program, the State Department said Friday.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters that although Iran's proposal for international talks - presented to the six powers on Wednesday - was disappointing for sidestepping the nuclear issue, it represented a chance to begin a direct dialogue.
"We are seeking a meeting now based on the Iranian paper to see what Iran is prepared to do," Crowley said. "And then, as the president has said, you know, if Iran responds to our interest in a meeting, we'll see when that can occur. We hope that will occur as soon as possible."
In its proposal, Iran ignored a demand by the six world powers - the U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany - for a freeze of its uranium enrichment, which is suspected of leading to production of a nuclear weapon.
Iran insists that its nuclear work is strictly for peaceful non-military
purposes.
Iran pronounced itself ready to embark on comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations.
On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country will neither halt uranium enrichment nor negotiate over its nuclear rights but is ready to sit and talk with world powers over global challenges.
Crowley said Iran's lack of interest in addressing its nuclear program is not a reason to refuse to talk.
"If we have talks, we will plan to bring up the nuclear issue," he said.
"So we are seeking a meeting because ultimately the only way that we feel we're going to be able to resolve these issues is to have a meeting," Crowley added.
"But it's not just a meeting for meeting's sake; it is a meeting to be able to see if Iran is willing to engage us seriously on these issues."
The decision to take up Iran's offer was communicated publicly Friday in
Brussels by Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief who is an intermediary for the six powers, who represent the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
"We are all committed to meaningful negotiations with Iran to resolve the
international community's concerns about their nuclear program," Solana said in a brief written statement. He said his office was in contact with Iranian officials to arrange a meeting at the earliest possible opportunity.
Crowley said there is no assumption that new talks with Iran will be
productive. But the proposal made Wednesday by the Iranian government
indicated at least a new willingness to engage diplomatically, he said.
"There's language in the letter that simply says the government of Iran is willing to enter into dialogue," the spokesman said. "We are going to test that proposition, okay? And if Iran is willing to enter into serious negotiations, then they will find a willing participant in the United States and the other countries."
Crowley said the administration will, between now and December, assess where its diplomatic approach stands. "Iran's willingness to deal with the nuclear issues in the proposed new talks will be part of that assessment," he said.
Iran on Wednesday handed a package of proposals to major powers including the United States, Russia, France, Britain, China and Germany. The countries are evaluating the proposals after giving the Islamic Republic until this month to respond to their demand for talks on its nuclear program.
The Iranian proposals include a global system to eliminate nuclear weapons as well as cooperation on Afghanistan and fighting terrorism. But, crucially, Iran said it would not discuss its uranium enrichment program, which some Western powers fear could be used to build a nuclear bomb.
"We are all committed to meaningful negotiations with Iran to resolve the International Community's concerns about their nuclear program," Solana said.
Iran's new proposal for talks with the West promises wide-ranging negotiations but does not provide details of the country's disputed nuclear program, according to a copy of the document published by an investigative group.
The five-page proposal, published online by New York-based ProPublica, says Tehran is ready to embark on comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations.
ProPublica did not say how it obtained the proposal. A Western diplomat
familiar with the Iranian nuclear file said the document published on
ProPublica was authentic. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Iran insists its atomic program is peaceful and geared solely toward
generating electricity. The United States and key allies contend it's covertly trying to build a nuclear weapon.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki handed his country's proposals for new talks to the ambassadors of Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany - and to the Swiss ambassador, who represents U.S. interests.
The proposal says Iran is prepared to enter into dialogue and negotiation in order to lay the ground for lasting peace. It lists a wide range of issues for discussion, including disarmament, trade and investment, fighting terrorism and protecting human dignity.
U.S. officials said Thursday that the proposal falls well short of satisfying international demands that Iran detail its nuclear program. On Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country will neither halt uranium enrichment nor negotiate over its nuclear rights but is ready to sit and talk with world powers over global challenges.
According to the document, the Islamic Republic of Iran believes that within the framework of principles of justice, democracy and multilateralism, a wide range of security, political, economic and cultural issues at regional and global levels could be included in these negotiations with a view of fostering constructive cooperation for advancement of nations and promotion of peace and stability in the region and the world, the proposal says.
U.S. President Barack Obama and European allies have given Iran until the end of September to take up an offer of nuclear talks with six world powers and trade incentives should it suspend uranium enrichment activities. It has already defied three sets of UN Security Council sanctions since 2006 for its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.
Iran's supreme leader warns opponents in sermon
Iran's supreme leader has warned opponents that any confrontation with the country's Islamic establishment would meet with a harsh response.
The remarks by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were a clear message to the Iranian
opposition and reformists who have challenged his authority in the aftermath of the disputed June presidential election.
Khamenei says authorities will strongly punish those who take up the sword to confront the principles of the Islamic system.
But he said peaceful differences and criticism by officials would be tolerated.
Khamenei led Friday prayers in Tehran. His sermon was broadcast on state
television.
Khamenei has final say on all state matters and has backed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election for president _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
The United States is reportedly disappointed by the Iranian response to the willingness of the Western powers to open dialogue with it.
The Obama administration announced at the end of last week it was ready to begin such a dialogue.
The United States and the five other Western powers are said to want to start talks even before the United Nations General Assembly opens on September 23.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Friday: "Now we are willing to meet with Iran. We hope to meet with Iran. We want to see serious engagement on the nuclear issue, in particular."
A senior government official in Jerusalem commented on the Iranian response, "Iran has spat in the face of the United States and the world."
Iran delivered its response to foreign diplomats in Tehran on Wednesday, which was released publicly on the non-profit Web news site ProPublica Friday morning.
Israel received a copy of the response a few hours earlier.
American officials reportedly told Israel they were disappointed by the document. A senior government official in Jerusalem said, "The Iranians didn't leave even a shred to move ahead with. There will be talks, but it seems the time has come to move to paralyzing sanctions against Iran.
Iran said it was ready to embark on comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations "to lay the groundwork for lasting peace and regionally inspired and generated stability for the region and beyond."
Iran called for a world free of weapons of mass destruction. However, the document ignored the demand from six Western states for a freeze on uranium enrichment. Iran insists its nuclear production is strictly for peaceful, non-military use.
While the Iranian document does not mention Israel, it calls for efforts "to draw up a comprehensive, democratic and equitable plan to help the people of Palestine to achieve all-embracing peace."
The U.S. representative in the dialogue with Iran will be American Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns, who met once with the Iranians at the end of the Bush administration.
Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon, who is to arrive in Washington Sunday, will meet with Burns to discuss the Iranian issue.
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz is also to meet with American officials this week in Washington on the Iranian issue, particularly with Under Secretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey, who is responsible for formulating new sanctions against Iran.
Senior U.S. administration officials told the New York Times over the weekend they had little expectation of success from talks with Iran.
The French Foreign Ministry said the Iranian document did not constitute a response to the proposal to open talks on its nuclear program.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, however, called the document a step forward and rejected the possibility of further sanctions against Iran.
Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared his opposition Friday to an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Speaking to a group of 50 American scholars, community leaders and other civilians at the Pentagon, Gates said the best response to Iranian attempts to attain nuclear weapons was dialogue.
"There's a lot of talk about a military effort to take out their nuclear capabilities, but, in my view, it would only be a temporary solution.
You could buy one to three years by doing that, but they would simply go deeper and more covert, and it would unify the country and their commitment,"
Gates told the group, which was preparing for a tour of U.S. military facilities in South and Central America.
Gates also told his guests that the Iranian nuclear issue is one of the greatest problems the world has faced in years, and it could touch off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. He said the only long-term solution is to persuade the Iranian regime that "their long-term security interests are diminished by having nuclear weapons, rather than enhanced." _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
В минувшие выходные гостем программы "Израиль за неделю" (телеканал RTVi) был депутат Кнессета профессор Арье Эльдад ("Ихуд Леуми" – "Национальное единство").
Редакция RTVi любезно предоставила нашему сайту запись этого диалога.
Беседовал Михаил Джагинов.
Пожалуй, главным вопросом политической повестки дня в Израиле является нынче судьба жилищного строительства в поселениях. Насколько я понимаю, речь идет о том, чтобы приостановить этот процесс приблизительно на полгода – восемь месяцев. Вы и ваши соратники на это категорически не согласны. Почему?
Лучше всего ответил на этот вопрос сам Нетаниягу. Еще недавно он говорил президенту Обаме: "Законсервировать строительство невозможно: люди вступают в брак, рождаются дети, а, значит, нужны, по крайней мере, новые квартиры и детские сады. А как быть с синагогами и миквами? Без них тоже не обойтись. Отсутствие всего этого равнозначно смертному приговору". А теперь премьер-министр сам подписывает смертный приговор поселениям. Возможно, через год арабы опять сделают какую-то глупость и тогда Нетаниягу смилуется. Но однажды объявив человека преступником и приговорив его к смерти, вы обрекаете его даже в том случае, если в итоге приговор будет отменен. Готовность премьер-министра Израиля, представляющего правый политический лагерь, плясать под дудку американцев и соглашаться с тем, что есть-де в Эрец Исраэль места, где евреям запрещено строить дома, является шагом в направлении делигитимации поселенчества. Сегодня не дают строить, завтра – запретят жить. Нетаниягу фактически сделал и то, и другое: сначала он согласился на создание палестинского государства, чему он всеми силами противился до своего выступления в Бар-Иланском университете, а теперь он поддался диктату американцев и замораживает строительство в поселениях. Даже если в конечном итоге он этого и не сделает, сказанного уже не вернешь.
Вы правы: Нетаниягу выразил готовность на создание палестинского государства, но обставил это таким количеством невыполнимых для противоположной стороны условий, что это едва ли когда-нибудь произойдет.
Да, он сказал: государство, но только демилитаризованное. Без армии, танков и самолетов. Но так не бывает. Нет в мире государства, добровольно отказывающегося от армии. Позволить себе такое может разве что крошечная и благополучная европейская страна, полностью доверяющая своим соседям, как, скажем, Люксембург или Андорра. Эта мысль долгое время не давала мне покоя, и в итоге я вспомнил: история уже знала одно демилитаризованное государство – таковой по Версальскому договору в период между двумя мировыми войнами должна была быть Германия. Немцам запретили заключать союз с Австрией, производить танки и самолеты. Но прошло всего два года, и они подписали в Италии договор с Россией, которая построила для Германии заводы по производству вооружений и начала готовить ее армию к новой войне. Таким образом, всего за пару лет запрет на наличие военной силы стал фикцией. Нетаниягу прекрасно понимает: даже если государство появится без армии, долго это не продлится. Палестинцы непременно построят завод по производству канализационных труб, которые со временем превратятся в ракеты, но объявлять им за это войну никто не станет. Своим решением Нетаниягу нанес непоправимый ущерб правой идеологии, дав миру понять, что принципиального несогласия на создание палестинского государства больше нет. Как сказал Бернард Шоу, теперь осталось только обсудить цену.
Признаюсь вам честно, что, говоря о невыполнимых для палестинцев условиях, я имел в виду не отсутствие армии, а официальное признание ими Израиля еврейским государством. Если верить заявлениям палестинских лидеров, это то, на что они никогда не согласятся.
Это правда. Если бы я был стопроцентно уверен, что от этого требования Нетаниягу не откажется ни при каких условиях, вопрос был бы исчерпан. Но он уже неоднократно демонстрировал свою неспособность противостоять давлению. Вспомните: осознавая всю пагубность размежевания, он, тем не менее, в итоге, испугавшись мести Шарона, проголосовал за. Страх перед Обамой заставит его отступить и на этот раз. Предав принципы, уже не так тяжело отказаться и от выставленных условий. Поэтому поведение Нетаниягу внушает мне куда больше опасений, чем поведение Ципи Ливни. Будь Нетаниягу в оппозиции, создание палестинского государства так и осталось бы на бумаге. Но в ранге главы правительства он в силах сделать то, чего не могут левые.
В начале недели в посетили Маале-Адумим, где приняли участие в закладке нового жилого района E-1, фактически соединяющего этот город с Иерусалимом. Известно, что этот проект неприемлем не только для палестинцев, но и для американцев. Почему вы так настаиваете на его реализации?
Если вы хорошо представляете себе карту этого района, вы наверняка понимаете всю его стратегическую важность. Если мы сможем настоять на строительстве там 20-30 тысяч единиц жилья, то от палестинского государства останется один пшик. Если же арабам полностью удастся заселить территорию от Хеврона через Вифлеем до деревни Азария и отсечь от Израиля северные районы Иерусалима, то фактически это будет означать расчленение Эрец Исраэль. Мы пытаемся этого не допустить, помешав палестинскому северу соединиться с югом. И в Рамалле, и в Вашингтоне это прекрасно понимают и потому всячески препятствуют. В ходе недавних коалиционных переговоров "Национальное единство" выдвинуло лишь одно условие свое вхождения в правительство: реализация строительного проекта E-1. Нетаниягу тогда пообещал нам, что пойдет на это. Но в итоге он отказался от своих слов, как это с ним уже не раз бывало.
Таким образом, можно заключить, что во всем, что касается внешней и оборонной политики, ваша партия не удовлетворена деятельностью правительства Нетаниягу?
Не удовлетворена – это еще мягко сказано. Мы призываем истинных патриотов Израиля в рядах "Ликуда" сместить Нетаниягу и заменить его другим лидером – тем, кто будет держаться данного слова. Придя к власти на волне обещаний не поступаться территорией Эрец Исраэль, продолжить строительство в поселениях и не делить Иерусалим, он раз за разом отрекается от них, фактически перейдя на позиции "Кадимы". Не скажу, что мы удивлены подобным поведением. Нет. Мы лишь надеялись, что присутствие "Национального единства" в правительстве не позволит ему плясать под дудку американцев. Возможно, уже в ходе коалиционных переговоров Нетаниягу понимал, что в какой-то момент ему придется взять левый курс, а потому предпочел нам Партию труда.
А кем вы предлагаете заменить Нетаниягу?
В "Ликуде" есть несколько политиков, способных взвалить на себя эту ношу. Это Моше Яалон, Бени Бегин, Гидеон Саар. Все они способны сплотить вокруг себя партию, не прибегая к смене правительства и досрочным выборам. К тому же все трое, в отличие от Нетаниягу, умеют держать удар.
Поговорим о другом. По мнению большинства политологов, в современную эпоху любому государству, претендующему на влияние в мире, важно не только быть мощным и богаты, но и грамотно выстраивать свой имидж в СМИ. Иными словами, умело вести информационную политику. Насколько справляется с этой задачей Израиль?
Мы делаем в этом плане преступно мало, выделяя на информационную политику меньше денег, чем "Кока-Кола" не рекламу своей продукции в Израиле. А это верный признак того, что мы не осознаем всей важности этого вопроса. Выезжая за рубеж, депутаты Кнессета часто по собственной инициативе берут на себя миссию по разъяснению государственной политики, выступая в университетских аудиториях. Мы теряем молодое поколение Запада, уступая влияние на его умы не жалеющим на этот денег арабам. В вузах США и Европы одна за другой появляются кафедры истории Ближнего Востока и ислама, общественное мнение неуклонно науськивается против Израиля. А мы этого словно не замечаем. В создание официальных информационных порталов вкладывается меньше средств, чем средняя западная компания инвестирует в создание своего сайта. Все ограничивается предоставлением практической информации о том, куда звонить в экстренных случаях и где получить ту или иную справку. А ведь интернет это то самое средство, которое позволяет реально противостоять враждебности большинства западных СМИ. Пусть СNN не любит Израиль, на ВВС окопались антисемиты, а New York Times если и любит евреев, то исключительно левых и американских. Мы не используем всемирную паутину для того, чтобы довести до мира свою правду в обход этих гигантов. Стоит ли после этого удивляться, что в Европе одни с удовольствием стряпают, а другие как ни в чем не бывало проглатывают бредни об израильтянах, потрошащих палестинцев на органы. А мы делаем вид, будто всего этого нет, и упрямо дудим в свою дуду. Единственное на что мы способны, так это воскликнуть, какие шведы негодяи. Но противопоставить этому грамотный контр-пиар мы не удосуживаемся.
Вы состоите в парламентской комиссии по иностранным делам и обороне. Может, вы прольете свет на обстоятельства молниеносного визита Биньямина Нетаниягу в Москву?
Мне неудобно в этом признаваться, но нас не поставили в известность об этой поездке – комиссия не собиралась для обсуждения визита. Я не исключаю, что его подробности могли сообщить членам подкомиссий, где степень допуска значительно выше, в связи с чем оттуда не бывает утечек. Так что если бы я и знал хоть что-то по данному вопросу, то все равно не мог бы поделиться информацией с вами. Но, увы, я просто не в курсе.
А если поразмышлять вслух и попытаться предположить, что могло заставить премьера бросить все текущие дела и буквально рвануть в Москву. Некоторые наблюдатели уверены, что только одно: сверхважная и сверхсекретная информация, связанная с иранской ядерной программой. Возможно, Израиль планирует перейти к более решительным действиям в этом направлении, и Нетаниягу счел важным поставить об этом в известность российское руководство? Дай-то Б-г. Я был бы счастлив проснуться в один прекрасный день и узнать, что Нетаниягу нашел в себе силы сделать этот шаг. Израиль обязан нанести удар по ядерным объектам Ирана. Во-первых, за нас этого никто не сделает. А во-вторых, если не уничтожить заводы по обогащению урана сейчас, то позднее это может привести к экологической катастрофе, жертвами которой станут десятки тысяч людей. Мы не вправе позволить себе подобное. Мне приходилось слышать предположение, будто Нетаниягу принял решение разбомбить иранские реакторы и счел необходимым поделиться этим с Путиным. По-моему, это слишком красивая история, чтобы быть правдой.
Вы допускаете, что ядерный проект Ирана можно уничтожить с помощью авиаудара? Но ведь в отличие от операции "Тамуз", произведенной Израилем в 1981 году в Ираке, в данном случае речь идет не об одном, а о десятках объектов, да к тому же упрятанных глубоко под землю.
Можно нанести этому проекту значительный ущерб и отбросить его на многие годы назад. Действительно, здесь все намного сложнее, чем в Ираке, где, разрушив всего один объект, мы полностью уничтожили ядерную программу в целом. Здесь есть не только центрифуги в Натанзе, но и реакторы в Араке, Бушере и других местах. Но тем не менее, и в данном случае нет ничего невозможного: ударить следует не только по названным объектам, но и по инфраструктуре, источникам воды и электроэнергии. Но надо торопиться, поскольку через год или два в распоряжении иранцев может оказаться такое количество ядерного топлива, что миссия рискует оказаться невыполнимой. По мнению специалистов, сегодня Израиль в состоянии помешать появлению у Ирана ядерной бомбы, причем в силах сделать это самостоятельно, не прибегая к посторонней помощи.
Вернусь к визиту премьера в Москву. Мог ли стать поводом к нему инцидент с российским сухогрузом Arctic Sea?
Не исключаю и этого. Как знать, может, где-то неподалеку случайно нашлись ракеты с надписями по-русски, и Нетаниягу счел за благо без лишнего шума вернуть их Путину. История звучит как вполне фантастическая, но если захват этой лодки, приписываемый нашим спецслужбам, правда, то их действия заслуживают всяческих похвал. В этом случае лидерам двух стран было о чем поговорить.
Что вам опять же как члену комиссии Кнессета по иностранным делам и обороне известно о судьбе Гилада Шалита и ходе переговоров о его освобождении?
Вот уже второй раз вы спрашиваете меня, что мне известно как члену комиссии. Я не предаю гласности информацию, полученную на этих заседаниях. Таковы правила.
Принято. Но, возможно, есть что-то новое, что вы вправе сообщить публике?
Ничего такого, чего нет в открытой прессе. Очень немногие люди в нашей стране владеют информацией, которая не попадает в СМИ. Условия сделки известны: в обмен на Шалита ХАМАС требует освобождения от девятисот до тысячи террористов. Четыреста пятьдесят из них требуют выпустить до передачи Гилада Израилю и примерно столько же после. Я не располагаю полным списком имен, но точно знаю, что среди них есть множество опаснейших террористов-убийц. Именно это обстоятельство не позволило Ольмерту осуществить сделку. Есть ощущение, что в аналогичной ситуации оказался и Нетаниягу. И, насколько я понимаю, ХАМАС не собирается снижать планку своих требований. Вроде бы, Израиль принципиально готов к сделке, однако настаивает на сокращении числа фамилий в списке амнистируемых. Кроме того, не ясна их дальнейшая судьба: кто будет выслан на палестинские территории и сможет оттуда снова угрожать нашей безопасности, а кого отправят в Норвегию, Швецию или куда-нибудь еще. Важен не столько поименный список, сколько принцип, которым мы в данном случае руководствуемся: уместно ли выпускать на свободу столько убийц в обмен на одного солдата. Ведь практика показывает, что немалая их часть вновь берется за старое, а это означает, что мы осознанно обрекаем часть наших сограждан на верную гибель.
Существуют ли твердые доказательства того, что Шалит жив?
Мы в этом убеждены. Более того, его физическое состояние вроде бы не внушает особых опасений, чего отнюдь не скажешь о состоянии моральном. Оно как раз чудовищно. Шалит жив, но его жизнь в опасности. Будь все иначе, можно было бы послать ХАМАС на все четыре стороны. В отличие от сделки с "Хизбаллой", когда специалистам было очевидно, что оба наших военнослужащих погибли. Однако общество испытывало сомнения, на которых удачно сыграл Насралла. В итоге этот ужасный обмен состоялся. В данном случае дилемма куда сложнее, ибо Гилад жив. Но я убежден, что, кроме освобождения террористов, существуют и иные решения проблемы. Их можно было реализовать сразу после похищения, но не поздно и сегодня. Например, выставить ХАМАСу ультиматум: или вы выпускаете Шалита, или мы начинаем по одному отстреливать ваших террористов, независимо от их статуса. Возможно, тогда они бы поняли, что пленение нашего солдата приносит им больше ущерба, нежели пользы.
Мой последний вопрос не из приятных, но без него не обойтись. Крайне правый фланг израильского политического поля становится с годами все меньше при том, что правая идеология в целом пользуется большей популярностью, нежели левая. У вас есть этому объяснение?
Вопрос крайне непростой. Ведь что такой правый или крайне правый фланг? Принято считать, что последние выборы остались за правыми. Выходит, все не так плохо? Вместе с тем, налицо процесс распада одних и возникновения других партий, и лучший пример тому "Наш дом Израиль". На практике случилось так, что голоса, отданные правым, оказались распылены по самым разным партиям. Теперь о том, что случилось с "Национальным единством". За последние годы мы пережили несколько внутренних раздоров и расколов. Не даром считается, что ядерную физику придумали евреи: мы всегда хороши там, где нужно что-то поделить на мелкие фрагменты, атомы. Выходит, мы идем по пути Эйнштейна, дробя твердое ядро правой идеологии на малые осколки. Но, как известно, в процессе деления высвобождается огромное количество энергии. Поэтому я надеюсь, что в процессе деления правые партии произвели достаточное количество энергии, чтобы вывести израильское общество из спячки. Пока же наше влияние на текущие политические процессы стремится к нулю. "Национальное единство" еще не сумело найти своего места в нынешнем Кнессете. Увы и ах. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
"...Израиль обязан нанести удар по ядерным объектам Ирана. Во-первых, за нас этого никто не сделает. А во-вторых, если не уничтожить заводы по обогащению урана сейчас, то позднее это может привести к экологической катастрофе, жертвами которой станут десятки тысяч людей. Мы не вправе позволить себе подобное. Мне приходилось слышать предположение, будто Нетаниягу принял решение разбомбить иранские реакторы и счел необходимым поделиться этим с Путиным. По-моему, это слишком красивая история, чтобы быть правдой...
Крутые депутаты, я смотрю, там в Кнессете заседают!
Открыто призывают к нападению на другую страну, к массированному ракетно-бомбовому удару по её промышленным объектам.
Весь мир спит и видит, как бы по-ловчее и по-быстрее разбомбить ядерные объекты Ирана. Но никто кроме нас этого не сделает. Тоесть, типа, мы в авангарде, в авангарде всего прогрессивного человечества, весь мир смотрит на нас.
И всё это - разумеется во имя людей. Ведь если эти реакторы не разбомбить сегодня - завтра может случиться экологическая катастрофа, десятки тысяч людей погибнут. Поэтому мы лучше сейчас немножко их поубиваем, бомбами да ракетами на этих объектах, тем более что они сами виноваты.
Прекрасно знают что что эти объекты - легитимная военная цель для Израиля. Знают - и продолжают работать! Значит - сами того хотели, чтобы их того.... А потом иранцы нам спасибо скажут, ведь мы спасли десятки тысяч их жизней предотвратив экологическую катастрофу!
...Действительно, здесь все намного сложнее, чем в Ираке, где, разрушив всего один объект, мы полностью уничтожили ядерную программу в целом. Здесь есть не только центрифуги в Натанзе, но и реакторы в Араке, Бушере и других местах. Но тем не менее, и в данном случае нет ничего невозможного: ударить следует не только по названным объектам, но и по инфраструктуре, источникам воды и электроэнергии...
Ну а чтоб надёжно, на годы оградить иранский народ от экологической катастрофы, надо уничтожить не только сами эти объекты, но и инфраструктуру экономики, источники воды и электроэнергии....Во как! _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14912050/ President Ahmadinejad: The transcript
Brian Williams sits down with Iran's president for an exclusive interview updated 2:35 p.m. ET Sept. 20, 2006
NEW YORK - On Sept. 19 in New York, Brian Williams sat down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for an exclusive interview. The conversation was conducted via a translator. This transcript has been cleaned up for readability.
Brian Williams: Mr. President, thank you so much. I was interested. You wanted to be able to gesture with your hands while you spoke. What else should Americans know about you as a person, sir?
Ahmadinejad: About me? I'm an individual amongst the many of the Iranian people.
Williams: You are traveling with your wife on this trip.
Ahmadinejad: Yes.
Williams: May we know anything about her?
Ahmadinejad: She is an Iranian woman. And just as I am an Iranian too.
Williams: All right.
Ahmadinejad: And she is my friend and my companion. And I am her companion.
Williams: Mr. President, you're here as a guest of the United Nations. Under the protection of the United States. What is your message to the American people?
Ahmadinejad: I have talked about this in the past. In the letter I sent to Mr. Bush, I also addressed the American people. We think that the American people are like our people. They're good people. They support peace, equality and brotherhood. They like to see the world in peace. We think that, together, nations can uphold the peace and justice around the world.
Williams: On that point, sir, you've expressed a desire to perhaps tour and see more of the United States. Do you think that day could ever come?
Ahmadinejad: It might.
Williams: Where would you like to go?
Ahmadinejad: I don't really know that if I am here it's possible to see different parts of America. Right now the time pressures are immense, and I, there's really no time.
Williams: Is there any city or attraction you've...
Ahmadinejad: No. It's the entire country... American people are good people.
Williams: The president of the United States, speaking to the United Nations today, said to the people of Iran, "The United States respects you." But he said, "Your government is using resources to fund terrorists. And pursue nuclear weapons." He said he looks forward to the day when America and Iran can be good friends. And close partners in the cause of peace. How do you react to the statement of the American president today?
Ahmadinejad: We have the same desire, to be together for the cause of world peace. But we have to — see what the impediments are. Is it Iranian forces that have occupied countries neighboring the United States, or is it American forces that are occupying countries neighboring Iran? If Mr. Bush is saying that he can (unintelligible) the distance between the Iranian nation and the Iranian government, he is wrong. I am a normal person. A very average, regular person in Iran. The nation decided that I become the head of the state. The nation and the government are one and single. And together, we share everything. But we too like to rise at a point where we can pursue the cause of world peace. But we have to remove the barrier. That's where the question lies.
Williams: And that is where the United States president would say, "Halt this uranium enrichment."
Ahmadinejad: I question the world peace. Is it peace by those who produce a third generation of nuclear bombs? Or those who seek peaceful nuclear technology for their power plants? We think that people who produce bombs can — the atomic bomb cannot, in fact, speak of supporting world peace. We all know that Iran's nuclear issue is an excuse. It's been 27 years now that we've faced the hostility of the U.S. administration in various forms. Let me tell you something: Before the revolution, the government in Iran was dependent on the United States. The U.S. administration (unintelligible) to say. We, the individual, was a dictator in the complete sense of the word. He suppressed people. He used guns to put down people's demonstrations. I was a student at the time. Many of my friends were imprisoned. Because of reading books. Because of expressing their opinions about social affairs. We produced 6 million barrels of oil then. Only 600,000 of which was used domestically. The rest was exported. But our country was poor. The urban areas as well as villages were in ruin. There was really no help. The cities were in poor condition. But the prisons were growing. And that's when our nation rose. To speak freedom. To seek free elections. And to have the right over its own fate.
It expected that the U.S. administration, who claims to support freedom and democracy, to support it. To support it. Or at least to remain silent. But from the day one, the U.S. government has been against our nation. Only one case, if I were to decide, was the support it gave to Saddam Hussein during the eight year war against Iran. Do you know what happened during that war? Over 200,000 Iranian people, young men, died. Hundreds of thousands more were injured. At the same time, we were able to protect our country. But the US government supported Saddam. Nonetheless, our nation was interested in having friendly relations with everyone. We were never an aggressor on any other nation's rights. And we never repressed the rights of anyone. There was a terrorist group inside Iran that, in fact, assassinated many of our authorities and officials. The president, the prime minister, the ministers. The head of the supreme court. Many members of parliament. Regular people. And America supported this group. The question is, why? We thought we might be able to have friendly relations with the United States. But the American government chose the wrong path. And a path which is still continuing.
Williams: You say you have never repressed the rights of anyone-- and you speak of the days when people were jailed for expressing opinions. Yet, during your authority, 100 newspapers have been closed --web loggers have been shut down. Western culture and music have been stopped from entering Iran. Arguably that is not freedom of expression.
Ahmadinejad: You need to separate work that is taken legally and one that is taken illegally. You must also see that thousands of newspapers have been opened. Thousands of new opportunities are created. In our country, the law matters and will — a law approved by a representative of the people. About three months ago, a newspaper associated with the government violated the law and was shut down. Although, it was the only really podium for our government, for the government's position. But it violated the law. So everybody is treated equally before the law. Do you truly believe that using American music is a sign of freedom?
Williams: I don't like all American music. But why not allow your people the same choice?
Ahmadinejad: But the problem of our people is not what you think it is. And this is the same mistake that the American government makes about Iran. I prefer really not going after the kind of things that you think may matter. Our people are very free. They have a direct — contact with the president. Regular people, everyone. They talk. And-they debate. And the president is among them. Everybody is together. And they decide together. Of course there are, you know, differences of taste and everywhere. We don't want people to be robots. Or to have a (unintelligible) with beyond which they can't move.
Williams: But I think even our president expressed today America's quarrel is not with the Iranian people. It's with you.
Ahmadinejad: The war, who was it against? The Iranian government or the Iranian people? Against the Iranian nation. When (unintelligible) son was occupied was it an act against the Iranian government or the Iranian nation? The bombardment of our cities by Saddam, was that an act against the government or the people? Who supported Saddam? Were these truly acts against the Iranian government? Iran has been under sanctions for 27 years. Even spare parts for aircrafts are denied to us. Is this against the government or an act against the people? Again, I'm saying, in Iran, the government and the nation are one. And I am the representative of the Iranian people. Certainly not as a judge, but as an elected official.
Williams: If your goal is dialogue with America, and the American president says, "It's OK, keep your nuclear programs and keep your homes warm. Stop enriching uranium toward weapons." How do you react?
Ahmadinejad: Who is the right judge for that? Any entity except the IAEA? Reports indicate that Iran has had no deviation. We have said on numerous occasions that our activities are for peaceful purposes. The agency's cameras videotape all the activities that we have. So I ask, did Iran build the atomic bomb and use it? Who are the ones who are testing the third generation of nuclear bombs? All bombs with micro-agents or chemical agents. You must know that, because of our beliefs and our religion, we're against such acts. We are against the atomic bomb. We believe bombs are used only to kill people. And we are against killing people.
Williams: You have large missiles with a long range. Why keep them in your arsenal if you don't someday hope to tip them with a nuclear weapon?
Ahmadinejad: So are you thinking of the possibility of a danger? Is that what you're speaking of?
Williams: I'm asking about your arsenal.
Ahmadinejad: Yes, we are powerful and strong in defending ourselves. But, again, I ask, who has the nuclear bomb and has used it before? Which one is a bigger danger? One that's trying to develop a fuel for peaceful purposes? Or the one that made a nuclear weapon? That's where my main point is. We think that the world should run with justice. Some governments cannot pursue an arsenal of nuclear weapons, but then prevent others from developing fuel for peaceful purposes thinking that there might be a future threat. And that's preventing them from developing the facilities that they need for peaceful nuclear development. We think that the nuclear issue is an excuse, just like previous excuses. We think that the American government is against development of Iran. Not a nuclear weapon, per se. Because, after all, there are other governments in our region that have nuclear weapons. But they're supported by the American government. So how do you respond to this contradiction?
Williams: I am not an employee of the state, of course.
Ahmadinejad: I'm not speaking of you, sir. I understand. For Bush.
Williams: Perhaps because we will not, in this conversation, reach a nuclear agreement. Let me ask you about the pope. What was your reaction to the pope's speech? And do you accept his apology?
Ahmadinejad: I talked about this yesterday. I think that the people who give political advice to the pope were not well informed. Because when we look at history, just look at the 20th century, for example. And the wars waged in that country. Over 100 million people were killed. Hundreds of million more were displaced. Who created those wars? Those who were killed exceed the number than than the individuals who were killed in previous centuries combined. Where does the first and second world wars occur? Who started it? Where did the Muslims start a war? Of course, we certainly believe that those who wage war are neither Muslim or Christian. Nor Jew. They really don't believe in any religion. Because all religion report peace and brotherhood. All support justice. I think if the pope had had a little more thorough historical examination of events, he would not have made those remarks. History is before our eyes. A hundred million dead just in the 20th century alone. By whom? Right now the wars that are around us in the world, who's behind them? Did you know, by any chance, that over 100 -- over a period of 110 years — the U.S. government went into 111 wars? Who were these people? Muslims? Christians? Jews? No, certainly not. I believe that these people don't believe in religion at all. Those who want to solve problems with war do not believe in the sayings of the prophet. Because the prophet, were to speak, for peace and justice.
Williams: Do you believe the pope is a decent man? And do you accept his words of apology?
Ahmadinejad: I think that he actually takes back his statement. And there is no problem. He should be careful that those who want war do not take advantage of his statements and use it for their own causes People in important positions should be careful about what they say. What he said may give an excuse to another group to start a war. Where the religion should support peace and brotherhood. Christ was a prophet for peace, as was Moses. And as was the prophet Muhammad.
Williams: Mr. President, this is not a matter of great concern, this next question, but we have gotten used to seeing you in the tan jacket with the zipper. Today, you are dressed differently. Is that jacket a symbol of your standing or upbringing in Iran?
Ahmadinejad: No. It depends on which one I'm more comfortable wearing. And it of course depends on my colleagues and friends, too. I knew that you were going to wear a suit, so I decided to wear this jacket.
Williams: Excellent. You are on the cover of Time magazine here in the United States and around the world. Inside, it says, "A Date with a Dangerous Mind." Why do you think they think you have a dangerous mind? Do you?
Ahmadinejad: You should hear what I have to say, and then be the judge of that. I think that if people have a hard time accepting the logic and fact, they should not actually accuse others. The picture is an attempt to darken my face a lot. I think it actually shows me much younger than what I am. The first page, the cover.
Williams: Oh, the cover?
Ahmadinejad: This one? The cover page. Oh, it's really…
Williams: You approve?
Ahmadinejad: …questionable. It's darkened me. And also much — it looks much younger than what I am.
Williams: The question on the cover is what war with Iran would look like. How do you think the discussion has been allowed to get that far, that we're discussing possible war between the U.S. and Iran?
Ahmadinejad: I think we need to ask this question from American — U.S. — politician. But please, let's accept that these questions are raised by only a group of politicians here. But do you really think that the document, the passage shows on this select group of 60 and their goal? I think they're very wrong in what they're doing. They're not moving forward with the developments around the world. The world has changed. Nations have — are awakened now. They want their rights. Equal rights. And fair one. The time for world empires has ended. The U.S. government thinks that it's still the period after World War II. That when they came out as a victor. And enjoyed special rights. And can rule therefore, over the rest of the world. I explicitly say that I am against the policies chosen by the U.S. government to run the world. Because these policies are moving the world towards war. I think that we need to resort to logic, not war. Why should we speak of war? What has happened? What's happened is that the Iranian nation wants to stand on it's feet. It doesn't want to be dependent. It wants to have it's own technology. It wants to develop. Why the U.S. government so against our people? They speak of war so easily, as if it's on their daily agenda. We never speak of war.
Williams: Because…
Ahmadinejad: We speak of peace, equality, rationality.
Williams: The fear of our President is that a nuclear weapon is on Iran's agenda.
Ahmadinejad: I've said before, he's not afraid of a nuclear weapon. There already is nuclear weapon in our region, held by groups, supported by the U.S. government. Is there discrimination here? Are we having a selective approach? We don't need weapons at all. We're strong enough to defend ourselves. And we support peace. And we support equality. We do not want to rule over other people's land. When repeated IAA reports indicate that there has been no deviation in Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology, then why should the U.S. government be so fearful? We think that the world is afraid of the policies being pursued by the U.S. government. Because they won't accept any at all. They're not a party to the MPT either. Why not? Well, why don't they sign the MPT? Why don't they destroy the nuclear arsenal they have? And then the world will be free. We abide by the regulations of the MPT. And we must remain transparent with our people and honest with our people.
Williams: There is something you said that upset and scared a lot of people. It upset a lot of Jews in the United States and around the world when you called the Holocaust a myth. There are people, some people I know who escaped Hitler's reign. There is research. There are scholars who can teach you about it. And yet, you've expressed doubt about the Holocaust. Why?
Ahmadinejad: I've answered three of your questions on this. You know that I belong to the university. I'm an academician by nature. I'm interested in having a scientific approach to all events. But we've chosen three questions. The first question was: In the first World War, over 60 — In the second World War, over 60 million people lost their lives. They were all human beings. Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed have become so prominent and important?
Williams: Because of the difference humankind draws between warfare and genocide.
Ahmadinejad: Do you think that the 60 million who lost their lives were all at the result of warfare alone? There were two million that were part of the military at the time, perhaps altogether, 50 million civilians with no roles in the war — Christians, Muslims. They were all killed. The second and more important question that I raised was, if this event happened, and if it is a historical event, then we should allow everyone to research it and study it. The more research and studies are done, the more we can become aware of the realities that happened. We still leave open to further studies absolute knowledge of science or math. Historical events are always subject to revisions, and reviews and studies. We're still revising our thoughts about what happened over thousands of years ago. Why is it that those who ask questions are persecuted? Why is every word so sensitivity or such prohibition on further studies on the subject? Where as we can openly question God, the prophet, concepts such as freedom and democracy? And the third question that I raised in this regard: if this happened, where did it happen? Did the Palestinian people have anything to do with it? Why should the Palestinians pay for it now? Five million displaced Palestinian people is what I'm talking about. Over 60 years of living under threat. Losing the lives of thousands of dear ones. And homes that are destroyed on a daily basis over people's heads. You might argue that the Jews have the right to have a government. We're not against that. But where? At a place where their people were — several people will vote for them, and where they can govern.
Williams: Yes, but…
Ahmadinejad: Not at the cost of displacing a whole nation. And occupying the whole territory.
Williams: Is that a change in your position that Israel should be wiped away? And second, would you ever be willing to sit down with Jews, with scholars, with survivors of Hitler's camps where six million died? Our American film director Stephen Spielberg is one of many collecting the stories of those still alive, who will tell you of the dead, and the program to kill the Jews in Germany and elsewhere.
Ahmadinejad: I feel as there is a feeling a feeling of a need to get the truth here. Among American politicians as well as some media here. The main question is if this happened in Europe, what is the fault of the Palestinian people? This is a problem we have today, the root cause of many of our problems, not what happened 60 years ago. The Palestinian people are — their lives are being destroyed today. There's a pretext of the Holocaust. Lands have been occupied, usurped. What is their fault? What are they to be blamed for? Are they not human beings? Do they have no rights? What role did they play in the Holocaust? Some attempt to sort of change the subject. From the first day I said, "Well, assuming that the Holocaust happened..." Then again, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people? Not at all. Nothing. Believe me, Palestinian people are human beings. They have feelings. They like to live in their own land, to have the right to self determination, to feel secure in their homes. So that small kids are not killed. So that women are not taken from their own homes, taken from their own home. What is the future of such measures?
Williams: If I was President Bush, sitting here across from you, what would you say to him? President to President, but more important, man to man?
Ahmadinejad: It would be really good if you were, actually here, instead of, I mean, replacing Mr. Bush. I think that the situation would have been better here, if you were Mr. Bush. I sent him a letter.
Williams: I'm aware of it.
Ahmadinejad: I raised some very serious issues. I really expressed my thoughts and beliefs. You know that I am teacher. I am interested in talks and in dialogue. I like to understand the truth. Facts. And in that letter, I raised very important subject. I invited him to peace, brotherhood and friendship. But we did not receive an answer. Do you think that I should say anything besides the things that I mentioned there? I, as man to another man, I would say, "We can truly love people. Human beings, all of them. Not a particular party, group or faction alone. Not a special investor or shareholder alone. Everyone. Believe me, children in Africa are human beings, too. They like to have peace, live in peace and live in comfort. They love their parents. And their parents love their children, wherever they live. But they see their children's lives being destroyed in front of their eyes. Because of poverty. While they live on wealth — their lands are very wealthy and resourceful.
Williams: And you talk about children. You and I are both fathers. Recently in your country, thousands of people have signed up to be part of suicide brigades. How would you feel if your own children chose to do such a thing?
Ahmadinejad: Well, what is your feeling about that? Think if America is attacked. What would you like your son to do? Do you want him to defend America or not? I think you would like your son to defend America. It's the same with our son. When you don't have arms, when you don't have power, what can you do? You will sacrifice yourself for your country. It's not a bad thing. Although we are against war. We hate it. The war was imposed on the Middle East. Just look at the scene. About 10,000 kilometers, you look around us. There are hundreds of forces and troops, hundreds of thousands of troops around us. Under the pretext of freedom and democracy. They don't value the people of the region. The people of the region know how to run their own affairs. It's regretful. This coming from a group that supported Saddam for eight years. Saddam was the biggest dictator in our region. Even today, they support countries that have had no elections whatsoever. But still they speak of creating democracy through war. Especially coming from outside. It's impossible to achieve.
Williams: Isn't the world a safer place without Saddam?
Ahmadinejad: It could have been. If you look at Iraq today, everybody was happy was Saddam was overthrown. People thought that the occupying forces would hand over the affairs of the country immediately to the people — at least as soon as possible. Not only did they not leave, but they also said that they plan to stay. They are building huge military bases, to stay. Since the overthrow of Saddam to this day, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed there. We think that this goes against the very rules of security. You know, we're very close with the people in Iraq. Many of our people are families and extended relatives. There have been a lot of inter-marriages. There's the deep relationship on an emotional level between our people and theirs. Even Saddam's war against Iran did nothing to damage these old ties. Because we've lived together for thousands of years. The entire Iranian nation sympathizes with every Iraqi individual that suffers as a result of the occupation. Whereas we know that according to international law, creating safety and security is the responsibility of the occupying force. Iraqi authorities say that many of the tensions and the insecurity in the country is as a result of the occupation and occupying forces. Why should this be the case? It could have been much better. Saddam's removal could have been a very good beginning for the American government. To strengthen it's friendship ties with the nations of the region. Everybody was happy in the beginning. But today, the conditions in the region have changed. Anti-American sentiment, hatred towards the American government has increased on a daily basis. Why is this the case?
Williams: Hence...
Ahmadinejad: It could have been different.
Williams: Hence...
Ahmadinejad: We are not happy with what we see there.
Williams: Some of the fighters are trained and funded by your country, shooting at the American soldiers.
Ahmadinejad: This is the claim the U.S. government makes. But there's no evidence. Security in Iraq has the worst impact on Iran. Because we're neighbors. We have very close ties with Iraqi government and Iraqi people. We like to see a powerful Iraqi government. A powerful and secure government in Iraq will benefit Iran. And will benefit the entire region. Because the government, the parliament, the people of Iraq all have close relations with our nation. They're our friends.
Williams: And yet, I have stood on the helmets of Iranian soldiers, which are now used as pavement on Saddam's old parade grounds. I think that also speaks to the bitterness on and off, over the years between the two nations.
Ahmadinejad: Undoubtedly, Saddam hated us. But not the Iraqi people. Millions of people from Iran travel to Iraq on a yearly basis. Kurd, Sunni and Shias were all friends. The Iraqi president is an old friend of mine. The head of the state, the prime minister, is a very close friend of mine, too. And the head of their parliament, the parliament speaker, is a good friend of mine, too. So, we're friends.
Вы не можете начинать темы Вы не можете отвечать на сообщения Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения Вы не можете удалять свои сообщения Вы не можете голосовать в опросах
FAQ
Поиск
Пользователи
Группы
Регистрация
Профиль
Войти и проверить личные сообщения
Вход
"Кто с мечом к нам придет, от меча и погибнет!" - 
