A Rare Chat With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mike Wallace Looks Back At His Interview With Iran's Controversial Leader

(CBS)  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran gives few interviews to Western journalists, but met with 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace last August at his palace in Tehran. So we were able to give Americans a close-up look at this important Islamic leader who is outspoken, crafty and, as you will see, a challenging interview.

Ahmadinejad regularly manages to keep himself in the news headlines. He has created a stir with his frequent anti-Israel pronouncements. And beyond that, he has kept President Bush, among others, on edge as he continues to enrich uranium, he says, for the development of nuclear energy. But others believe that what he’s really after is a nuclear bomb. And the U.S. has not ruled out military action, if necessary, to prevent that.

---

"President Bush has said, vowed, he will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," Wallace said.

"The problem that President Bush has that, in his mind he wants to solve everything with bombs," President Ahmadinejad replied through his interpreter. "We are not working to produce the bomb. But if Mr. Bush thinks that he can stop our progress, I have to say that he will be unable to do that."

Asked what he means, Ahmadinejad said, "We want to have access to nuclear technology. We want to produce fuel."

And since 60 Minutes' visit, Iran has made advances with their nuclear program, interpreted by some as bringing Iran closer to building a nuclear bomb.

"Even before you were offered an incentive package by the Europeans to stop your nuclear power program, the enrichment of uranium, you rejected it. You said: 'Our nuclear technology is more valuable than your incentives. Do you think that you are dealing with a four year old child and can take away his gold for a few walnuts?'" Wallace remarked.

"With regards to the package, we welcomed the idea. We said that this is a step forward and we're going to study it," Ahmadinejad replied.

But Iran had no intention of stopping the program, and last year, when the U.N. first threatened to impose sanctions, Ahmadinejad said, "We don't give a damn about UN sanctions."

"Well, they cannot sanction us. They need us more than we need them. For 27 years now we have lived with American sanctions. But we did not correspond in kind. Respond, rather, in kind. Because we don't believe in these. These are unfair practices," the Iranian president told Wallace.

"You have said, quote, 'Any country that imposes sanctions on Iran will regret it.' How will they regret it?" Wallace asked.

"Well, whoever sanctions us will stand to lose out. They will be worse off than we, perhaps, will be. Because we are going to respond in kind. They need us more than we need them," Ahmadinejad said.

"They need you more than you need them?" Wallace asked.

"That is true. We can look after ourselves," Ahmadinejad answered.

Then the conversation turned to Iran's least favorite neighbor: Israel.

"Israel, you have said time and again, Israel must be wiped off the map. Please explain why. And what is Iran doing about that?" Wallace asked.

"Well, allow me to finish with the nuclear dossier first," Ahmadinejad said.

"No, you finished with that. You finished with that. Please," Wallace insisted.

"No, it's not finished, Sir. It's not finished. We are just beginning," Ahmadinejad replied.

"That's what I was afraid of. But go," Wallace said.

"Well, the Americans are overly sensitive. And, of course, the American government…I don't know why they're opposed to Iranian progress," Ahmadinejad replied.

"You are very good at filibustering. You still have not answered the question. You still have not answered the question. Israel must be wiped off the map. Why?" Wallace asked again.

"I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government," Ahmadinejad replied.

Fabricated, he says, following the Holocaust, which he says may also have been fabricated.

[dwhurst-2009]

In the interview with Pres. Ahmadinejad, hewas pressed several times to answer simple question - fair enough. Why didn't Mr. Wallace answer the President's question which follows? "Well if an atrocity was committed in Germany... why should the Palestinians answer for this?"
Mr. Wallace accused President A. of filibustering by not giving direct answers to questions; didn't Mr. Wallace do the same thing but not giving a direct answer to this very legitimate question?

Thank you,

Dennis. Hurst

[bwater14]

Mike Wallace was being very rude to a PRESIDENT. He didn't act like he was interviewing a president, instead he cut him off, made rude remarks, and asked meaningless questions.

[stupidicus]

I found Wallace's interview with The Presidet of Iran appalling-- particularly the long refuted claim that he said anything about Israel being "wiped off the map". Perhaps he should read the work of the many Farsi experts that have done so.

I find it disgusting that man of his stature and resources would continue to propagate such a lie. I'd bet some cursory research would show this has been reported in our otherwise Rightwing dominated MSM--- which he is now either a proud ally of, or serving as a useful ignorant tool. I'm sure they will be proud in any case, to say --- "well, that Bush AWOL charging network aired what?"

If Mr. Wallace has any integrity at all, he'd turn over the complete and unedited interview (like copies of the original tapes, interpreter included) for scrutiny to anyone interested. The pres's answer to this was unbelievable, given he didn't correct the glaring lie the question was.

If this results in any observable increase in the fear, and support for military action against them, then Mr. Wallace can reconcile the blood he has on his hands.

This is exactly the kind of shoddy and dishonest journalism, in fact and by omission, that took us into Iraq.

That he would use his show, watched by millions, to do this at this time, is far more than coincidental to this viewer, and media watcher.

By all means Mikey--- tell me my words are unreasonable.

[bwater14]

Mike Wallace was very rude to a president. He did not act like he was interviewing a president, instead he cut him off, made rude remarks, and asked meaningless questions.

[mqwalker]

I really enjoyed the interview with Pres. Ahmadinejad, however I don't understand in our pusuit for peace with Iran why the interview was more aggresive than normal? Simply put you get more bees with honey, we need answers to those good questions. Now we're just wondering. I am not sure what this interview accomplished.

Thank you
M.Q.Walker

[bwater14]

Mike Wallace was very rude to a president. He did not act like he was interviewing a president, instead he cut him off, made rude remarks, and asked meaningless questions.

[bwater14]

Mike Wallace was very rude to a president. He did not act like he was interviewing a president, instead he cut him off, made rude remarks, and asked meaningless questions.

[bwater14]

Mike Wallace was very rude to a president. He did not act like he was interviewing a president, instead he cut him off, made rude remarks, and asked meaningless questions.

[vertglnt]

Mike Wallace referred to President Bush as %u201Ccommander-in-chief of the free world%u201D.
Actually, no US president is commander-in-chief even of the United States, much less the
%u201Cfree world%u201D. They aren%u2019t even commander-in-chief of the government of the United States.
They are not even commander-in-chief of the executive branch of the U.S. government.
Presidents are commander-in-chief ONLY of the army (according to the constitution), and
by reasonable extension, all U.S. armed forces.

To the extent that a president attempts to exercise the functions of commander-in-chief
of anything more than the armed forces, he or she is acting unconstitutionally and should
be impeached.

I understand that the current administration has been trying to expand the powers of the
presidency, but I would hope that intelligent, well-informed, people like you (Mike Wallace)would not fall for this scam.

[bwater14]

Mike Wallace was very rude to a president. He did not act like he was interviewing a president, instead he cut him off, made rude remarks, and asked meaningless questions.

[bgoldman3]

Mike Wallace asked some tough questions, some were answered, and some remain to be answered. I noted at the end that the interview took place a year ago. What I don't understand is this: We're one world, every President and leader should be able to approach and discuss issues with others in similar positions. Seems US policy is to offer sanctions and to threaten when we don't get our way. If it was a nuclear power plant for more efficient and clean energy supply to be built in Costa Rica, Argentina or France, it would be okay, but not in Iran. Maybe there is sufficient reason for distrust, but if there have been no diplomatic relations with Iran in 27 years, the US is partly to blame too, aren't they? One world: Nations need to get along, or else what?

[brianbwb-2009]

To Mr. Wallace

"Well, if an atrocity was committed in Germany or Europe, for that matter, why should the Palestinians answer for this?" Ahmadinejad responded.

You must admit, that is a *** good question, Mr. Wallace, You insisted on badgering the man on the subject of Israel, but when he posed this question in reply to yours, you had no answer, and so quickly changing the subject.

You had a decades old reputation as one of the outstanding TV journalists of the generation after Cronkite, yet you choose now to cash in your chips echoing old, unfounded, ill-mannered and extremely subjective neocon agitprop to a head of state.

I hope you were paid a huge sum of money for your reputation.

[tbweb]

I watched the 60 Minutes Interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and my impression was Ahmadinejad was trying to play nice and innocent for the American public, obviously this was done to make President Bush look like the bad guy. My personal view is that it was all an act to fool people. In almost every public appearance Ahmadinejad is loud, rude, arrogant, confrontational and threatening, now suddenly he tries to play this humble picked on leader. When asked about wiping Israel off the map, this was Ahmadinejad%u2019s chance to be clear about what he meant, he knew the question was coming, he knew everyone was interested in his answer and he knew there was controversy about the translation from Farsi to English, yet he failed to clear the statement up and let it stay like it was. The Holocaust is very well documented and a fact and even the current German Prime Minister admit it occurred, yet Ahmadinejad chooses to ignore well documented historical facts because of his hatred for the Jews in Israel. Ahmadinejad knows deep down Israel belongs to the Jews, but because so much time went by since the Jews were last in Israel, Ahmadinejad acts likes Israel had always belonged to the Palestinians. I am not an Israeli sympathizer and Israel is a brutal regime but I think being under constant threats and attacks for so many years help make Israel that way, no excuses for Israel, but how could it not? The Arabs and Iran helped create this Israeli menace.

[tbweb]

There have been many wicked atrocities on both sides of the Arab Israeli conflict for years, but the one atrocity that sticks out in my mind the most is the one that occurred on March 14, 1997. It was on this occasion that I realized how much the Jews in Israel were hated by the Arabs and how at any moment the world can be shocked and reminded by that ugly reality.

A Jordanian soldier unleashed a volley of automatic rifle fire on a busload of Israeli schoolgirls who were taking a field trip to the scenic "Island of Peace" border post Thursday, killing seven of the junior high students and wounding six.

Witnesses said 40 to 50 eighth-graders had gotten off of their bus and were surveying the sun-washed view over the River Jordan when the gunman grabbed a fellow soldier's weapon and began firing at the students' backs from a guard tower.

He then climbed down from the tower, chased girls who tried to escape over a ridge blooming with wild flowers, and shot one in the head at close range before he was subdued by other Jordanian soldiers as he stopped to reload, according to accounts from several witnesses.

The brutal attack on 12-year-old and 13-year-old Israelis - and one coming from an Arab whose country is at peace with Israel - stunned the region, despite recent warnings from political leaders that the crumbling of the Mideast peace process could lead to bloodshed%u2026

Source: http://wwwtech.mit.edu/V117/N12/israel.12w.html

[brianbwb-2009]

"What I did say was that if this is a reality, if this is real, where did it take place?" Ahmadinejad said.

"In Germany" Wallace replied.

"Well, if an atrocity was committed in Germany or Europe, for that matter, why should the Palestinians answer for this?" Ahmadinejad responded.

Anyone care to respond?

[tbweb]

brianbwb wrote:

"What I did say was that if this is a reality, if this is real, where did it take place?" Ahmadinejad said.

"In Germany" Wallace replied.

"Well, if an atrocity was committed in Germany or Europe, for that matter, why should the Palestinians answer for this?" Ahmadinejad responded.

Anyone care to respond?

Posted by brianbwb at 03:37 AM : Jun 04, 2007

brianbwb,,,

The situation in my view boils down to reference points, legitimate rights and the calendar. Let me explain as best I can with what limited knowledge on the subject I have. It seems to me that based on the calendar without restrictive starting dates, Israel belongs to the Jews if the bible can be used as a marker. Because of circumstances the Jews were away from Israel for a long time. While the Jews were away the Palestinians set up home in Israel and claimed Israel as theres. Circumstances came around again and the Jews benefited and Israel was returned to its rightful owners. I understand this is very unsettling for the Palestinians, but in my view based on history the Palestinians are wrong and Israel is right. Something needs to be done to help the Palestinians relocate and have their own state and home. That's where this issue is with me. After WWII and what the Jews had just been through, an effort was made to correct the Jewish homeland issue.

[culligancan]

I don't care about God, the Bible, Jews, Christians, and Muslims. People should never bring up this Bible issue. It is non-sence. Religious books are not histoy or science books. The fact is that Israel formed a nation. They fought and died for their right to exist. They took the land in war. It has happened many times in history. Should America give back the lands to the Native Americans? Should Turkey give Istanbul back to the Creeks? Of course not...it is a silly idea. The Palestinians need to learn patience and tolerance. Islamic leaders need to stop issuing Fatwas and condemn suicide bombings and violence. The Palestinians need to take a note from Gandhi and Martin Luther King...make your enemy appear to be evil. If the Palestinians were serious about getting a piece of the pie, they would start to portray themselves as victims and vilify Israel. Instead they are making themselves look like uncivilized savages that bomb the aggressor. Israel is by no means nice to their neighbors, nor have they tried to make peace with everyone in the region. Fact is, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

[brianbwb-2009]

Thank you for your response, tbweb, now if I may...

The Jews were decimated for attempting to rebel against the Romans (79 a.d.), the diaspora scattered the remnants them to the far corners of Europe and Russia, where they owned or otherwise occupied land for generations. Would this give them also the right to claim the Euro-Russian lands they occupied before WWII? Those who posit that modern Israel was won through war, should also recognize that it was lost through war, so war is not nor should it be a legitimate reason to stake claim on land. (culligancan, do you agree that, by your logic, if someone fights you and takes your land, it is now theirs by right?)

What Mr. Ahmadindjad posited was that if the holocaust was inflicted on the Jews by Germans, then why should Palestinians accept being occupied, brutalized, and treated as non citizens on land they also owned or otherwise occupied for generations, the Palestinian claim of ownership being just as valid as the Israelites for the exact same reasons, and even more recent.

I am not anti Semitic, I simply pose questions that none dare explore because the logical answers are not in the best interests of Israel, or to those under the influence of Israel's potent lobby.

[brianbwb-2009]

By the way Mr. culligancan, yes, the US should give back land stolen from the Native Americans (there is a difference between land rights stolen, and land rights legitimately granted), and Turkey should give back stolen Greek land. The inhabitants of the disputed land should have the choice of remaining, but under the jurisdiction of the rightful owner, or relocation to an area controlled by their chosen government. Impossible to implement immediately, but Hong Kong is an example of how, with adequate preparation, it can be accomplished.

[juwboy]

dwhurst:

Just before the start of World War II, in the late 1930s, the Palestinian leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, fomented an insurrection with the intent of driving the minority Jewish population and the British occupiers out of Palestine.

After months of bloody fighting, the British prevailed. The Grand Mufti fled to Berlin where he spent World War II as a friend and honored guest of Adolf Hitler.

Meanwhile, back in Palestine, the Arabs waited in eager anticipation as Rommel's Afrika Korps advanced eastwards across North Africa. Why? Because they saw the Nazi approach as their opportunity to avenge the defeat they'd just received. Instead of driving the British and Jews out of Palestine by themselves, the Germans would assist them in performing this task.

Fortunately, however, the German incursion was halted in the eastern Egyptian desert by the British general who'd just defeated the Palestinians (Bernard Montgomery).

So, far from being totally innocent of any involvement in Hitler's so-called "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem", the Palestinians were actually a whisker away from being active participants, while the Grand Mufti, their leader, was a Nazi collaborator.

It is therefore entirely appropriate for a Jewish state to have been established in Palestine.

dwhurst, why don't you spend some time learning about the history of the Middle east instead of wasting ours with your ignorant opinions?

[tbweb]

Brianbwb wrote:

Thank you for your response, tbweb, now if I may...

The Jews were decimated for attempting to rebel against the Romans (79 a.d.), the diaspora scattered the remnants them to the far corners of Europe and Russia, where they owned or otherwise occupied land for generations.

Posted by brianbwb at 05:41 AM : Jun 04, 2007

Brianbwb,,,

I do agree with culligancan that religion should be excluded from discussions, because once religion enters the picture, the waters get muddy! Discussions should be based on common ground that excludes no one. I did mention %u201Cif%u201D the Bible could be used as a marker and that too muddies the water, but the Bible does place the Jews in Israel in a way no other text does and does give claim to Israel for the Jews. I am not an expert on this topic but I%u2019m sure no reference in Biblical text gives reference to Israel to the Palestinians is the same context that it does for the Jews. The Palestinian issue needs a practical solution at this point and its not practical to expect the Jews to be removed from Israel and replaced by the Palestinians. The practical solution and the one that makes sense is to create a state for the Palestinians which should have been done at the same time Israel was given to the Jews, that%u2019s where the error was made in my view. You can%u2019t help the Jews and hurt the Palestinians in the process without a solution for them too!

[tomtomasters]

The USA stands for United Sanctions of Armament.
America is such a pathetic loser when it comes to diplomacy and making things happen good. All they think about is bombing.

[culligancan]

Brianbwb, you are speaking of a world that is fair. Whoever told you life is fair is not living in realty. What is fair, is different from the facts. Yes, people take lands in war. It has been going on since the dawn of man. Is it fair? Of course not. Does it happen? Yes. Get use to it. Life is not pretty or fair. Humans are brutal. This is my point.