A Rare Chat With Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

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

(CBS)  "What did you expect to hear back from President Bush?" Wallace asked.

"I was expecting Mr. Bush to give up, or, I should say, to change his behavior. I was hoping to open a new window for the gentleman. One can certainly look on the world from other perspectives," Ahmadinejad said.

Then Ahmadinejad had a new message for President Bush: "Those who refuse to accept an invitation to good will not have a good ending or fate."

Asked to explain what that means, Ahmadinejad said, "Well, you see that his approval rating is dropping every day. Hatred vis-à-vis the president is increasing every day around the world. For a ruler, this is the worst message that he could receive. Rulers and heads of government at the end of their office must leave the office holding their heads high."

"Yes. How long has it been since the leaders of Iran and the leaders of U.S. have had any conversations?" Wallace asked.

"Twenty-six, twenty-seven years," Ahmadinejad replied.

"Do you have the least desire to resume relations with the United States?" Wallace asked.

"Who cut the relations, I ask you," the president replied.

"That's not the point," Wallace remarked. "Would you, the president of Iran, like to resume relationships with the United States?

"Well, we are interested to have relations with all governments and all nations…," Ahmadinejad said. "This is a principle of my foreign policy."

"I know that," Wallace said.

"Allow me to finish myself," the president said.

"Why don't you just answer, say yes or no?" Wallace asked. "Do you want to have relations now, after 26, 27 years, with the United States? What harm could come from that?"

"We are not talking about harm," Ahmadinejad replied. "The conditions, conducive conditions, have to be there.”

And then, he wanted to leave.

"Time is over."

"One more,” Wallace asks.

It is time for the night prayer, Sir," Ahmadinejad said.

"Last one. You have a special unit of martyr seekers in your Revolutionary Guard. They claim they have 52,000 trained suicide bombers ready to attack American and British targets if America should attack Iran," Wallace said.

"So, are you expecting the Americans to threaten us and we sit idly by and watch them with our hands tied…," Ahmadinejad said.

"And have Americans threatened you?" Wallace asked.

"I do hope that the Americans will give up this practice of threatening other nations so that you are not forced to ask me such questions. I wish you well and further success," the president replied.

"Thank you, Sir," Wallace said.

---

In the last two weeks, it was reported that the U.S. is trying to sabotage Iran's nuclear efforts in a covert operation and has sent more U.S. warships to the Persian Gulf in an overt show of force.

But there has been some progress. Last week, after almost 30 years of formal silence, American and Iranian ambassadors met face to face, to talk about security in Iraq. There weren't any breakthroughs, but both countries agreed to continue talking.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.