Rafsanjani's Advice to the "Great Satan"

By James R. Gaines and Karsten Prager/Tehran Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

In his office in downtown Tehran, Rafsanjani held a wide-ranging two-hour conversation with managing editor James R. Gaines and International managing editor Karsten Prager. It was the first interview he had given to a U.S. publication since he assumed the presidency in 1989. Excerpts:

Q. If President Clinton were sitting here, what would you say to him?

A. If I wanted to, I would advise him to try to serve the people of America and not to disturb the peace in other countries.

Q. In what way, if any, is Iran being disturbed?

A. Through interference and accusation.

Q. You appear to have made some attempts to improve relations -- through your efforts in Afghanistan, for instance, where Iran played a constructive role. But you haven't gotten much credit for it. Do you see other steps Iran could take to restore its credibility abroad?

A. What the U.S. wants is to deprive us of our credibility. It wants us to give up, to yield. I'll give you an example: the hostages in Lebanon. We received many messages from the U.S. to use our influence to get them released, and many promises were given. The pressure we exerted did get the hostages freed -- and because of that many of our friends are not happy with us. But as soon as the matter was settled, we discovered that the way the U.S. was addressing us had changed, had become tougher.

Q. What exactly did the U.S. promise?

A. Since we had no direct contact, I can make no claims, but we were told that the U.S. would release our frozen assets.

Q. Should the situation vis-a-vis the U.S. improve, will the descriptive "Great Satan" disappear?

A. If the U.S. does good, then it cannot be considered to be Satan. We are very much inclined to see a U.S. without hostility toward Iran. We will wait and see how the U.S. proceeds.

Q. What would you like Washington to do?

A. Release our assets unconditionally -- that would be a good sign. Until then we cannot understand the situation except in terms of animosity.

Q. The U.S. State Department has labeled Iran the most dangerous sponsor of terrorism in 1992.

A. This label is more appropriate for the U.S. government. We must look at examples and see who supports terrorism. It is not difficult to make claims; you have to give examples.

Q. You would not deny that Hizballah ((Lebanon's Iran-backed Party of God)) has committed violent acts?

A. Can it be that you do not know how many bombs have been exploded in Iran by the terrorist Mujahedin group ((an antigovernment faction))? Who hijacked our planes? Who blew up our government headquarters, assassinated our President and Premier, bombed the Islamic Republican Party's headquarters, resulting in the deaths of 72 high officials? Yet these same terrorists are close to the White House and enjoy U.S. congressional endorsement. If Iran had shot down an American airliner, as the U.S. shot down an Iranian Airbus in the Persian Gulf, what would the U.S. do? Therefore, shouldn't we more appropriately accuse the U.S. of terrorism?

Q. The U.S. explained that the Airbus incident was an accident, a mistake.

A. But they gave medals and decorations to the commander who gave orders to shoot down our Airbus.* Iran has suffered from terrorism more than any other country. We know that terrorism does not serve our interests, neither domestically nor internationally.

We have respect for Hizballah as concerns the liberation of their land occupied by Israel. But if Hizballah commits terrorist acts, we do not accept that, and we condemn it. As for involvement in terrorism by the Iranian government, if you can show one piece of evidence, please make it known to everybody. We should all cooperate to prevent terrorism.

Q. The Speaker of your parliament said recently that Iran would not send anyone to track down Salman Rushdie.

A. That is definitely so.

Q. But an Iranian foundation put money on Rushdie's head.

A. That's not the government; that's a charity foundation.

Q. But if the fatwa ((the religious decree condemning Rushdie to death)) cannot be lifted, Rushdie is reduced to a life of perpetual fear -- to no life at all.

A. This is prescribed by an Islamic law that has been in existence for a thousand years. Even if the Imam ((Ayatullah Khomeini)) had not pronounced a fatwa, it could have been traced in the books of great Islamic scholars. It is written that anyone cursing the Prophet is condemned to death. If there hadn't been such a hue and cry ((in the West)), I think the matter might have been over in a year.

Q. What is your vision of a strong Iran -- a great military power?

A. In reconstructing Iran, we are trying to make better use of our resources. We do not intend to become a big military power in the region. We only want regional defensive strength and good relations with our neighbors.

Q. Can you trust the Iraqi government as long as Saddam is in power?

A. I don't think we can have good cooperation because we have not seen any goodwill on Saddam's part. We have several thousand prisoners of war in Iraq, for instance. We know their names. We have evidence of their presence, but Iraq does not respond to our requests.

Q. You've been critical of the Arab-Israeli peace talks. What's the alternative? More conflict?

A. As a result of what Israel has done, a nation, the people of Palestine, has been ruined; about 4 million Palestinians are refugees throughout the world. We do not consider it right that Palestinians should forever be deprived of returning to their homeland. We don't say that "you who have come to Israel should leave this land." The world should adopt a position that would allow Palestinians to return to their homeland and create a system in which people can live freely together. If there is not enough room for everybody, priority should be given to Palestinians, not to Jews who are being taken to Israel.

Q. Could Iran accept the idea of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank?

; A. If this solution is accepted, it does not go well with what I have just mentioned, but I think the people of Palestine would be one step closer to the realization of their objectives. I do not think this will be the solution, however, and so the conflict will continue. If the U.S. insists on keeping alive a racist Jewish state, our countersuggestion would be to create a Jewish state within U.S. boundaries, giving it the status of the 51st state.

Q. You have been critical of the U.S. and the West for not doing more about Bosnia. What would you like them to do?

A. I think the U.S. could do much more than it has so far. During the occupation of Kuwait, the U.S. showed what it could do.

Q. In other words, if the U.S. took military action on behalf of the Bosnian Muslims, it would not be interpreted by you as some imperialist plot?

A. No.

Q. Would you put Bosnia on the same level as Kuwait two years ago?

A. The human issue is more important in Bosnia. And that is our most important criticism of the U.S., that it does not consider human issues as important as economic matters. From the economic point of view, Kuwait was more important, especially for a country like the U.S.

Q. There is a perception abroad that there are two Rafsanjanis -- the moderate and the hard-liner.

A. These terms -- moderate and extremist -- are your words. I believe I've been consistent from the very beginning. I'm a revolutionary figure; I was involved in the struggle and spent almost all the young years of my life in prison. In our culture both extremes are rebuked: we believe that people should be moderate. When I defend revolution, you say I'm a hard-liner. When I say we would like to have cooperation with the West, you say I'm being moderate. That's because you don't know Iran. As far as we are concerned, they go together.

Q. Is support for the revolution as strong as it was five years ago?

A. Even stronger.

Q. Are people for Rafsanjani or for the revolution?

A. If I turn my back on the revolution, the people will no longer support me.

FOOTNOTE: *Despite objections by several U.S. Senators, Captain Will Rogers III of the U.S.S. Vincennes received the Legion of Merit. The decoration was described as an "end of tour" award, not connected to the shoot-down. Rogers has since retired.