• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

29 July 1999

Transcript: Laingen Discusses Iranian Demonstrations on WorldNet

(Speaker was hostage at U.S. embassy during Iran's revolution) (8300)
Bruce Laingen, the former charge d'affaires at the U.S. embassy in
Iran who was held hostage there during the revolution that overthrew
the Shah, appeared on WorldNet television's Global Exchange July 28 to
discuss the implications of the recent student-led demonstrations in
Iran.
"It's a signal of interest in seeing reform continue," Laingen said of
the demonstrations. "Students are again on the streets -- not to
challenge the revolution fundamentally, I don't believe, but to press
the leadership, particularly President Khatemi, to be true to what he
has said about his desire to see that revolution move in a more
liberal direction."
Iran's young people "want change in the direction of more reforms,
more freedom of expression, more jobs," Laingen said.
"I believe that what has happened lately is a bump in the road for
Khatemi. I do not think he can be set aside; nor can what he advocates
in terms of change within that revolution be set aside."
Laingen predicted that Khatemi would "do well" in the parliamentary
elections set for February "because he does represent that broad
sentiment in Iran that the revolution must change."
"The United States wants a dialogue with Iran," Laingen asserted. "I
believe it needs a dialogue with Iran. The fact that we have not
talked with each other -- instead we have talked past each other and
against each other for 20 long years -- makes absolutely no sense for
either government ... What America wants in Iran is a normal
relationship."
Following is the transcript of Laingen's WorldNet:
(begin transcript)
WORLDNET "GLOBAL EXCHANGE"
UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY
Television and Film Service of Washington, D.C.
GUEST: Ambassador Bruce Laingen, President, American Academy of
Diplomacy
TOPIC:    Developments in Iran
HOST:     Mohanned Khatib
DATE:     July 28, 1999
TIME:     10:00 - 11:00 EDT
MR. KHATIB: Hello, and welcome to "Global Exchange," I am Mohanned
Khatib.
It's been 20 years since students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran,
putting Iran on a radical road until the recent election of
reform-minded President Khatemi. The future of the conservative and
liberal forces in Iran may become much clearer with the national
election in March of next year.
For now, there are again student demonstrations in Iran. This time
they are demanding faster and more liberal reform.
(Begin videotape.)
ANNOUNCER: Earlier this month in Iran, about 200 Tehran University
students rallied against the government banning of the leading
reformist daily, Salam. Soon after, police stormed the university
dormitory, killing one and injuring 20. Thousands then began to rally
for the resignation of hardliners in the government, the most
significant expression of popular discontent since the 1979 Islamic
revolution that installed clerical rule.
On the fifth day of demonstrations, police clashed with protestors. In
Washington, U.S. State Department Spokesman James Rubin said the
United States is concerned about the way authorities have dealt with
the situation.
MR. RUBIN: We deplore the use of violence against people pursuing
their freedom of expression and their freedom of speech. We condemn
the use of violence. We want everyone to have the right in Iran, and
everywhere in the world, to demonstrate peacefully, and we believe in
the rule of law in Iran and everywhere else.
Newspapers in Iran reported vigilante groups also attacked student
protestors. One seminary student was shot dead, dozens of people were
injured, as local shops and vehicles were destroyed.
MR. : Arresting individuals for peaceful expression of their political
views runs contrary to international human rights norms. We call on
the government of Iran to protect peaceful demonstrators.
ANNOUNCER: The new demonstrations show the deep divide in Iran between
people who support reform and those who oppose it.
(End videotape.)
MR. KHATIB: Today on "Global Exchange" we will discuss the
undercurrents in Iran and the possibilities for reform. Our guest is
Ambassador Bruce Laingen, president of the American Academy of
Diplomacy. Ambassador Laingen was the charge d'affaires in Tehran when
students took over the U.S. Embassy in 1979, and held prisoner for
more than 400 days. Ambassador Laingen, welcome to "Global Exchange."
AMB. LAINGEN:  Thank you, good morning.
MR. KHATIB: I also would like to welcome our viewers around the world,
and invite you to call in to our program to discuss the political
situation in Iran and the possibilities for reform. You will need to
call your international operator and say that you would like to make a
collect call to the United States. If you are calling with a question
in Arabic, please call us collect at 202-205-9066. If you are calling
with a question in English, call us collect at 202-205-9001.
Before we go to our broadcasters overseas, perhaps we could set the
stage a bit for today's program. Ambassador Laingen, let me ask you
first, since you have been observing the situation in Iran, do you
think that what has taken place lately in Iran is a signal of some
reform to take place in Iran?
AMB. LAINGEN: Quite clearly it is. I think it's a signal of interest
in seeing reform continue. There's no question about that in my mind.
I call this a kind of defining moment, another defining moment in that
revolution, this time a warning, if you will, to the revolution that
unless they can find better ways than they have today to respond to
the interests of young people in particular, both in freedom of
expression and in jobs, that's very important. That revolution has got
some problems ahead.
There's an analogy if you will looking back to 1979, 20 years ago,
when students took to the streets. Everyone will recall then the siege
of the American Embassy and the change of direction of that revolution
into a more radical course, in which it has been directed until the
election of President Khatemi, when some change began.
This time students are again on the streets -- not to challenge the
revolution fundamentally, I don't believe, but to press the
leadership, particularly President Khatemi, to be true to what he has
said about his desire to see that revolution move in a more liberal
direction in the context of the rule of law in civil society.
MR. KHATIB: This is an essential point, and many in the West do
compare between the incidents that have taken place lately and what
has taken place at the end of the Shah's regime. There is a huge
difference. There was popular anxiety and people were really rebelling
against corruption and the political and social conditions of the
country. It seems that now the situation is quite different, however.
AMB. LAINGEN: As I say, it is quite different. They're not
challenging. I don't think these students are challenging
fundamentally the regime. There are some in Iran who do, but I think
that is a minority. And I think this outpouring of interest, the man,
sentiment on the part of the young people of that country, is not to
challenge that regime but to accept it, but to move it in a better
direction.
MR. KHATIB: In your opinion, what will be the impact of such incidents
on the popularity of President Khatemi? As we all know, he won the
presidential election almost in a landslide, and there will be
parliamentary elections next year, and it is expected that some of
Khatemi's supporters will also score a big victory. Do you think that
these latest incidents may impact on the political situation and
status of Khatemi domestically?
AMB. LAINGEN: Oh, I think they will. I think already are. We won't
know the real answer until February in our year 2000 when these
parliamentary elections are to take place. That will be a critical
test of the strength of the -- if you want to call it that -- a reform
movement under President Khatemi. If he could succeed in that
election, to command and to gain more strength within the Majlis, the
parliament, then I can see this direction that seems to be desired by
the students, the young people of Iran to move further in that
direction.
MR. KHATIB: Mr. Ambassador, let us take a few questions from our
broadcasters. ANN in London, please go ahead.
Q: Thank you very much, and we welcome ANN viewers. Mr. Ambassador,
with the end of the incidents in Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei has accused
the United States and its agents of being behind the recent trouble,
which have turned into writing. What is your comment?
AMB. LAINGEN: I hesitate to say I am amused. I heard that before. We
hear it all the time that the Great Satan is somewhere behind the
scene pulling the strings, seeking to affect the direction of that
revolution. The United States is not, obviously, and I think is not
there. It is not in a position for that reason and others to change
the direction of that revolution. We've heard it too often, and I'd
like to believe that many of the people of Iran -- much of the
informed voting population of Iran has set that aside long since. I
thought the President put it very well the other day, President
Clinton. I'd take the opportunity to reread what he said. He said --
he noted, "I am reluctant to say anything, lest it be misinterpreted,
and that it might complicate the direction of the forces of openness
and reform." He went on to say, "I think that people everywhere,
particularly young people, hope that they will be able to pursue their
religious convictions and their personal dreams in an atmosphere of
greater freedom that still allows them to be deeply loyal to their
nation." And I believe they are.
MR. KHATIB:  Any further questions from ANN?  Please go ahead.
Q: It was felt that the Shah of Iran -- there were contacts taking
place with supporters of Iran. Some put the responsibility on the
United States for what happened in Iran. I missed the entire first
part of the question.
AMB. LAINGEN: Well, I am not sure I heard all of that question. If we
are talking about 1979, then it was clear that the United States had
this very close and deep alliance with Iran under the leadership of
the Shah, and that was the thing that the bulk of the revolutionary
sentiment in the country at that time wanted to change.
If we are talking about today, it's a very different atmosphere. I can
say I believe with conviction, personal and official, to the extent
that I can speak for government, the United States has long since
accepted the revolution in Iran, accepted it as a mass movement
directed toward change, which it significantly accomplished in a
dramatic sense with the seizure of my embassy in 1979, and setting
that revolution in a more radical direction, much of which I
personally don't like, and much of which has caused problems for the
United States.
But today there is a different atmosphere in Iran. We all know that.
Twenty years after the revolution there is obviously evident in the
election of Khatemi, with 70 percent mandate, particularly from young
people and women, that want change -- that want change in the
direction of more reforms, more freedom of expression, more jobs, not
least, and that is what the revolution must -- the leadership must now
respond to. And we will see in time the extent to which it can. We
won't see really, as I suggested before, in an important political
sense until that election in February the year 2000. And that is very
critical for the future direction of that revolution.
MR. KHATIB: Mr. Ambassador, in the beginning of her question, the part
that you did not hear, were there contacts between the CIA and the
forces opposing the Shah toward the end of his regime. You were at the
U.S. Embassy there, and as we know the CIA had a very strong presence.
If I remember, it was a regional office in fact based out of the
embassy. So were there such contacts between the CIA and those
opposing the Shah back then?
AMB. LAINGEN: I cannot speak in any direct sense to that time. I can
speak only to the time when I was there. As far as contacts between
the CIA and the leadership in Iran under the Shah, all of that or much
of it of course is now on the record.
After I came there, and indeed after the revolution, I can say --
reiterate with conviction the United States accepted the revolution,
made no attempt at that time, determinedly to try to put the Shah back
on the throne. That was ridiculous. The charges then were wrong. I
reiterated constantly when I was there speaking for my government that
the United States had accepted the revolution, no longer saw the Shah
as directing the political future of that country.
MR. KHATIB: We go back one more time to our broadcasters at ANN.
Please go ahead with your questions.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, with the recent demonstrations in Tehran, there
were signals sent by the U.S. administration encouraging some of the
slogans raised by the demonstrators. The question is why have you gone
so quickly to support them, and do you have a plan to support such a
movement?
MR. KHATIB: In fact there was some apprehension regarding the U.S.
administration's response, but please go ahead and do that.
AMB. LAINGEN: Let me emphasize -- let me iterate and reiterate I do
not sit here speaking for the United States government. I am no longer
in government. I am out of government, still very much interested in
what's happening in Iran, trying to keep as informed as possible,
trying to encourage in every way I can as a private citizen to
encourage my government to move more rapidly in a direction that will
eventually see a dialogue between our two countries.
The questioner I think refers to evidence that we were encouraging
some of the slogans for reform. If you want to interpret our support
for freedom of expression and greater liberalism within that
revolution as encouraging what they were seeking, yes, we were in a
sense. But I know as well as anyone, in government and out in this
country, in this country of the United States, for us to take
positions that seem to support one side or another in a dramatic way
would be wrong, and that could be counterproductive. And I think we
are in every way seeking to avoid that, except as the President has
said. Obviously this country -- I personally, and I think most
Americans -- want to see more freedom, more opportunities within that
revolution, within that Islamic revolution than there is today. If
that is seen as interference, intervention, so be it. I do not believe
it. I do not believe it either, because I think we are speaking for
and with the overwhelming sort of political direction of that country
today.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, after more than 20 years since the Islamic
revolution has taken place, isn't it time in your opinion to start a
kind of normalization of relations between the United States and Iran,
especially that President Khatemi is known to be quite objective and
not radical? Why -- and he has called upon the United States to do
that. Why hasn't the United States responded, and what does the United
States expect more before normalization is to take place?
AMB. LAINGEN: I can say for the record I believe, speaking for my
government, because I think I know what my government says and does,
the United States is open to a colleague with Iran. That is on the
record. That has been on the record for years. We are open to a
dialogue with an authoritative source. The secretary of State,
Madeleine Albright, said fairly recently in a major speech on Iran --
I think it's about six months ago now -- that the United States is
open to dialogue, wants a dialogue open to Iran, looks for ways in
which two governments can take parallel steps, as she put it, in
various ways to contribute toward a road map -- the expression she
used -- which would guide us to a dialogue, a relationship with Iran.
Obviously that's going to be difficult, not least because the supreme
leader in Iran has said repeatedly that he is not -- Iran -- the
revolution is not open to a dialogue with Iran. It does not want a
dialogue with Iran.
President Khatemi shortly after his election in the celebrated CNN
interview, I think most of you will recall, said that Iran does not
need a relationship with the United States, but emphasized his view
that we need to begin in any event looking in that direction with what
he calls a dialogue of civilization, an effort to widen the crack in
the wall of mistrust that separates our two countries. In other words,
people-to-people exchanges, as an effort to contribute to the basis,
the undergirding of some dialogue eventually an official language
between official representatives of the two governments. Of course
that's fine, we should do that. Both governments I think are
contributing to that in a variety of ways. We have sent some wrestlers
and other sports teams to Iran. There is an exchange in that respect.
A number of Iranians representing that government have been to the
United States, particularly the United Nations. They have spoken here
in Washington. A good friend of mine, William Miller, a friend of many
in Iran, is going to Iran today as part of an invitation from a
non-governmental organization from that country to watch the last
solar eclipse of the 20th century -- apparently Iran is the best place
to view that kind of thing. So a number of Americans representing
non-governmental organizations, but indirectly to their government,
are going to Iran for that reason.
The United States wants a dialogue with Iran. I believe it needs a
dialogue with Iran. The fact that we have not talked with each other
-- instead we have talked past each other and against each other for
20 long years -- makes absolutely no sense for either government, for
the interest of either government. Granted that there are major
differences between us -- there are big concerns that we have about
Iran's actions in recent years. Iran has many concerns about our
policies in that region. But the only way that we are going to be able
to deal with them is to talk with each other.
MR. KHATIB: Mr. Ambassador, let us take a few telephone calls from
some of our viewers. Mr. Allah (ph) from Sweden, please go ahead.
Q: Hello. What does the United States want from Iran? You know, the
United States is present everywhere in the world. What is the interest
of the United States in Iran, except Iran is a threat to the Jewish
state? What does it want except to dominate and blackmail?
AMB. LAINGEN: I'd say I believe, speaking both again as a private
citizen, and I think reflecting my government's views, as no intent or
desire to blackmail or dominate the government of Iran. What America
wants in Iran is a normal relationship, to the extent to which you can
have a normal relationship between the two governments, because the
absence of a relationship with Iran complicates our interests
throughout the region. It makes it difficult for us to carry on
relations with the Central Asian states, it does not give us an
opportunity to discuss which both governments must do inevitably some
day to deal with the security interests they both have with respect to
the Persian Gulf, which complicates the opportunity that American
business should have to participate on the ground in Iran in what I
believe is one of the largest emerging markets in the Middle East. It
complicates our access to oil, both in Iran and Central Asia. These
are our interests in Iran, not to dominate. We have long since passed
that time. The very idea that the United States could go to the Middle
East and get into a relationship with Iran and somehow dominate what
Iran is doing -- Iran is a big country -- 60 million people and
counting, a very resource-laden country, both in human terms and in
material terms.
I believe myself that Iran is inevitably destined to be the leading
regional power in that immediate part of the world. And we need a
relationship with that power, on some other basis than the current
one, which gets neither government anywhere.
MR. KHATIB: We go back once again to ANN in London. Please go ahead.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, in the last few years we have witnessed drastic
changes with neighboring countries, especially with Saudi Arabia and
some other countries in the Gulf. How do you see these changes in
relationships, and how do you see the coming relation in the future in
light of the most recent incident?
AMB. LAINGEN: Well, it is clear under President Khatemi -- and that
effort began under President Rafsanjani without much success -- that
Iran recognizes the need, the revolutionary regime in Tehran
recognizes the need to put a different face on the revolution,
particularly in foreign affairs, particularly to begin with its
regional neighbors and not least with Saudi Arabia, the other large
country on the other side of the Gulf, with whom together Iran and
Saudi Arabia command a good deal of the world resources which the rest
of the world is dependent from that area.
My government has no problems with that. I am sure my government would
welcome greater and closer cooperation between those governments in
the immediate area of the Persian Gulf.
Where the United States has major problems in terms of its posture,
policy towards others in that region; it has to do as you know with
our concern about Iran's apparent pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction, where I have much concern. It seems to me again we have
got to sit down and talk.
But the big problem in political terms is our perception back here, in
political terms, within this country, not least in the American
Congress, about our perception that Iran continues to want to thwart,
to frustrate, to undermine the peace process between the Palestinians
and the Arab states and Israel.
As everyone knows, that is a major policy objective and interest on
the part of the United States to reduce the instability in that larger
region, but particularly in areas of the immediate Middle East that is
caused by the constant -- now for 40, 50 years -- crisis between those
peoples.
Iran is on record apparently in a conversation Mr. Khatemi had with
Mr. Arafat during a major conference in Iran a year and a half ago, of
the Islamic countries as saying that Iran is prepared to accept
resolution of that crisis between Arabs and Palestinians and Israelis
if it is acceptable to Arafat. I hope that continues to be the case.
Regrettably that is too often accompanied by the kind of vitriol in
public dialogue and public expressions by that government in Tehran
that seems constantly to want to criticize, to undermine and to put a
stop to that trend in whatever way it can, a resolution between those
peoples of that area.
If progress can be achieved where Iran can take a different position
on the peace process, that could do a great deal to improve the
dialogue or the atmosphere back here, not least in the American
Congress, about how the American people and government see Iran today.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, how do you see the political future of President
Khatemi who was elected in a landslide? It has been noted that his
position regarding the demonstrations by the students has changed, by
being more firm towards the students. How do you see his political
future in light of that?
AMB. LAINGEN: Well, I am perhaps no better equipped than you are to
judge his political future. As I said before, the real answer will be
in February of the year 2000 when we see what the results are from the
voting public. As you indicated, President Khatemi -- as is evident,
President Khatemi's strength is heavily involved in the attitudes and
tensions of the young people of Iran, and the women of Iran who gave
him such resounding support in the elections two years ago.
As you said as well, the president, President Khatemi, appeared in the
immediate aftermath of the student demonstrations to reach out to
embrace them. And then he pulled back, particularly in the context of
the rioting that accompanied some of those demonstrations later. I'm
not surprised by that. He after all is of that regime. He is a cleric.
He is of that revolution. That's his strength. He realizes that his
core strength is there, even though he has that mandate from young
people and the women of Iran, and much of the public of Iran.
So what his political future is I don't know, except that I believe
myself that he is -- I don't see Khatemi, if I may venture out -- way
out on a branch, political branch. He is not necessarily himself the
future of Iran, but he symbolizes the future, the way in which I
believe the body politic of that country would inevitably move. I do
not think the sentiment that is abroad in Iran and is symbolized by
the way in which the students demonstrated seeking change, seeking
more liberalism, greater participation politically within that
revolution -- I do not see how that can be stopped. And again to
reiterate, unless and until the regime -- broadly all of the
leadership of that country recognize that unless it can demonstrate to
those young people and to the broad voting public that want to see
change, unless it can see, produce results in that direction, the
regime is in trouble, imposed on itself by its continued adherence in
many areas to strictures that limit political participation, that
limit freedom of expression, that limit the kind of freedoms that
young people today everywhere want to express themselves, to carve out
their own future.
I think Khatemi is a fascinating man. He is a kind of Gorbachev on the
scene in Tehran. He is a philosopher-king, if you want to read his
speeches in Italy, in Damascus, and the Gulf. And he said that -- I am
not sure just what he thinks -- where he thinks he is taking Iran. Can
he help put in place within an Islamic regime a kind of political
pluralism that most of us expect in a democratic process? I don't know
where it's going, and I am not sure sometimes whether he knows.
MR. KHATIB: We do have a viewer from Morocco, one of the ANN viewers
from Morocco. Please go ahead with your question.
Q: Hello. Hello, Mr. Mohanned, I am calling you from Casablanca,
Morocco. My question to the ambassador is the rhetoric of the United
States government and American officials, being official or
unofficial, such as yourself as a former ambassador to Tehran, there
is no credibility whenever you speak regarding our country. For
example, if things like this were to take place in Saudi Arabia or
Turkey, would you support them? The ambassador went back to Israel on
a plane, and Israel is filled with chemical and nuclear weapons. Is it
possible for the United States of America to give us lessons in
freedom of expression while the Palestinian people are hostage to the
government of Israel, which is supported by the United States? We tell
our brothers in the United States that the people of the United
States, we are against the policy of the United States in Iraq,
against the U.S. policy towards Iran. It is trying to dual contain
both countries, and the American people -- we would like to give this
message to the American people that they have friends in the region
and they have interests and those interests should not be put hostage
only to please Israel. The United States would have to know that the
Zionist Jewish lobby in the United States is directing U.S. foreign
policy in favor of Israel. So --
MR. KHATIB: I think your point has been made. There are a number of
issues that you have raised though. So let us listen to the response
of Mr. Ambassador. I think there are a number of principle issues.
Please, do you have anything to comment on?
AMB. LAINGEN: Well, I am not quite sure I can respond to that. It's
not so much a question as a statement, and I respect you for what you
have said in the area as we have talked about freedom of expression.
You are a free citizen in Morocco. And may I say in that context --
may I express my regret the passing of your king, and my hope which I
think is shared by all Americans that Morocco can continue on a strong
leadership course in that region under the new king.
I know full well the concerns you've expressed about what is often
called a double standard on the part of the United States in the
Middle East. In many ways I am sympathetic to that. But I think you
must understand -- you have to understand the depth, the degree to
which we have this kind of political, moral, historical, personal
alliance with the state of Israel. That is there and it cannot be set
aside. An important thing in that context is to do what we can to
contribute to this process that it might someday lead to a Palestinian
state living in peace and confidence with the state of Israel.
I would like to hope that you would believe that the United States has
at least expended a hell of a lot of political capital and efforts
over the last 50 years to try to contribute to a situation where
Israel and the Palestinians or the Israelis and Palestinians and the
Arabs can live peaceably side by side.
MR. KHATIB: We do thank our colleagues at ANN in London for having
participated in our discussion -- (inaudible) -- you are still with us
here at "Global Exchange," and I believe there are additional
questions from ANN. Please go ahead.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, a final question. If we were to compare between the
incidents of 1979 and the demonstrations that took place in 1999 and
its objectives, what in your opinion are the major changes that have
taken place in Iran in order to keep, and who are the people of reform
that are important and necessary for Iran to pursue that course of
reform?
AMB. LAINGEN: Well, it is obvious the situation is very different from
1979 in a broad political sense. When the revolution was new and young
and just beginning and trying to get its feet on the ground, if you
will, firmly. They, the revolution, 20 years later is unquestionably
in command. I do not see any threat to its situation there. What is
different from then -- what is the same as then is that young people
are on the streets -- or were on the streets or have been on the
streets to try to change something about the revolution. They were
massively involved in 1979 -- at my cost, of course -- I was a hostage
as a consequence of their efforts to put that revolution on a more
radical course by the seizure of my embassy. Today there is no embassy
to seize. There is no embassy to seize -- regrettably -- I wish we
were there -- I don't think we would be seized.
But again today the students are leading, apparently leading the
effort, seeking change in that revolution. That was evident in the
election of President Khatemi two years ago. They are still there.
They after all are the future of that country, and it is that future
young people broadly defined in that country that that revolution must
now find ways to encourage its continued support.
I believe these young people do want the revolution to continue,
granted that there are -- yes, there are elements in Iran, a minority
who want to see that changed. Let's face it: in this country there are
a million and a half Iranian Americans living among us today. There
are many who have not yet accepted the revolution that would like to
see change. And I can understand their concern. They have the right to
express themselves freely as well. But I do not think that they are
going to determine the future of that country.
I say in that context -- I spoke to the Iranian American community in
this country -- a million in a half roughly more or less -- no one
really knows -- I see that as a strength, looking down the road in our
future relationship and, God willing, official relationship with that
country. That's kind of ethnic minority in this country can be an
undergirding for policy toward Iran as it is for other countries that
when they have -- for whom we have large ethnic minorities in our
country.
One of my regrets over the last 20 years where we have been talking
past each other and not with each other, not dealing with each other,
but we have been out of contact with the future of Iran, and the kind
of contact that an official relationship would make possible, because
there, as in this country, the young people are the future of our
respective countries.
MR. KHATIB: And once again we thank our colleagues at ANN in London
for having participated. Dear viewers, you are watching a discussion
of possible reform in Iran. This is "Global Exchange," part of the
Worldnet satellite network. We will be right back.
(Announcements.)
MR. KHATIB: Ladies and gentlemen, we continue our discussion on reform
in Iran with Ambassador Bruce Laingen, held hostage at the U.S.
Embassy in Tehran about 20 years ago. As we know, he was held hostage
at that time. Let us go now to Milliyet newspaper in Turkey, Mr. Sammy
Cohen (ph). Please go ahead with your question.
Q: Yes, thank you. Mr. Ambassador, President Khatemi presents now a
confusing picture. One day he defends the reforms and therefore wins
the hearts of the young people and all those forces who are in favor
of reform. Then the next day he attacks those forces or seems to
defend the establishment. So where do you place Khatemi? How much does
he differ ideologically from Ayatollah Khamenei, and what are really
the differences?
AMB. LAINGEN: I think they, as you say, the shift in the way President
Khatemi was speaking in the context of these demonstrations, I think
that was a tactical move on his part, a tactical political move which
he recognized he had to make. He is after all a part of the regime. He
is after all lacking in power if you will. You know as well as I do
that he does not command some of the structure of that government
which gives the security forces, the information forces, the
judiciary. He recognizes that; he knows it. And for that reason I
think what he has said most recently is a tactical move looking down
the road toward the elections in February 2000, knowing that he has
got to be careful in this current context to deal with the elements
that have power, including the supreme leader.
I think there are some fundamental differences. This is a personal
judgment, the judgment on the part of all of us looking at that regime
today, that obviously there's some ideological difference between
those two gentlemen in the way they see the future of that revolution.
The supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei is clearly identified with
preserving the kind of what I'd call rigidity of the previous -- of
the revolution, the strictures that have been in place -- not prepared
easily at least to make concessions in the direction that Khatemi
seems to be wanting to take that country, take that revolution. So
there are some big differences.
I would reiterate that I believe President Khatemi speaks for the
future of that revolution, and the Ayatollah Khamenei does not. I say
that, because I believe the future of that revolution depends on the
kind of reforms, on the kind of greater liberalism and the kind of
greater freedom of expression. And I cannot -- I would not
underestimate the need for both sides to produce jobs in that country.
It depends on all of that for its future. If it fails in that respect
and resumes a direction that was not evident before President
Khatemi's election, then I think the revolution is in serious trouble
for any time in its tenure, looking down the road to the future.
Q: In spite of all his support for changes, for reforms, basically
would not dare to change the fundamentalist system in Iran?
AMB. LAINGEN: Yes, I think that's correct. When you say the
"fundamentalist system," he obviously wants to preserve the
Constitution, which puts in place the elements of that regime. But I
believe -- I have to read into what he has said and what he has done,
that he wants to see that Constitution implemented in a more liberal
way, giving power -- empowering the people to a greater degree than
has been the case, even though a strict wording of that Constitution
would provide for considerable empowerment and participation by the
people. Khatemi obviously thinks that he can move the revolution in
the direction that will cede more power to the voting public, more
participation evident in the elections of the municipal councils or
the local councils around the country. I would reiterate that I am not
sure he can do it. I cannot see that he necessarily has the political
power and the future to do it. I hope he can.
What is possible? I ask that fundamental question that most observers
from outside Iran would make, particularly Americans, knowing our
definition of democracy. Is it possible to have pluralism, broadly
defined, and public participation in government within an Islamic
theocracy? Put it that way -- which it is today.
I would go on to say to the extent that Iran -- Khatemi -- can prove
that is possible, that you can have pluralism, that you can have
public participation within a kind of Islamic regime, if that can be
proven possible, that would remove I think a lot of concern on the
part of most -- many Americans -- some Americans at least who continue
to be troubled by what they -- by what is described as that
fundamentalism in this law that seems to be going in another direction
with less participation on the part of the public.
Q:  Right.  So this is going to be quite an experiment.
AMB. LAINGEN:  It is an experiment indeed.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, in the first portion of the program you said that
Khatemi resembles a little bit like Gorbachev in the former Soviet
Union. Now, would you say that he faces the same kind of future as
Gorbachev?
AMB. LAINGEN: He is like Gorbachev in believing that change is
possible within the system. That's pretty clear, I think. That's what
Gorbachev wanted. He failed, and the system collapsed. I don't think
the underpinnings of that regime in Tehran are that weak. I think 20
years have put in place considerable solidity in terms of the strength
of the revolution.
I just don't have the sense -- and maybe you do -- that the populace
of Iran wants to see another revolution, wants to see dramatic change,
removing the current structured government. They are prepared to see
it continue in place, but with more public participation and less
clerical domination of the decision-making of that country. I believe
that would be much more consistent with Iran's national tradition, and
the traditions of Shi'a Islam.
Q: Right. So it seems as Iran is heading towards a period of perhaps
uncertainty, perhaps even a struggle for power. Now, if that is the
case, what would the United States' attitude be? I mean, you said
earlier that certainly the U.S. wants to have a dialogue. But isn't
that affected by this uncertainty in Tehran?
AMB. LAINGEN: Yeah. It is. It is affected. Like what I have said about
how much we -- I believe this government wants a dialogue, wants to be
able to sit down and talk about the big concerns we both got. They are
all there. Sure, both sides have got them. I don't see any likelihood
of any movement in that direction in these critical months leading up
to that election in the year 2000. The atmosphere just isn't open to
that kind of thing.
Meanwhile, the United States government I think has said some
important things -- has done some of it -- well, it has said some
important things. But I read earlier in this hour the comment by the
President the other day in his news conference -- last week. The
President I think has a very good sense of that revolution and what
the situation is in Iran. That declaration on the part of the
President was an important contribution to the atmosphere in which I
hope all Iranians can see us a little differently. We have done some
other things, not least what is about to be announced this week, a
relaxation on our sanctions with respect to sales of food stuffs and
medical supplies. We welcome that warmly. I would like to see us make
further steps in that direction which are symbolic of what Madeleine
Albright spoke of once, the need for parallel steps that both
governments can make, granted as I said earlier politically one can't
expect all that much in the next six to eight months.
MR. KHATIB: We thank our colleague Sammy Cohen (ph) from Milliyet
Newspaper in Turkey. Now we go to one of the ANN viewers who is
calling us from Germany. Please go ahead.
Q: I do have two questions. The first question: The ambassador has
mentioned that the United States does not deal with the world in
general with the mentality of domination. However, there is a strategy
for the United States, and the American strategy reflects that aspect
of domination; for example, the dual containment policy. And it is one
way to contain people and make it much more difficult for those people
to progress and develop. The aim of stopping Iran from developing
weapons of mass destruction and not stopping other countries from
doing so; for example, because of the strategic relationship with
Israel. And while at the same time providing Israel with very
sophisticated weapons systems there is a problem with that theory. So
we hope that the United States would deal with the region really in an
atmosphere of friendship. That's my first question.
The second one, being an expert in Iranian affairs, as you know there
are two -- there is a conflict taking place or a government headed by
two people. There is a civilian head of the government elected by the
people and there is the spiritual leader, and the demonstrations that
took place in the streets somehow reflected that conflict. Don't you
think that one of these two heads would have to bow to the other?
MR. KHATIB: I believe your question is quite clear. Let us take the
first part of the question having to do with the dual containment
policy adopted by the United States towards Iran on the other side and
Iraq on the other side for a long period of time.
AMB. LAINGEN: Well, I understand your question. And again that was a
statement about the perception that we, the United States is out to
dominate. I fear, I regret, I assume that that's a given, a large part
of the world community, given the role we play today as the remaining
military superpower, and inevitably a large power in so many
dimensions, we will be seen as dominating or seeking to dominate. I
hope that is not our policy. I do not believe it is. I think in the
aftermath of what's happened in recent years I think there's a keen
appreciation in this country of the need for coercion building, a need
we can't accomplish but we would like to accomplish, except with
participation by other governments as partners in what we seek.
You referred to the policy of dual containment. I don't think you see
that word used much any more. I did not think it was a very good
policy at the time. Containing Iraq is one thing; after all, we have
U.N. participation in that, broad participation if you want to call
that containment. And as far as Iran is concerned we do not use that
term any more. It never did be that you could contain -- a bad word --
a country as large, as strong, with such potential as Iran has. I am
opposed to some of our policies vis-a-vis Iran. I am not happy with
our posture on Central Asian pipelines for example. I would like to
see us begin a process to even beyond what we have just announced
about food imports and medical imports. It will ease up a little bit
on that sanction. There's a way to contribute to the ambience, which
obviously is needed before we can sit down and talk. There is a need
for example for spare parts for the large inventory of Boeing aircraft
that Iran still has. I think that should be eased up, not least for
safety concerns. There are a lot of things that can be done, and I
think this government is looking for ways to do that right now. And I
think that action vis-a-vis food and medical imports is evident -- is
symbolic of our desire, of our readiness to contribute to a better
atmosphere between our two countries.
As far as weapons of mass destruction are concerned, roughly all are
opposed to the degree that all of us can act in limiting the expansion
of weapons of mass destruction, including our own. I know the concern
of that double standard vis-a-vis Israel. I am well aware that Iran
understands that.
I would just throw in this footnote to all of that. The regime in
Tehran is probably no different from the shah in the sense that they
are surrounded, they believe, by countries that have these weapons of
mass destruction, and they need it too, not least because of the
historic sentiment on the part of all leaderships in Iran, the Shah
and the current one, that Iran should be -- must be seen as a dominant
and powerful country in that part of the world.
MR. KHATIB: We have a very, very short period of time for another
caller from Germany. Please go ahead quickly.
Q: Hello, I would like to welcome ANN, Mr. Ambassador. As an American
people, do you believe in the right of people to determine their own
future? If you do so, why have you stood and you stand with along
generals in South America, people who have -- generals who have killed
their people and taken away their rights? And there have -- in Turkey
-- you have stood with the government in Turkey while their prisons
are filled with prisoners who are Kurds.
MR. KHATIB:  Please go ahead and response, Mr. Ambassador.
AMB. LAINGEN: Well, you are referring to the historic record, it's
your interpretation of it. I would like to believe that there is some
aspects of what you have said that do not add up to the kind of policy
that is determined by the United States.
And let me just say as an American citizen, as a former government
official, governments act in every instance in their relations with
other countries in the context of how they see their own national
interests furthered. That has to be the determining force, to the
extent that that can be handled within a democratic process, by
recognizing the need to deal with governments that have bases within
their societies of support, then we should do that.
MR. KHATIB: Mr. Ambassador, with 30 seconds remaining, do you believe
that what has happened lately is going to harm President Khatemi in
light of of course those extremes he has taken?
AMB. LAINGEN: No. I believe that what has happened lately is a bump in
the road for Khatemi. I do not think he can be set aside; nor can what
he advocates in terms of change within that revolution can be set
aside. It is there, it is a fact, and it will remain, and I would
expect -- I'd make a prediction that Khatemi will do well in the
elections in February 2000, because he does represent that broad
sentiment in Iran that the revolution must change.
MR. KHATIB: And with that unfortunately we have run out of time. I
would like to thank Ambassador Bruce Laingen for joining us today. And
also thanks to all of our broadcasters and viewers who called in with
their questions. For this edition of "Global Exchange," I am Mohanned
Khatib.
(end transcript)