Moussavian who was member of the experts committee negotiating with the European foreign ministers offers a mixture of political and security angles of the statement. Foreign ministers from Britain, France and Germany visited Iran last month and Tehran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment. The United States accuses Iran of developing an atomic bomb under the cover of a civil program. Q: You were involved in recent talks between Iran and EU big three over nuclear concerns. How can you respond to those who envision Saadabad statement as Tehran's retreat? A: Before anything else, we should know the additional protocol. The protocol is an attachment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which Iran is a signatory since 1970. The treaty authorizes inspection of nuclear facilities in member states by inspectors from the United Nations nuclear watchdog -- the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The international community had to toughen its inspections and to this end it designed the additional protocol. The NPT and its additional protocol consider inspection of nuclear facilities and they do not authorize inspection of all political, religious, security, defense and military sites in member states. An important point in the additional protocol is that the secret information of the countries should not be divulged in the course of nuclear checks. Even the member countries can bar inspectors from going to the nuclear facilities engaging national security considerations. In that case the inspectors should take up samples from a one-kilometer distance. So the additional protocol is no odd thing and it is designed to make sure that member countries do not acquire nuclear arms. Now we turn to Iran's strategy which relies on fight with the weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has outlawed WMD from a religious point of view. So, Iran's political and ideological strategy relies on fight against sinister of arms of mass destruction and support for non-proliferation and disarmament treaties. On the other hand, we have proven to be ahead of other regional nations in joining disarmament treaties. Iran was the first regional nation to join the chemical convention around 10 years ago. The convention barred the nations from developing chemical warfare and the NPT and its additional protocol prohibit development of nuclear weapons. Now we understand that Iran's strategy is based on fighting nuclear, chemical and biological arms. So how can it trot back? On the contrary, the agreements further endorse Iran's strategic diplomacy to safeguard regional and international security. Q: Under the statement, Iran has also agreed to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran says it is voluntarily ceasing to enrich uranium and we know well that Iran would have suffered a lot if the case had been taken to the United Nations Security Council. But the Europeans demanded a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment and they reached their goals. What do you think? A: An important thing here is that Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency should have mutual trust regarding Iran's peaceful nuclear activities. Now the nuclear body is suspicious of Iran's nuclear brinkmanship and Iran is obliged to remove any suspicion and win back the IAEA confidence. The nuclear agency demanded that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment temporarily in an attempt to dispel doubts. Q: But it was exactly what the Europeans wanted? A: Yes, the IAEA governing board urged Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment to ally international concerns over its nuclear ambitions. The Europeans have since June called on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Of course, the Europeans believe that Iran has not access to enrichment technology. For instance, Germany says even the developed nations can rarely enrich uranium. Except for five nuclear powers -- US, UK, France, Russia and China - the developed nations prefer to purchase fuel. Anyhow, Iran does not favor its suspension of uranium enrichment forever because the NPT authorizes its members to do so. But the IAEA Board of Governors asked Iran to suspend its activities temporarily in order to make sure that Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful. Now, we have no reason to rebuff the nuclear agency because we know that our activities are peaceful. Of course, we dismiss a tough resolution adopted by IAEA governing board but we hold respect for the IAEA request. So we cooperate with the agency to demonstrate the peacefulness of our nuclear ambitions. Iran can win the trust of the international community if it comes clean over its nuclear ambitions. The Americans have mobilized the world against us and are fishing in muddy waters to sully the squeaky-clean image of the Islamic Republic. Under such conditions, we should not stay idle and prove that we have no problem for transparency and confidence-building. Q: Do you think that Iran made the decision at a good time? A: To me, the agreement was made in neither the best nor the worst time. It was better for Iran and the European Union to launch their confidence-building operations two years ago. To tell you the truth, we proposed the Europeans in 1999 to cooperate with Iran against weapons of mass destruction and terrorism but they turned a blind eye. I put forward the proposal in Germany during seven years of my assignment but the Europeans were not ready. So we made the right decision but we had to reach a consensus inside the country, too. Under the aegis of national consensus, we could reach a "national decision" and the Europeans also announced their readiness. You may ask why the timing was not the worst. Iran could have rejected cooperation with Europe and said that it would not sign the additional protocol. In the case, the IAEA governing board would have sent the case to the United Nations Security Council and our country could have faced sanctions. If we believe in fight against weapons of mass destruction and base our strategy on peaceful nuclear activities we have no problem for cooperation and we should not add ammunition to doubts and suspicions. Q: Don't you think that we chose between "bad" and "the worse"? A: No, I don't think so. The United States relies on preventive military strategy and preemptive strike and its political doctrine advocates a unipolar world. Iran espouses multilateralism and it shares its views with Europe, China and Russia. Under such support, Iran can play its historical role in thwarting US plots at the international scene. Under certain circumstances, the United States sought an international consensus against Iran over its nuclear ambitions to set the stage for implementation of its military doctrine against the Islamic Republic after Iraq war. Of course, the US had not decided to attack Iran but Washington and Tel Aviv intended to take the case to the United Nations Security Council and pit the international community against Iran. For our part, we took time to prove our belief in multilateralism and preventive diplomacy. I think that Iran, Europe, China and Russia are presenting their macro-strategy to the world. Anyhow, we should watch out that "unwitting opposition" could not play into US hands. In fact, Iran, Europe, China and Russia should be given the opportunity to play their major role at the international scene. Q: Iran hosted Tehran talks but the Europeans had arranged the agenda. I mean that they bring their suggestion and won! A: We should look into the issue more precisely. As I told you we had proposed the Europeans since 1990 to cooperate with us for clearing the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction. So we offered the proposal. Now we found the time ripe and invited them because they could not manage a third crisis in the region. We did not favor crisis either. So we found common grounds with them. When they wrote us and offered nuclear carrot we found that they have referred to our past suggestion. Q: The letter from EU big three opened a new chapter in bilateral ties. Can you tell us of the contents of the letter? We have heard conflicting reports on the contents of the letter; some of them say the letter did not bear any proposal while some others say the Europeans had promised construction of a nuclear power plant in exchange for Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment. A: In the letter, the Europeans said they were ready to cooperate with Iran if Iran wins their confidence. They were referring to the 1990 proposals put forward from Iran. In the course of talks, they said they would procure our fuel if we halt uranium enrichment forever. In the case, they said they would help us erect a nuclear power plant. But neither Germany nor any other European states were ready to complete Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant through 1980-2003. Now, they allege their readiness to provide Iran with power plant and fuel. Everything changed. We held all-inclusive talks with them before the visit to Tehran of foreign ministers from EU big three. Our demands were as follows; recognition of our right within NPT, resolving Iran's nuclear issues under IAEA norms, clearing the way for cooperation. They agreed and highlighted our demands in Tehran talks. So, Saadabad statement comprises two sections; Iran's confidence-building measures and meeting Iran's legitimate demands for regional stability. You know that the NPT is a double-edged tool which can promote cooperation with the entire world and also violate national sovereignty and damage political and security aspects. Q: How can they satisfy Iran demands? Is it enough for them to say that they would respect our sovereignty and they would not envisage the additional protocol against our national security and interests? A: No, they are by no means sufficient. Saadabad statement was the beginning and not an end to the process of confidence-building between Iran and Europe. Iranians may say Europe is not trustable and the Europeans may be also distrustful of Iran but grounds are now prepared for confidence-building between Iran and Europe. Our concerns had to be alleviated. So we told the IAEA, Russia and Europe our anxieties and decided to take the first steps for cooperation. Q: Did Iran's insistence on its right for uranium enrichment sway European proposals? A: We told the Europeans that permanent suspension of uranium enrichment was contrary to NPT and they understood that confidence-building should lie within NPT framework. For the first time they announced that they recognize all Iran's rights within NPT. You may ask if they wold give us nuclear power plant tomorrow? In response, I say that the important thing is that Iran-Russia nuclear cooperation would no longer face any opposition from the world public opinion. Q: How can you guarantee your comments? Iran may face fresh pressure when gas is supplied to centrifuges in Natanz plant? A: When everything is under full supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and they announce that Iran's nuclear activities are in full control, no anti-Iranian action has international legitimacy. Q: Iran has always dismissed international pressure but everything was snowballing into a major crisis for Iran. Isn't the repetition possible? A: We should have a realistic view of the point that Iran's nuclear ambitions have won widespread mistrust. We cannot close our eyes on the realities and mislead the people. Europe, Russia, regional nations and international community are now distrustful of Iran's nuclear brinkmanship and we have to dispel suspicion. Q: Anyhow, do you think that Iran made the correct decision in confidence-building? We often hear allegations that we brought the Europeans to their knees in Tehran and such comments do not imply any confidence-building. What do you think? A: It is not correct to say that Tehran talks served only Iran or only Europeans. The talks opened the doors for Iran and the nuclear body to show goodwill gestures for confidence-building. We should also reach consensus in the country in order to proceed with our confidence-building measures. Q: What do you think about the hypothesis that confidence-building runs contrary to national security? A: Such opinion is released from those are not familiar with international realities. Any country needs to focus on confidence-building to cooperate with the world. Otherwise, the countries would automatically go into isolation. The world relies on international, political, scientific, economic, cultural, security, defensive and military cooperation. For its part, Iran wants to show cooperation based on mutual respect and trust. Q: Now we revert to domestic scene. You said that Tehran statement came in the wake of an internal consensus. Now I want to know who was behind this decision; the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), the Foreign Ministry or the supreme leader and the president as SNSC secretary Hassan Rohani says? A: Firstly, I note that our decision was no imposition of foreign ministers from EU big three. One and a half months before their visit, we wrote to IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei that we were ready to sign the additional protocol. Mr ElBaradei came to Tehran and we said we were ready. Three days before the three ministers come to Tehran, President Mohammad Khatami announced that Iran might suspend uranium enrichment conditionally. So we had made our decision and the three ministers did not come here to impose their will and go. Such interpretation of Tehran statement is meant for misleading the public opinion. President Khatami is the head of the Supreme National Security Council. The judiciary chief, speaker of parliament, chairman of army joint chiefs of staff, minister of interior, minister of intelligence, foreign minister and revolutionary guards commander are members of the council. According to the Constitution, the supreme leader should confirm the SNSC decisions. We consider SNSC as the center of national consensus and a national decision should not be attributed to a single person. Nuclear concerns constitute a consequential national affair and Article 176 of the Constitution allows the SNSC to make decision regarding such affairs. The parliament should also agree with Iran's signature of the additional protocol. So whatever happened was a national decision and no single person was behind it. Q: Several days before Saadabad statement, the dominant voice did not herald Iran's agreement. Analysts knew well that Iran had to sign the protocol or face international sanctions. The climate was polarized vis-à-vis the protocol and the SNSC only barred press from capitalizing on the issue. Why did the council not do anything at that time? A: Everything was ambiguous before the three EU foreign ministers came to Tehran. Bt we cannot divulge all SNSC decisions. We wanted to win concessions from Europe. In the talks, they demonstrated that they took into account our concerns. So after talks, we made our decision public. Q: And for conclusion, do you think that Iran has staved off the crisis? A: It is not correct to say the crisis is fully settled. But we have to a large extent managed to thwart US efforts to win international unanimity against Iran to take the case to the UN Security Council. We have stripped our detractors of any pretext. Now it depends on Iran and its partners -- Europe, China, Japan, ... -- to show their goodwill gesture. Nuclear concerns could not be removed in two weeks and we need time to prove to the nuclear agency that our activities are peaceful. We have headed off threats and the world press has hailed Iran's decision and says that multilateralism is now flexing muscles in the face of preemptive strikes and unilateralism. (Iran Persian Daily, Nov 6, 2003)