Tout et n'importe quoi: Plus s?rieusement
"'ambassadeur iranien aux Nations Unies, Mohammed Javad Zarif, était interviewé dans le Washington Journal (CSPAN) ce matin. Extraits:
MJZ: We in fact believe that a nuclear weapons program will not enhance Iran's security. It will in fact be detrimental to our security, even the perception that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program is in our view detrimental to our security. Therefore, we have made it very clear that nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction have no place in our defense doctrine and we have been more than willing to cooperate with the international community to remove any doubt as to even the possibility of a weapons program in Iran [...].
Host: We’ve talked about the negotiations now going on within the United Nations. But here in Washington, a number of questions aimed at president Bush, whether or not he in fact is planning any military action against Iran to stop your nuclear program. Do you think that's the case? Do you think the president is planning to strike your country?
>> MJZ: Well, I mean that's a question that needs to be addressed to U.S. officials. But I can say one thing, and that is even the talk of the United States planning to use force against another country is in fact a threat to international law. Because as you know, international law has gone through a great deal of change in the last century. The international law of the 19th century would have allowed any country to resort to force in order to advance its national interest. But that international law went through a great deal of transformation, both before the Second World War and particularly after the formation of the United Nations. Within the United Nations system force can only be used, either in the exercise of self-defense -- and the United States can by no stretch of the imagination claim that it is exercising self-defense against Iran -- or by the United Nations Security Council. Any resort to force short of these two measures is a violation of international law. And I think it will be important for President Bush and other members of the administration to recognize the fact that the use of force is not an option on the table. So by saying that you are keeping all the options on the table, including, unfortunately, the response that came from president Bush in relation to the report that was published in American papers that the United States is even considering using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran and even against that, he said, all options are on the table. This is frightening. This is frightening not for Iran but it should be frightening for the American people and for the international community as a whole.
>> Host: But based on that scenario where you say force is not an option, president Ahmadinejad has said, ""that Israel should be wiped off the map.""
>> MJZ: Well, president Ahmadinejad never threatened to use force against any country.
>> Host: How else would he do it?
>> MJZ: You see, we have said categorically that Iran has not resorted to the threat of force. Iran will not resort to the threat of force against any other member of the United Nations. On the other hand, Israeli officials and the United States officials have made basically a daily threat of use of force against Iran, long before president Ahmadinejad came into office. Now I can make a very official public announcement from here that Iran is not going to use force against any country. Let us see whether you can invite an Israeli official or an American official and they can make the same rather categorical declaration that the United States or Israel will not resort to the use of force against any other country […]."