IRAN: AHMADINEJAD FIRESIDE CHAT MENTIONS NUCLEAR ISSUE, US

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 RPO DUBAI 000029 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/03 TAGS: PREL CASC PGOV PARM IR SUBJECT: IRAN: AHMADINEJAD FIRESIDE CHAT MENTIONS NUCLEAR ISSUE, US HIKERS CLASSIFIED BY: Alan Eyre, Director, Iran Regional Presence Office; REASON: 1.4(B),(D) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: In a February 2 nationally televised talk that dealt mostly with economic issues, President Ahmadinejad mentioned (almost in passing) that he himself saw no problem with the IAEA proposal for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) fuel, i.e. Iran exporting 3.5 percent enriched uranium in a non-simultaneous transfer, i.e. with 20 percent uranium being delivered later - an exact translation of his comments being "even if we put our 3.5 percent fuel at their disposal, there isn't a problem." Ahmadinejad did note though that the IAEA TRR proposal 'caused a stir' in Iran, and an initial examination of his remarks in context seems to indicate that he was not announcing any IRIG acceptance of the IAEA TRR deal, but instead speaking hypothetically on the consequences of accepting the IAEA TRR deal. Such an interpretation accords with the fact that with the expiration of the IRIG 'deadline' for the West to accept its TRR nuclear offer, last night he repeated his January 24 assertion that he intends to announce 'good news' on the nuclear front next week (his exact January 24 statement being: "during the 'Ten Days of Fajr' I will announce good news concerning producing 20 percent nuclear fuel"). Separately, Ahmadinejad said that discussions were taking place that could lead to an exchange of the three detained US hikers in exchange for Iranian citizens being held in the US for export violations. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (U) On February 2 President Ahmadinejad gave a live night-time nationally televised talk to the nation. Self-congratulatory if not triumphalist in tone, most of it dealt with seeking to assuage popular concerns over his administration's implementation of the controversial Targeted Subsidies Bill recently enacted into law. However, the two relatively small sections of his speech that caught the attention of the Western press dealt with nuclear issues and with the issue of the three imprisoned US hikers. A rough translation of President Ahmadinejad's comments on these two issues follows. [NOTE: The Persian text of his comments was taken from his official website; other coverage of his speech seems to have only minor variations. IRPO comments in hard brackets]. ¶3. (SBU): AHMADINEJAD ON NUCLEAR ISSUES 
 ...In nuclear matters, they sanctioned us and didn't give us any parts, but now what is the state of our nuclear condition? Good news in that regard will be announced next week. ...Comparing four years ago to now shows where we've reached in our nuclear situation. Four years ago we'd opened the Esfahan nuclear plant...our enemies didn't accept this, making a big fuss and issuing resolutions. ...For three and a half years they were saying that Iran must not have the fuel cycle; then they said come let's negotiate, then they said suspend for three months and then resume, and with the passage of time they backed down. ...Now you can see where we've arrived. We are enriching uranium and even have the capability to produce 20 percent enriched fuel. They all know this; the talk is now over us coming and cooperating and exchanging [i.e. Iran's LEU for 20 percent fuel]. ...Some have accepted the proposals of interaction and [fuel] exchange and some, including the British and the Zionist regime, were uncomfortable with this suggestion. They said: if the matter becomes one of interacting [with Iran], it's all over, i.e. they thought if Iran engages in nuclear cooperation with the main countries producing nuclear fuel, what would the Zionists do! And they were very angry with this suggestion [of interaction with Iran]. Some also unconsciously sided with them. DUBAI 00000029 002 OF 003 ..In our opinion there is no problem with exchange [i.e. fuel exchange] but some of them [foreign parties] have behaved incorrectly, which has caused negotiations and exchanges to fall behind. Some were saying that if we bring 20 percent fuel to Iran, Iran will build an atomic bomb and I answered them saying that we are brave enough such that if we want to build an atomic bomb we'll say it: we're not like you who seek to conceal your goals. We explicitly say that we are opposed to you. ...They [foreign parties? the enemy?] know that we are very advanced but they propagandize, to which we respond that if you honestly come forward we will cooperate with you. Lately they've sent messages and some of their concerns were right; because if a factory wants to produce 20 percent fuel it must change its production line and stop its production. ...Our colleagues proposed that there be an exchange of 3.5 percent fuel for 20 percent fuel carried out in three stages and the opinion of the foreign parties was that this was not possible from a technical viewpoint, and this was true. The foreign parties even suggested that the 3.5 percent fuel stay in Iran, we [i.e. the foreign parties] will sign a contract, we'll produce 20 percent fuel and then later do an exchange with you [i.e. with Iran]. [ NOTE: The following part of his speech seems to be the genesis of Western press stories about Iran accepting the IAEA TRR deal:] Even if we put our 3.5 percent fuel at their disposal [i.e. ship it out before getting a simultaneous exchange of 20 percent fuel] there isn't a problem. Of course some inside Iran raised a fuss and said they [foreign parties] will take our fuel and not give any back. We replied that if they don't give it [20 percent fuel] to us, what happens, whose words will be proved correct? If they [i.e. the foreign parties] don't act according to their obligations it will be proven that they can't be trusted and the hands of the IAEA and those who signed the contract will be exposed and our hands will be free to do our own work [i.e. presumably to continue enrichment themselves]. If they don't interact with us [i.e. don't live up to their word] the international environment will change in our favor. Therefore, they want to cooperate with us, and other than those two countries I mentioned [Israel & UK], we have no problems. From the beginning we had no fight to pick; it was they who picked a fight. Nuclear fuel is our right; at first they made a fuss, but now they want to cooperate with us. They can come and build 20 nuclear power stations for us; Russia, France and the US can come and sign contracts and build power plants: it is both in our interest and in their interest. Of course if they don't come eventually we ourselves will reach the point where we build [nuclear] power stations: our nation will not stop. We need 20,000 megawatts of nuclear-generated electricity; if they cooperate they will profit and we will reach our goals and if they don't cooperate our nation will not wait for them and will meet our own needs. We are prepared to cooperate with any nation other than the UK and the Zionist regime on the nuclear issue provided that our nation's strategic interests are met. On the nuclear issue... they came and caused problems and for four to five years we had serious issues...but the Iranian nation stood firm. Now we have passed that phase and the matter is basically settled and now the issue is one of cooperation and we will cooperate within the framework of the Iranian nation's interests and there is no problem. All of these packages of proposals took form due to the nuclear pretext; when the nuclear issue goes away the subject of dialogue changes and slowly the path opens for broader cooperation on DUBAI 00000029 003 OF 003 various issues. ¶4. (SBU) AHMADINEJAD ON US HIKERS: Those Americans who were detained violated [the law] and entered our country illegally. Later, it became clear in reports that they knowingly entered our borders and knew what they were doing. I said I'd help and talked with the Judicial Branch but the behavior of some American officials ruined this [i.e. my initiative]. There are a large number of Iranians in prison and they have kidnapped some of our citizens from other countries and taken them and by pressuring other governments have arrested a great number of our citizens and convicted them in America. This is very bad and it limits what we can do, both us and the Judicial branch. But there are discussions [taking place] can lead to an exchange. We don't want to have people in prisons. They violated the law and [illegally] crossed our borders, their crime is clear but those Iranians who are in US prisons haven't done any apparent crime, i.e. they are not guilty, or at least it hasn't been announced to us and they have been several years in prison without a court and trial. The Americans have taken Iranian citizens for no reasons and said to them that they [the detained Iranians] wanted to export goods to Iran but there are no documents or proof for their acts [and in any case] is it a crime to export goods? ¶5. (C) COMMENT: Contrary to some Western press stories, it doesn't seem [to IRPO at least] that President Ahmadinejad sought to stake out any new position with his nuclear comments last night. Such an interpretation accords with the fact that with the expiration of the IRIG 'deadline' for the West to accept its TRR nuclear offer, he repeated his assertion last night that he still intends to announce 'good news' on the nuclear front next week, the presumption being that such news will relate to enriching to 20 percent (NOTE: On January 24, President Ahmadinejad told reporters that "during the 'Ten Days of Fajr' I will announce good news concerning producing 20 percent nuclear fuel"). Indeed, Ahmadinejad's comments last night seem to reflect what we already know: while he himself supported the IAEA TRR deal, other powerful factions within Iran opposed it. One well-placed IRPO contact with connections to Iran's nuclear industry said he had heard from a knowledgeable source that the main reason Iran rejected the IAEA TRR deal was due to the resistance of key IRGC leadership to the idea of exporting the lion's share of Iran's enriched uranium abroad, since it saw this uranium as an important component of its strategic power. Regardless of the veracity of such a claim, it seems unlikely from President Ahmadinejad's remarks that Iran has changed its official position on the TRR deal. END COMMENT. EYRE