Pres. Ahmadinejad's remarks to the U.S. peace community
The Fellowship of Reconciliation has just finished preparing the transcription of the English translation of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks to the U.S. peace and anti-war community, delivered at the meeting hosted by FOR on September 24, 2008 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City. That transcription follows. We thank everyone for their patience.
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments are divided into two main parts. In the first section, he speaks for some 25 minutes about the nature of war and human conflict. In the second section, he responds individually over another 25-minute period to (1) an introductory presentation delivered by Mark Johnson, executive director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and (2) a series of questions posed by various representatives of the U.S. peace and anti-war community. All of those words have already been posted to FOR’s blog; we encourage readers to click on the above links to read them, in order to better understand the context of the Iranian president’s responses.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful (the President is reciting verses from the Holy Qu’ran in Arabic).
I’m very glad and thank my God, my Lord, for giving me the opportunity to spend some time in your gathering — in our gathering — with people who seek peace, who seek good, and make efforts to establish peace. It seems to me this is a very important meeting, if not in its own kind being unique, it is definitely a very unique meeting as a whole. It represents different organizations who spend time and resources on helping others and establishing peace.
We are gathered together to exchange views, to think together, and find better ways to help human society. Well, a lot of interesting issues were raised by our dear friends, and I would like to divide my remarks in two parts. The first part is regarding the roots of war and conflicts, and the second part is regarding some issues that you have raised. And whatever it seems to me to be the correct response, I will most certainly offer it to you. And we’ll spend a few moments at the end, to continue any comments or discussions with our friends, so that we can have a good summary of our meeting today.
Well, we all maintain that one of the most abhorrent, perhaps the most abhorrent, event in human history is war. And we all believe that the worst solution to our problems is war. Everybody fears war, because war brings nothing but pain, destruction, and creating more tensions. Those who, throughout history, have started wars, have not helped peace, have not helped security, but rather they have adopted measures that destabilized the world.
Within our last century, we had many wars. In one war alone, the Second World War, more than all other wars in human history, [inaudible] people were killed. Although the exact figures are still unknown to this day, at least 60 million people lost their lives, and each one of them had a world to itself [sic], with their own features, characteristics, with their own rights, with their own hopes and interests.
Consequently, tens of millions of families were disrupted. World War II did not create the arrival of peace and security. Instead, it brought about other forms of wars — the Korean war, the Vietnam war, wars in the Middle East, the Panama Canal war, Grenada, the Panama war [sic]. And most recently, the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
So, it wasn’t the wars that helped arrive at peace and security on a permanent basis, and they created damages that were irreparable. It seems to me that in order to be effective and create a viable peace, and to prevent the expansion of wars, we must identify the root causes of those wars, and to fight those. If we know the root causes, we can identify the solutions faster.
Why are there wars? These wars — if you look at them, the ones that have happened in the past century — exactly why did they happen? It seems to me that the causes of that for people around the table is quite clear. One of the main reasons for wars is selfishness. There are those governments who see themselves above others. They think they are the high-class people, and that everybody else is a second-class, or a third-class. Even in our private lives in our neighborhoods, in our towns, people who create problems, have a reason for it.
Where are the roots? We identify it easily. It’s really primarily by people who think they are better than everyone else, and believe they have more entitlements than other people.
Another reason for wars is expansionism. Those for whom it is not enough just to remain within their own geographic borders, they seek to extend their domination, expansionism, as well as other factors that you, too, are aware of. For example: not respecting law; not respecting justice; not respecting the rights of mankind and those of nations; not respecting dignity of mankind and nations; not respecting the culture of mankind and nations. So combined, these are factors that are the root causes of wars, and as long as we are unable to resolve these completely, we will not be able to resolve conflicts. For the Second World War, too, I’m not even sure why it happened. If you look at World War I, too, the same story. Why exactly did they need to happen? The planners of these wars probably had no respect for the rights of other nations. Or were they — was it sufficient to have what they had and not ask for more?
Now, remember, they were also very wealthy countries for their time, but they were still interested in expanding their domination and hegemony around the globe, to extend the geography of their influence and interests. So what they had, what rights they possessed, was simply not enough. Had it been sufficient, they would have lived with their own resources, and would have lived well — prosperous lives!
Now, why is it that we have these problems? Selfishness, superiority, and expansionism. Why are some people just the way they are, like that? I think you are quite aware of why. There are people who have diminished moralities, and rob human life of those moralities because morality would force mankind to respect others, to be happy with what one has, to see one as an equal with others. And morality recommends to mankind not to see oneself higher but lower than others, to give up your own rights for others’ sake, to give your own private time for the sake of society. Exactly what you’re doing right now, yourselves, taking up your own time, your own money, to help your society.
I think that one of the biggest disloyalties done to human society was setting aside morality, ethics, and religious values, and separating them from social relationships. This is, perhaps, the root cause of all the problems we face today. Because after all, all divine religions have invited mankind to peace, and to brotherhood, and to justice, to tolerance, and patience — basically, putting up, when necessary, with one which is not always favorable, inviting people to embark on friendly relations, when religious values — that are known as ethics — are robbed from a society. There is really no hindrance in preventing wars, basically.
Now, some might say that, well, after all, we are a bigger power — or it’s necessary to create a stronger might and power that will stop others’ powers that seek more and are aggressive. Now, if this bigger power is not restricted by morality, what bigger power is there to stop it?
My dear friends, the main solution is that we must promote ethics, and morality, and religious values. And I think that this is a common point among all religions: in Christianity, in Judaism, as well as in Islam. All these invite mankind to seek one truth: to do good, what is pious and good, to others — do good to others, and refrain from doing bad and evil, to refrain from infringing on the rights of others.
It seems to me that these are the main solutions for our future. Otherwise, stopping wars does not offer a political solution. Perhaps in one position, or in several instances, it might be possible to stop one war or a few wars. But the spirit of aggression, the spirit of expansionism will eventually seek other opportunities for war down the road.
When you look at the history of war, there’s really no logic behind them. We must walk hand and hand, and try to help morality infuse itself into political and social relationships and exchanges. Moral people have an internal control system, which is bound by a human and Godly factor that controls their behavior outwardly. Those who’ve set aside morality have lost touch with the elements that are necessary to regulate man’s behavior in society.
And unfortunately, it seems that they are also proud of it when it’s done. When they are invited to embark on morality, they frown, and actually accuse the inviter of not knowing what he’s talking about, and joke about him. When in the political field, lying, deceiving, and dishonesty win at all costs — and through all means — the end result is war.
We, therefore, must fix these roots. We have to go back to the methods adopted by the divine prophets. Unfortunately, for tens of years now, religiosity and following the prophets is equivalized [sic] with backwardness and ignorance at times. Whereas the divine prophets arrived to establish a prosperous, happy life for mankind. They have arrived to show the right path, on behalf of God, a God that created mankind and loved his creation very much. God loves mankind to live in brotherhood and peace. He sent prophets to guide people for peace and security. As long as aggression and expansionism are not controlled, and the spirit behind it is not, wars will also continue.
So, this is the root cause of the debate. And as for the solution, it is essential to take — make efforts to uphold religious and moral values, and help expand them in society, for all. No one should think that it’s only the responsibility of a clergy, or in a mosque, or a bishop, or in a church, or a rabbi in a synagogue to do this promotion. It’s everybody’s job — a professor, a teacher, a student, a shop owner, a laborer, a government employer, a farmer, an investor — can all seek mankind to embark on more morality.
So we must be creative, and this is very possible. We must do something that will allow to put a stop to lying and aggression, and be considered as ugly abhorrent acts. Unfortunately, today, those who pursue incorrect methods, policy methods, to enforce their will by treading on justice and ignoring it, in order to establish their own hegemony on the world, are actually looked at with respect by many others around the world — whereas, they have to be actually told to do otherwise, to refrain from their actions.
So, we need to create a way, and it’s possible. If we want to, we can. Now, rest assured that if we decide to promote religious values, all the rules around the globe will come to our assistance. God, too, will assist us. Of course, the primary condition is that we, ourselves, must seriously give attention to these values and practices. Then, what we say will be effective. Our decisions will be effective, and we’ll be able to gather ourselves around the world at the pace of light.
We must not allow those who want more, those selfish people, those ill-tempered people, to carry out their actions by theorizing them — those abhorrent acts — and turn them into a school of thought or a doctrine. [We must go] back to a way of life that is the right way, and then to propagate in its favor.
Of course, carrying out this mission has certain requirements. We have to have an outlook that’s based on justice ourselves. It means that, really truly, we must respect all nations. If we do not like something for ourselves, we shouldn’t want it for others. I don’t want to talk too much, but I think what I’m trying to say is clear, and very simple as well.
What I say is really not very complicated, or sophisticated by any means. They’re just very clear-cut ideas that I think can be put into practice. I’d like to make a few remarks regarding the comments and questions made by our friends here.
Well, a lot of different issues were raised. I want to thank you all for taking the floor to bring these issues to my attention, and I apologize to friends who would have liked to talk more but didn’t have an opportunity to speak. Nonetheless, I’d like to thank you all for the work you’ve put into this meeting.
Mr. Johnson presented very interesting discussions here. He said that we have to try to find a nonmilitary answer to problems. This is completely true. Throughout history, only selfish dictators have sought military means [inaudible] as an answer. So we must try and put an end to dictatorship and selfishness, and make that valueless.
Of course, in our selections, we can enforce our will — when we can, of course. Now, he also said that reconciliation is possible. Also, he’s right again, completely.
We can start our work with popular activities among people: to invite people’s groups from different countries to be in touch with one another, to have exchanges, to talk, to invite people to gatherings, to debate issues, just like what I notice some of you have done together — and those measures are very good ones. And I read some of their reports and received some of them.
In Iran, at least anyway, we have two mass demonstrations across the country, in which tens of millions of people participate across the country. The one, marking the anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution, and the other, on the [Quds Day?], the [inaudible]. [Quds?] is the word Iran uses for the holy house in Jerusalem.
Now, both these demonstrations are against expansionism and war-mongering and selfishness. There are a lot of resolutions, a lot of speeches that are made on the sidelines. And of course, throughout the year in different towns and cities, there are a lot of other protests with this spirit of opposing war and conflict, and upholding the dignity of mankind and their rights, and peace and brotherhood.
Mr. Johnson, you’re absolutely correct about these ideas. We can walk hand in hand to move forward. He said that the voices of the American people that are anti-war must be accepted and heard. I’m certain that these voices will be heard, and that I am certain that the American people are opposed to war. We never equivilize [sic] the American people as a partner to these wars, believe that they can possibly be a partner to a war. People are never in favor of war. People are always opposed to war. Of course, there’s the minority group for their interests [who] start wars — like the war in Iraq right now.
I want to say a few words about Iraq. You’ve all heard of Saddam, of course. Saddam was a professional criminal. He continued a very costly war, and imposed it on the Iranian people for eight years. A nation that was one of the most peace-loving nations in the world, a nation whose relationship with others is based on culture, thought, and civilization.
You probably have many Iranian friends among you, so you know how we are as a people, Iranians. For example, Mrs. [Leila] Zand [director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation’s Iran program] herself — she’s one example. Iranians are people who get along, reasonable people, emotional people, and friendly with all other people. Wherever they go, they create constructive relationships with others. Eight years of war was imposed on us. From my own country alone, about 200,000 people were killed. Our cities were bombarded. Many of our cities and towns were bombarded with chemical weapons.
Why? To basically make a selfish dictator happy, who wanted to be the head of the Arab world? It is regrettable that we need to remind friends, and especially some governments, including the American government, the U.S. government, that in those eight years not only did they support Saddam, but encouraged him — covered up for his crimes throughout the period, propagated against our country. He was armed to his teeth, but it was our people who were placed under military sanction, meaning that our people had to fight with empty hands in the face of tanks, bombs, and airplanes.
But even so, the Iranian people resisted and the war came to an end. And we were glad. Later, Saddam decided to attack Kuwait. Documents show us that some groups — that even today have entered military troops into Iraq — are the same groups that encouraged Saddam to attack Kuwait.
Well, the United States and Great Britain finally decided to remove Saddam. The people in the region were happy about it. We thought to ourselves, “Well, finally, it seems they were able to make a good decision once.” But when Saddam was removed, and it was said that the troops will remain in Iraq, a lot of people understood that this was a game repeating itself again, that the goal was to have access to the oil resources of the region, and to dominate the Persian Gulf.
We, both during the eight-year imposed war, as well as today, are convinced that the American people are not people who seek war, would never support it. Even if Mr. Johnson had not announced this here today, we believe in this from our hearts, because American people —
[CHANGE IN TAPE — BREAK]
— what is expendable. We are convinced that the American people will oppose wars, but at the same time, we need to find a solution to, sort of, in this so-called democracy, help bring the voices of the people to influence decisions managers in this country make. I think for that we must find a solution that works.
I have heard, according to some polls, that over 75 percent of people are opposed to war, although if these polls are done correctly, I am sure that the figure will probably be more than 90 percent. After all, democracy means the enforcement of the will of the people.
So, we have to find a solution. I think there’s a problem somewhere, and the problem must be identified and improved. Mr. Johnson said people have different ideologies. That, too, is good. We welcome it. It is through different perspectives with different tastes that we can work together. The commonality between all the religions is the same.
I mean, I’m not sure what that means, but basically, all religions have common ideas. And I know that we all agree to that. Miss [Priscilla] Fairbank — did I say your name right? — asked, “How can we talk about peace dialogue between the American and Iranian people, while the American government wants to overthrow the Iranian government?”
[FOR 30 SECONDS, THE LIVE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTION IN THE MEETING ROOM SWITCHES FROM THE ENGLISH TRANSLATOR TO THE PRESIDENT SPEAKING IN FARSI.]
Of course, to some extent, the U.S. government has to follow up, and you have to help with the follow-up. On the Iranian side, I will prepare the conditions for more talks and exchanges.
[APPLAUSE]
Some of my friends in this meeting today came to Tehran and met with me. We talked to each other. In one meeting, I spent more than two hours meeting with some of our friends here who visited us. We held a good dialogue. I hope on your part you will follow up, so that things are easy for us — so that we, too, can visit, and have exchanges with you more easily.
[APPLAUSE]
Mr. [William] Sinkford — did I say it right? — he said that “The legacy of our religion is freedom for all. In our efforts here, our efforts towards equal rights for everyone, they said that in Iran news coming about women and activists is concerning. Are women to work, to study, to engage in religious activities?”
Let me give you some news about Iran. To tell you the truth, the women are about to replace myself!
[APPLAUSE]
In Iran, close to 70 percent of university students are female. They fill 70 percent of the seats in the universities — in all fields, mind you — engineering, medicine, law, literature, sociology, in the police forces — everything social, and the government and the parliament. Driving, cab drivers — I mean, I don’t really like it for women. It’s a tough job, really. Our women sometimes are first, or among the highest ranking, in domestic international math Olympiates [?]. So, women are very active in the Iranian society.
I, myself, have two Vice Presidents who are female, who are women, and they’re actually some of the most active members of my cabinet. When they say something, nobody else dares oppose them.
[APPLAUSE]
In Iran, the way women are looked at is somewhat different from here. When families have girls, they are very happy. Women are — girls are much dearer in the family than boys. The way they take care of their girls is very different. Mothers and fathers and family members are all giving attention to that girl. They just generally enjoy more respect, at all levels, and they work less.
Of course, this is good — it’s regarded as good. In Iranian families, the mother has the higher status than the father, and therefore requires more respect. Of course, it’s essential to respect the father as well. But in Iranian society, womanhood is defined in a different way. A lot of times, we don’t want women to do hard work; like I said, becoming cab drivers, or truck drivers. I mean, it’s a tough job to have for a woman. Woman is the reflection of sublime beauty, of kindness. If her spirit is broken, society will die, the joy of the society will die, beauty in the society will die. The beautiful spirit of the woman and her heart filled with emotion is what fills society with love and kindness, and keeps society alive with it.
If women’s hearts are harmed, their spirits are harmed, the society is broken. Women are the reflection of all that is beautiful in a society. It’s interesting to note that the presence of women in highly technical fields in Iran is much higher in percent than many other countries in the world. For example, in the Central Bank — which is a very technical and sensitive job to have — in Iran’s Central Bank, the number of women employed there is more than the number of men, percent-wise again, in proportion to women who work in the Treasury of the United States of America.
I think if the United States wants to fix its financial crisis, it has to let the woman lead.
[APPLAUSE]
Miss Judy Bello, she said that “In America recently, young groups and political groups or activists who had opinions around — like the [U.S. political/ presidential] convention time — they were prevented. And they’ve heard this said in Iran.” I just want to tell you, that’s not the case in Iran. Young people are very active politically. A major part of their political activities in the country are done by politicians. In schools and universities and societies and associations, I, myself, have a group that advises me, the group of youngsters — young advisors. They have a large network across Iran. They employ thousands of young people, students, and they continuously feed me with their opinions. They participate in advisory meetings.
In our country, we have a symbolic parliament. It’s called the Majlis Gathering — the gathering of learning — which acts just like the legislative parliament. The representatives of students are selected. They have a president, they have a statute. They decide, and announce their decisions to us.
I’ve been asked, “What do you think we should do for young people to enter the democratic process of a state — of a country?” Well, this is a serious question, and it’s a necessity. If young people do not enter big decision-making processes, it endangers the future of a nation. Politics will become elite, and when it becomes elite, they won’t let people’s views get enforced. But if young people all are politicized, then politics comes out of the monopoly of an elite group, and then decisions can be more popular, more humanitarian, and more correct.
Now, in Iran, a lot of different things have occurred that are positive for youth engagement in politics. We’ve had very good experiences recently. For a long while, people at the age of 15 could vote in elections. This helped politicize the young people in our country. Now in all the mosques in Iran — in pretty much all the mosques around the country — there is a special place for young people. In Iran, there are more 60,000 mosques — a place where people gather, called the Basij. They get organized. They do cultural activities. They receive education and training. They get familiar with the country’s administrative and political issues. And then they get ready to take on responsibilities.
Maybe numbers are interesting here. Up till today — that I am here — ten million young people have been organized through this network, and the next step is to organize ten million more —- twenty million [in total]. And they also engage in social services. For example, they take part in vaccination programs. In helping in emergency situations, when there are natural disasters, when there are earthquakes, they go and they help out. We can share these experiences with you.
So this is a completely popular organizational work, and its mission is also organized, really popular. It can be used elsewhere, too. Miss [Medea] Benjamin said that “We would like to have exchanges of views, but there’s no visas. We like to come as tourists. That’s the only way we can get in. We don’t know who to turn to, what to do to get a visa.”
I think it’s all possible. Our ambassador is here. I’ll tell him right now on this podium.
[APPLAUSE]
But you do know that in exchanges between two countries, there are some rules around, which is called the rule of reciprocity. As far our rules allow —
[APPLAUSE]
— as far as our rules allow, we will give facilities to you. But I want to ask the American government to give facilities to us, so that our people can come, too.
[APPLAUSE]
Mr. Bob Naiman talked about Iran’s proposal to the U.N. for the peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue. He said that the American government is concerned of Iran becoming a nuclear power. It’s really not the case. The U.S. government is not concerned of Iran becoming a nuclear power. That’s the truth. If they were concerned about proliferation, they should have disarmed Israel.
[APPLAUSE]
The IAEA and others know that all our activities are peaceful. They really know it. We’ve had the highest volume of cooperation with the agency than any other country. We’ve offered thousands of documents, thousands of days of inspections. We don’t believe in the bomb.
Let me repeat a sentence I told to students this morning. We think the time for the atomic bomb has come to an end.
[APPLAUSE]
The bomb is not effective. It is ineffective. We have passed that time. We have entered a new era, the era of thought, humanity, and culture. Let me say something, one more sentence. Those who have atomic bomb arsenals, or want to build a new generation of them, in my opinion, are people who are politically backward, period.
[APPLAUSE]
[Inaudible] made some proposals. Three years ago we said we need a consortium. Whoever’s worried, come and join us in our consortium and work with us on it just to see what’s going on. But it wasn’t accepted by the powers.
I don’t want to take up your time. I can go through my memoirs here. Forty years ago, the U.S. government supported Iran’s nuclearization. They even signed an agreement. So did the French government with Iran, and the British government, too — the Canadian government, too. But then, when our people had their revolution, a very popular one, and demanded freedom and democracy, all of them unilaterally cancelled all those agreements with us.
When there were no elections in our country, they wanted us to be a nuclear power. But as soon as the country held elections, they decided that it shouldn’t be a nuclear power.
[APPLAUSE]
I think we can speak out for peace around the world. We can help each other. It’s possible. And we are ready to continue the consortium debate, too, by the way. We give a proposal to the opposing groups, a very constructive one. It was a comprehensive proposal for a multi-lateral cooperation in the field.
Mr. [David] Drake said, “We are confused about Iran’s stance [on Israel]. The Iranian people are good, friendly, lovable.” Well, Iran’s issue and position and stance is very clear. We have no fights with anyone. We are opposed to war with aggression, with terror, and to force people out of their land and replace them with others.
[APPLAUSE]
This is what we oppose. Otherwise, we don’t have anything to fight with, with other people. Our proposal to resolve the Palestinian crisis is to have a free referendum. Everybody can have decisions. Everybody can have the right to self-determination. Whatever the Palestinian people have chosen.
[Mr. Drake] asked me if the Palestinian people sign a peace contract, will we accept it? It’s not our job to determine what others should do, anything they should. Every nation can decide how it wants to live, itself. If the Palestinian people, under fair conditions that should exist, are able to hold elections and find their next government, everybody should support them and respect their choice. That’s what we’ve said. And let the Palestinian people choose for themselves.
Mr. [Joe] Volk said that five years ago, those back channel relations [between the U.S. and Iran] was about to fix the problems [between our countries]. All of a sudden, the back channel became front channel and everything went awry. Of course, I made this last sentence up myself! It’s not what he said. He said that a “grand bargain” should be made, and there’s discussions about it at least. At least some people in America are saying there should be a grand bargain.
We don’t expect the American government to give us any help whatsoever. And we don’t expect them to give us anything. We expect our relations based on respect and justice.
[APPLAUSE]
We don’t want anything extra. If it’s based on that, there’s no other problem. It was the American government that broke ties with us on its own, not us. We never cut the ties. It was the U.S. government. I think a lot can be done. Let’s review it.
Remember, two and a half years ago, I sent a letter to Mr. Bush. Well, that was a historic opportunity. After 27 or 28 years, an opportunity was given to talk. But the opportunity was destroyed. Even for two years, I’ve said that when I come to the United Nations, I am ready to talk — with the media, with members of the press, and to discuss issues with him before the media.
Yeah, open, open. There’s no need to go back channel, do anything secretly. It’s not that we want to do something against our nation to work secretly. We want to work in favor of our people. So everything has to be open. We don’t want to deceive anyone to do things quietly. We want to work sincerely. Of course, you might also know that the two efforts that I made here, it was very hard to gather support for in Iran, because in Iran, people distrust the American government.
But I accepted the risk.
Ms. Jackie Cabasso said, “Nuclear energy is very costly in its radiation and its radioactive management, trash management is hard. Renewable energies like water, solar, or water can be better, or the wind can be better. Why do we still insist on it and not offer another alternative?” I want you to know, in fact, you might be interested to know that what we spend on solar and wind energy in Iran today is almost three times more than what we spend on nuclear energy.
[APPLAUSE]
You know, we actually do not have a lot of water. We — you have already used all the water resources in our country. But we are still trying to expand our industry and our agriculture. We need all forms of energy.
So, peaceful nuclear energy is a clean one. It really is a clean one. Let me ask you, if there were 1,000 nuclear power plants in the world, would the destruction in the oil market have happened to disrupt the economy? I mean, the U.S. government is infusing seven hundred billions of dollars to help keep a lot of number of companies from the pockets of American people. Seven hundred billion dollars is a lot of money. It can save a hundred countries in the world, that money — of poverty and all sorts of problems.
You know that there are more than a hundred countries in the world with annual budgets of less than seven billion. So with these power plants, oil prices would not have increased. More importantly, we wouldn’t have environmental pollution the way we have it today, just out of fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases.
We all have to help each other have a clean environment. Our children need to live here. We have to breathe the same air. We only want our own rights. We don’t want anything extra. And we will respect all forms of life [?].
Mr. Brian Becker said that “We are aware of what the American government. You know, they have nuclear warheads themselves. They threaten others, they try to prepare people for future wars. What’s the solution?”
I said what the solution is. We are ready to have a positive dialogue and exchange, not only in the United States, but with everyone around the world, and to stop those who want war. We can do it. We shouldn’t allow anybody to even think of war. It’s possible.
Miss Sara [Flounders] said there are concerns about future wars. So are we. We’re concerned. But let me give you some good news. I really believe — just so that you are happy as well — I really believe the American government is no longer able to start another war for the next decades to come.
[APPLAUSE]
This is good news for the whole world, believe me. Of course, there might be others around who might start wars. They can be prevented too. I think the American government itself can have a very constructive cooperation with your own organizations. We’ll help them direct them in your direction! We can even make a declaration to that effect. I mean, we really can do that, and I think it’s good for them, too — especially right now in the midst of elections. We can demand the next administration to work with you, to sign a commitment that they will not go into war.
[APPLAUSE]
I will tell you, neither the Iranian nation nor the Iranian people will seek war with anyone, never.
[APPLAUSE]
We dislike war. It’s only recently that we’ve gotten rid of a war. War is bad, the worst, most abhorrent thing that can happen. As long there are talks, there are logic and reason, nobody needs war.
Mr. [David] Robinson said Iran will benefit, basically, [with] stability in the region. And we agree. We agree that the Middle East region must be a stable one. It is the center of the world energy. Energy can and should be distributed freely without any problems in the world.
I completely agree with him. He said, “What is the American role in security in the region?” Well, we’ve really helped security in Iraq. Iraq’s security is our security. Insecurity in Iraq is insecurity in Iran. Even in our talks with the United States, we participated to help security in Iraq, and today we’ve extended our helping hand on a friendly basis to all groups in Iraq. We have completely friendly ties with both the government and the people of Iraq. But then they ask, what is America’s role in establishing security?
Well, here, right now, I’d like to request the U.S. administration in your presence to consider that the best help it can give to the Persian Gulf for its security is to withdraw its troops from the region. Just leave the region alone.
[APPLAUSE]
It was not my intention, but let me just say two sentences. The Iranian nation is a friend of all nations around the world. The Iranian nation loves the American people and nation. We have no problems with you. There are really no differences between us. People here are as good as people anywhere. They are really friendly, very lovable people. We think that with each other’s help, we can have constructive relations, very good relations between our two people. We are interested annually to receive millions of people from America in Iran, and millions of Iranians should visit the United States.
I thank you all.
[APPLAUSE]
I thank you all for working for peace. Thank you very, very much. Please use Ahmadinejad’s name as a member name in your list of organizations!
[APPLAUSE]
Mark Johnson:
Mr. President, with deepest apologies for my Arabic, I’d like to share a quotation and the calligraphy from the Qu’ran as a gift in appreciation for your presence.
[JOHNSON SPEAKS IN ARABIC, READING FROM THE GIFT OF CALLIGRAPHY]
I’ll retranslate it again for the audience, maybe in light of our conversation, the best way to start or end each day is to focus on one’s own struggle to live in peace and nonviolence. Thank you so much for being with us.
[APPLAUSE]
