The interview Mike Pompeo hopes nobody will watch

[HumblePi]

Fareed Zakaria aired an interview with Iran's Foreign Minister Javid Zarif this morning. It's an interview I hope many watched and although it hasn't been uploaded to Youtube yet, it will be, and I recommend watching.

For the time being, I'm going to post the most significant topics that were discussed. Luckily, I can type almost as quickly as a person can speak and transcribed most of it. It's lengthy and will have to be divided into two sections, Part I and Part II below.

Just briefly before I begin, I wanted to note what the Foreign Minister said regarding the hostilities in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz which lies between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The waters of the Strait of Hormuz are very congested, a small body of water with so many foreign vessels, accidents will happen. In 1988, a US warship shot down an Iranian civil airline killing 490 passengers, so accidents and even catastrophes can happen under these conditions.

Part I

Javid Zarif, Iran's Foreign Minister

" There is a war going on right now against Iran and it's an economic war. An economic war against Iran targets civilian population and President Trump is on the record saying that he is not engaged in military war but an economic war. An economic war is nothing to be proud of because in a military confrontation civilians may become collateral damage, but in an economic war civilians are primary targets.

Regarding the U.S. stopping Iran from engaging in selling their oil to other countries:

It is regrettable, not for just Iran but for the international community, that the U.S. can in fact bully important players in international markets to obey its rules against both international law and against their own interests. We will continue to sell our oil. We will continue to face these difficulties with pride and with prudence.

The US has found it necessary, because of its own mistakes, to put excessive emphasis on its economic might, to weaponize the U.S. dollar and as any analyst will tell you, in the medium and long-term this is bound to have a negative impact of the predominance of the U.S. dollar on the global economy. You see now that many countries, including U.S. allies are moving away from it using their own national currencies. You now have a non-U.S. dollar denomination oil market in China. These are realities of the day due to the excessive use and weaponization of the U.S. dollar.

At the end of the day, because of U.S. desperation of this obsession with Iran that they want to destroy somebody else's legacy and put aside this nuclear deal that was negotiated, they're overusing their dollar strength and at the end of the day, it will cost them.

We will continue to sell oil. To who and how is going to be a state secret because otherwise U.S. will go and prevent us from doing that. But we will continue to sell oil. The international oil markets cannot survive without our oil.

I think he doesn't want war with Iran. I think he doesn't care about who rules Iran. He doesn't want regime change. But that depends on what the people around him are interested in. And, I think it's important for president Trump to look at the people around him. We take him at his word, that he doesn't want war, that he doesn't want regime change, but I can assure him that there are a few people around him who are on the record saying they want war and regime change. President Trump did not send a letter saying he wants to negotiate but President Abe brought this message to the Supreme Leader. The problem is, we cannot start negotiating with every new American administration. Any country will deal with another country based on the fact that governments represent their countries. "

continued....

 

[HumblePi]

Part II

" We just had an election here in the United States, you didn't have a revolution. President Trump succeeded President Obama. Administrations have executive agreements, they have treaties, but they have all sorts of agreements that continue to be binding on the country. We cannot simply say, "I don't like the previous administration and I want to renegotiate everything they did." That may be an internal issue for you but for us, we spent several years, hours, days, weeks, months, nights. One of the negotiating sessions we had started by Secretary Kerry started at 9 o'clock in the evening and ended, without a pause, at six the following morning.

This is not something to renegotiate. Now, if President Trump says that this was not a treaty, that this was just an executive agreement, these are domestic issues. But he has violated enough treaties. Remember INF? Remember NAFA? Remember UNESCO?

First of all, we did not leave the negotiating table. We are at the negotiating table. The US left the negotiating table. If they put sanctions aside they can come back to the negotiating table. At the negotiating table we have always discussed the nuclear issue and how to implement the agreement that we have. We have not seen serious effort from the US on implementing what they negotiated. Our people went through 8 years of war, when they were being targeted and when they were being showered with missiles and bombs and chemical weapons, and nobody gave us the minimal needs of defense. Everybody -- from the Soviets who gave the Iraqis midair planes to the Americans that gave them Ajax reconnaissance to the French who gave them missiles to the Brits who gave them tanks to the Germans who gave them chemical weapons. Everybody helped them. Nobody even allowed us to buy a single missile to defend ourselves. So it's impossible to tell Iranian people that while the United States is selling $87 billion dollars worth of military equipment or why Saudi Arabia is even buying $87 billion dollars worth of military equipment, and the United States is selling more than $50 billion dollars worth of military equipment to our region, to the Persian Gulf, every year, that they expect us to abandon our only, and most important means of defense.

If Trump can find a mechanism to have international peace and security through agreement, through understanding rather than through confrontation, then he could take credit for it. He could take credit for restoring a good treaty that made both Iran and the United States and the rest of the world safer. "

 

[HumblePi]

Why would Mike Pompeo not want anyone to see this interview? Because it's putting another angle on this Iran crisis, from Iran's perspective. I think it's good to have more information besides "Iran is doing bad things, they violated the nuclear deal". That's just not enough information for anyone that wants to know the truth behind it.

Fareed Zakaria: "Secretary Pompeo has restricted tightly your movement and actually the movement of Iranian embassy staff. He says he doesn't want to give a platform to you to "spew Iranian propaganda" , why should he not get the chance to speak on Iranian TV? Will you say that the Secretary Pompeo can go on Iranian TV?

"I think the restrictions that have been put on our staff, not on me, I come here for a few days and three buildings is where I stay. Our business is at the United Nations, I don't have any other business here in New York. I don't come here for sightseeing, I have done enough sightseeing during my student days here in the United States. The restrictions they have put on our staff are inhuman. The children can't go to school. Regarding Mike Pompeo being invited to appear on Iranian television, he has been rejecting requests for interviews by Iranian journalists."

 

[justabubba]

too bad the rational player in this controversy is an iranian leader
but then, that may be an ultimate gift

pity there is no rational leader participating in the north korean talks

 

[TobyOne]

Why are you participating in the propaganda of a foreign government whos interests are hostile to the US ?

 

[Felis Leo]

too bad the rational player in this controversy is an iranian leader
but then, that may be an ultimate gift

pity there is no rational leader participating in the north korean talks

"Rational" does not mean in the right. Joseph Stalin and his ministers were indefatigably rational when it came to foreign policy decisions. No one except orthodox Marxist-Leninists would claim he was in the right.

 

[HumblePi]

too bad the rational player in this controversy is an iranian leader
but then, that may be an ultimate gift

pity there is no rational leader participating in the north korean talks

I think the most impactful thing Javid Zarif said was something that I commented about in a previous post, it was how much Iranians are motivated by respect. I mentioned that I have known a few people from Iran and I can say that's not an understatement. They don't curse or swear, they don't drink alcohol, they don't smoke and they hold respect for others and expect the same in return.

The statement he made; "Administrations have executive agreements, they have treaties, but they have all sorts of agreements that continue to be binding on the country. We cannot simply say, "I don't like the previous administration and I want to renegotiate everything they did."

This is where the problem lies. Trump carelessly just discarded the Iran nuclear deal because it had Barack Obama's stamp on it. Treaties such as the Iran nuclear deal should be played forward from administration to administration and honored no matter who's in the White House. It's an agreement between countries, not between an individual man or men.

 

[HumblePi]

Why are you participating in the propaganda of a foreign government whos interests are hostile to the US ?

You haven't read the entire interview if you believe their interests are ''hostile' to the US. Now, if you want to know whose country is hostile to the U.S., look towards Russia who has been an adversary to the US for generations, or to N. Korea who can't produce a nuclear weapon capable of striking the U.S. fast enough.

Those are adversaries, those are hostile to the U.S., yet our president defends them, believes Russia over our own US intelligence agencies and claims that he and Kim Jong-un 'fell in love'.

 

[justabubba]

I think the most impactful thing Javid Zarif said was something that I commented about in a previous post, it was how much Iranians are motivated by respect. I mentioned that I have known a few people from Iran and I can say that's not an understatement. They don't curse or swear, they don't drink alcohol, they don't smoke and they hold respect for others and expect the same in return.

The statement he made; "Administrations have executive agreements, they have treaties, but they have all sorts of agreements that continue to be binding on the country. We cannot simply say, "I don't like the previous administration and I want to renegotiate everything they did."

This is where the problem lies. Trump carelessly just discarded the Iran nuclear deal because it had Barack Obama's stamp on it. Treaties such as the Iran nuclear deal should be played forward from administration to administration and honored no matter who's in the White House. It's an agreement between countries, not between an individual man or men.

trouble was, it was not a treaty
Obama could not have negotiated a treaty with iran that the republican controlled congress would have authorized

like executive orders, this P5 +1 was an agreement the next administration could refuse to honor ... as we have seen

but to your primary point about being honorable and respecting agreements, iranians have it in spades; this administration ... not so much

 

[TobyOne]

Lol. There's one born every minute.

You haven't read the entire interview if you believe their interests are ''hostile' to the US. Now, if you want to know whose country is hostile to the U.S., look towards Russia who has been an adversary to the US for generations, or to N. Korea who can't produce a nuclear weapon capable of striking the U.S. fast enough.

Those are adversaries, those are hostile to the U.S., yet our president defends them, believes Russia over our own US intelligence agencies and claims that he and Kim Jong-un 'fell in love'.

 

[Felis Leo]

I think the most impactful thing Javid Zarif said was something that I commented about in a previous post, it was how much Iranians are motivated by respect. I mentioned that I have known a few people from Iran and I can say that's not an understatement. They don't curse or swear, they don't drink alcohol, they don't smoke and they hold respect for others and expect the same in return.

The statement he made; "Administrations have executive agreements, they have treaties, but they have all sorts of agreements that continue to be binding on the country. We cannot simply say, "I don't like the previous administration and I want to renegotiate everything they did."

This is where the problem lies. Trump carelessly just discarded the Iran nuclear deal because it had Barack Obama's stamp on it. Treaties such as the Iran nuclear deal should be played forward from administration to administration and honored no matter who's in the White House. It's an agreement between countries, not between an individual man or men.

Treaties should certainly be honored. Backroom bargains that were not acceded to by the nation's democratically elected representatives, i.e., Congress, do not have to be. The Iran Nuclear deal was not a treaty ratified by Congress. It was a wicked bargain with a wicked terroristic regime that aims to establish a hegemony and dominate its region within the Middle East, and would allow them to eventually start up nuclear weapons development after ten years. Ten years after they had reintegrated into the international trade and monetary system and managed to revitalize the nation's economy. It was a deal forged in mendacity that was not in the United States best long-term interests, and it was proper to dispense with it.

 

[HumblePi]

Lol. There's one born every minute.

Would you call a U.S. warship shooting down a civilian Iranian airplane in 1988 killing 490 civilian passengers, 'hostile' or not? Do you seriously believe that the US is a benign player just sitting back being friendly and not creating trouble or interfering in other country's business all over the world? Please.

 

[HumblePi]

trouble was, it was not a treaty
Obama could not have negotiated a treaty with iran that the republican controlled congress would have authorized

like executive orders, this P5 +1 was an agreement the next administration could refuse to honor ... as we have seen

but to your primary point about being honorable and respecting agreements, iranians have it in spades; this administration ... not so much

"refusing to honor" for what reason? There was absolutely no indication that Iran was in violation of the nuclear deal. Nor did any of the other P5 +1 have any evidence to charge Iran in being non-compliant.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm picking up an "Orange Man Bad," Great Satan vibe here.

Boring.

Won't be watching.

 

[HumblePi]

Treaties should certainly be honored. Backroom bargains that were not acceded to by the nation's democratically elected representatives, i.e., Congress, do not have to be. The Iran Nuclear deal was not a treaty ratified by Congress. It was a wicked bargain with a wicked terroristic regime that aims to establish a hegemony and dominate its region within the Middle East, and would allow them to eventually start up nuclear weapons development after ten years. Ten years after they had reintegrated into the international trade and monetary system and managed to revitalize the nation's economy. It was a deal forged in mendacity that was not in the United States best long-term interests, and it was proper to dispense with it.

The negotiations between the U.S., the P5+1 and Iran was hardly what anyone could compare to 'back room' bargains.

 

[Felis Leo]

You haven't read the entire interview if you believe their interests are ''hostile' to the US. Now, if you want to know whose country is hostile to the U.S., look towards Russia who has been an adversary to the US for generations, or to N. Korea who can't produce a nuclear weapon capable of striking the U.S. fast enough.

Those are adversaries, those are hostile to the U.S., yet our president defends them, believes Russia over our own US intelligence agencies and claims that he and Kim Jong-un 'fell in love'.

Any country (most especially an autocracy like Iran) whose head of state has called for the destruction of the United States and which has supplied training and weapons to kill our soldiers in the field as Iran has is our adversary.

If all that it takes for you to honestly believe that another nation's government is not hostile towards us is for its regime to send some flabby smiling bearded man saying gentle words and engage whatabouttery about the history of the United States, then I have to wonder, why on Earth do you think Russia is hostile towards us? They do the same things all the time. They send gentle soft-spoken diplomats to chide the United States about its past violent and imperialistic behavior, make appeals to our government's hypocrisy, and that it is they who are trying to be reasonable and accommodating. And the Russian head of state, to my knowledge, has not called for or openly prayed for the destruction of the United States, Israel or any of our allies.

If all that it takes for you to swallow another nation's rhetorical narrative hook, line and sinker is for them to engage in diplomacy, why are you not also airing interviews of Russian ministers saying practically the same thing that Foreign Minister Javid Zarif is saying?

 

[kitsune]

Would you call a U.S. warship shooting down a civilian Iranian airplane in 1988 killing 490 civilian passengers, 'hostile' or not? Do you seriously believe that the US is a benign player just sitting back being friendly and not creating trouble or interfering in other country's business all over the world? Please.

I'm sure the US Navy had its reasons. Perhaps they had reason to believe that this aircraft was full of terrorists posing as a wedding party. Or maybe the plane was running away. Or the pilot was reaching for his wallet. Or maybe they determined that they had to destroy the aircraft in order to save it. There are any number of reasons why the military would deem it necessary to bring it down.

 

[Felis Leo]

Would you call a U.S. warship shooting down a civilian Iranian airplane in 1988 killing 490 civilian passengers, 'hostile' or not? Do you seriously believe that the US is a benign player just sitting back being friendly and not creating trouble or interfering in other country's business all over the world? Please.

The difference between the United States and Iran is that when we have shot down passenger planes, it was due to an accidental misidentification. When Iran has provided the means to kill our servicemen and women, it has been purposeful. It is not a point of United States policy to shoot down Iranian (or any country's) civilian aircraft.

 

[Fletch]

Why would Mike Pompeo not want anyone to see this interview? Because it's putting another angle on this Iran crisis, from Iran's perspective. I think it's good to have more information besides "Iran is doing bad things, they violated the nuclear deal". That's just not enough information for anyone that wants to know the truth behind it.

Fareed Zakaria: "Secretary Pompeo has restricted tightly your movement and actually the movement of Iranian embassy staff. He says he doesn't want to give a platform to you to "spew Iranian propaganda" , why should he not get the chance to speak on Iranian TV? Will you say that the Secretary Pompeo can go on Iranian TV?

"I think the restrictions that have been put on our staff, not on me, I come here for a few days and three buildings is where I stay. Our business is at the United Nations, I don't have any other business here in New York. I don't come here for sightseeing, I have done enough sightseeing during my student days here in the United States. The restrictions they have put on our staff are inhuman. The children can't go to school. Regarding Mike Pompeo being invited to appear on Iranian television, he has been rejecting requests for interviews by Iranian journalists."

Congratulations on your appointment to the Iranian Ministry of Propaganda.

 

[Felis Leo]

I'm picking up an "Orange Man Bad," Great Satan vibe here.

Boring.

Won't be watching.

Pretty much, DamnYankee. I am convinced that if Obama had never negotiated with Iran but instead Donald Trump negotiated the JCPOA word-for-word, most Democrats would be screaming like wounded eagles over it saying that it is giving aid to our enemies for practically nothing in return, and that this is more proof that Donald Trump is in the pocket of our nation's adversaries and loves dictatorships.

The defense of the JCPOA seems to be entirely partisan without going towards the merits of what makes it such an incredible deal for anyone except the Iranian regime and those who wish to buy Iranian oil and open markets for their country's products.

 

[Rexedgar]

I'm sure the US Navy had its reasons. Perhaps they had reason to believe that this aircraft was full of terrorists posing as a wedding party. Or maybe the plane was running away. Or the pilot was reaching for his wallet. Or maybe they determined that they had to destroy the aircraft in order to save it. There are any number of reasons why the military would deem it necessary to bring it down.

I’m thinking there is some sarcasm here.

In case I’m wrong, - from wiki:

While Vincennes was firing on the Iranian gunboats, confusion reigned aboard the ship as the tracking of aircraft in the area had become muddled, between Vincennes and other U.S. ships, and on Vincennes itself. Crucially, Vincennes misidentified an Iran Air Airbus A300 civilian airliner, Iran Air Flight 655, as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft. The Iran Air Flight 655 was climbing at the time, and her IFF transponder was on the Mode III civilian code rather than on the purely military Mode II, as recorded by Vincennes's own shipboard Aegis Combat System. Vincennes fired two radar-guided missiles and shot down the Iranian civilian airliner over Iranian airspace in the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board.

 

[kitsune]

I’m thinking there is some sarcasm here.

In case I’m wrong, - from wiki:

While Vincennes was firing on the Iranian gunboats, confusion reigned aboard the ship as the tracking of aircraft in the area had become muddled, between Vincennes and other U.S. ships, and on Vincennes itself. Crucially, Vincennes misidentified an Iran Air Airbus A300 civilian airliner, Iran Air Flight 655, as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft. The Iran Air Flight 655 was climbing at the time, and her IFF transponder was on the Mode III civilian code rather than on the purely military Mode II, as recorded by Vincennes's own shipboard Aegis Combat System. Vincennes fired two radar-guided missiles and shot down the Iranian civilian airliner over Iranian airspace in the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board.

Thank you for the info. I knew of the event, but I was vague on the details.

And yes, it was definitely sarcasm. Much of what I post is sarcasm. Or mocking. I have neither the attention span nor the intellect for anything much deeper. On occasion I push myself further, but it's exhausting.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

I’m thinking there is some sarcasm here.

In case I’m wrong, - from wiki:

While Vincennes was firing on the Iranian gunboats, confusion reigned aboard the ship as the tracking of aircraft in the area had become muddled, between Vincennes and other U.S. ships, and on Vincennes itself. Crucially, Vincennes misidentified an Iran Air Airbus A300 civilian airliner, Iran Air Flight 655, as an attacking F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft. The Iran Air Flight 655 was climbing at the time, and her IFF transponder was on the Mode III civilian code rather than on the purely military Mode II, as recorded by Vincennes's own shipboard Aegis Combat System. Vincennes fired two radar-guided missiles and shot down the Iranian civilian airliner over Iranian airspace in the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board.

Oops!

As you know, during that time period the U.S., at least officially, backed Iraq and a thug named Saddam.... whilst Col. North coordinated other unofficial backroom arms deals with the Iranian military to finance his anti-communist pet project in Nicaragua. Sometimes the underlying ethical issues befuddle me! Since the Vietnam Conflict era, I admit to more than a little suspicion and a lot of paranoia when it comes to U.S. foreign policy and military intent.

 

[justabubba]

"refusing to honor" for what reason? There was absolutely no indication that Iran was in violation of the nuclear deal. Nor did any of the other P5 +1 have any evidence to charge Iran in being non-compliant.

it was Obama's deal
the racist in chief would negate anything Obama had begun

 

[Rexedgar]

Thank you for the info. I knew of the event, but I was vague on the details.

And yes, it was definitely sarcasm. Much of what I post is sarcasm. Or mocking. I have neither the attention span nor the intellect for anything much deeper. On occasion I push myself further, but it's exhausting.

Oops!

As you know, during that time period the U.S., at least officially, backed Iraq and a thug named Saddam.... whilst Col. North coordinated other unofficial backroom arms deals with the Iranian military to finance his anti-communist pet project in Nicaragua. Sometimes the underlying ethical issues befuddle me! Since the Vietnam Conflict era, I admit to more than a little suspicion and a lot of paranoia when it comes to U.S. foreign policy and military intent.

I know this will upset some here, but it seems that the US Navy is no better at multi-tasking now than they were then, 700 billion and 716 billion, notwithstanding.