AP

Mohamed ElBaradei: "A durable, peaceful solution will not come through pressure only."

REPRINTS

Find out how you can reprint this SPIEGEL ONLINE article in your publication.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't sound very optimistic.

ElBaradei: The United Nations resolution itself recognizes the importance of finding a negotiated solution that will allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran. Clearly the sanctions were the expression of concern by the international community. I think the message was heard loud and clear in Iran.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So why not simply wait until Iran gives in and stops its nuclear program?

ElBaradei: My concern is that if we only focus on sanctions, that might lead to confrontation on both sides, ending in an uncontrolled chain reaction. My worry right now is that each side is sticking to their guns: The international community is saying "sanctions or bust," and Iran is saying "nuclear enrichment capability or bust." Ultimately sanctions are useful to send a message, but they have to be followed by an effort to create conditions for negotiations.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So how could this happen?

Forum

The race for the bomb: can Iran be stopped?

Discuss the issue with other SPIEGEL ONLINE readers!

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you see any signs that Iran would consider stopping its enrichment activities even for a short period?

ElBaradei: Iran is very keen to see an affirmation of its right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nobody is questioning this right, what is at stake is confidence building. Until confidence is restored, Iran should put a hold on enrichment-related activities, and to restore this confidence Iran needs to commit to being fully transparent and to start giving the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the full access we need for verification. This includes inspections under the Additional Protocol.

ElBaradei: I hope the dialogue will start this weekend in the margins of the Security Conference in Munich. German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be there, Russian President Vladimir Putin, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Ali Larijani, the head of the Iranian National Security Council. I encourage everybody to seize the opportunity.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But it seems to be very clear that the US government is convinced that the only thing that can help is to apply more pressure on Tehran.

ElBaradei: There are differences of opinion about tactics, how to find the right balance between pressure and incentives. It's not an easy issue, it's a question of policy judgement. I personally believe that in a situation like the one you have in the Middle East today, where it's like a ball of fire, you have to be very cautious. We cannot afford to add oil to that fire. The more we have confrontation, the more the Middle East will become militant and angry. The earlier we move into a conciliatory mood the better for everybody.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So you're hoping for less hostile rhetoric from each side?

Baradei: Absolutely. We should not ride a train wreck. The Middle East is in the worst condition I have ever seen. I have just seen reports that North Korea is moving to start a process of nuclear disarmament. That only came about through negotiations -- direct talks -- that included the United States. So why not engage Iran in the same way?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Iran just announced that some inspectors are no longer allowed to enter the country: This includes specialists from countries who pushed for sanctions, Germany for example. How long will you be able to track what they are really doing in Natanz?

NEWSLETTER

Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is Iran seeking to start enriching uranium on an industrial scale?

ElBaradei: The Iranians themselves said that they want to install 3,000 centrifuges and are now moving forward in installing them. They call it the second phase. How long it will take to install and operate them will be part of my report to the IAEA Board of Governors on Feb. 21. So the window of opportunity for a time-out is very narrow. If my report is negative in the absence of any movement on the part of Iran then the Security Council will work for more sanctions. That would mean a further escalation that will become more and more difficult to scale back.

Interview conducted by Georg Mascolo.

February 09, 2007

The complete list of the films featured in the official competition of this year's Berlin International Film Festival.

- "Yella" by Christian Petzold (Germany), starring Nina Hoss, Hinnerk Schönemann and Devid Striesow

- "Die Fälscher" ("The Counterfeiters") starring Stefan Ruzowitzky (Austria), with Karl Markovics, August Diehl, Devid Striesow and Marie Bäumer

- "The Good Shepherd" by Robert De Niro (USA), starring Robert De Niro, Angelina Jolie und Matt Damon

- "The Good German" by Steven Soderbergh (USA), starring George Clooney, Tobey Maguire und Cate Blanchett

- "Bordertown" von Gregory Nava (USA), starring Jennifer Lopez, Antonio Banderas und Martin Sheen

berlinale.de

"When A Man Falls In The Forest" is one of the entries in this year's official competition.

- "La Vie en Rose" by Olivier Dahan (France), starring Marion Cotillard, Gérard Depardieu and Sylvie Testud

- "Angel" by Francois Ozon (France), starring Romola Garai and Charlotte Rampling

- "Les Témoins" by André Téchiné (France), starring Emmanuelle Béart

- "Ne Touchez Pas la Hache" by Jacques Rivette (France), starring Guillaume Depardieu and Michel Piccoli

- "Hallam Foe" by David Mackenzie (UK), starring Jamie Bell

- "Goodbye Bafana" by Bille August (Denmark), starring Joseph Fiennes and Diane Kruger

- "Irina Palm" by Sam Garbarski (Belgium), starring Marianne Faithfull

- "I Am A Cyborg But That's Ok" by Park Chan-wook (South Korea)

- "In Memoria di me" (In Memory of Myself) by Saverio Costanzo (Italy)

berlinale.de

Edith Piaf biopic "La Vie En Rose" opens this year's Berlinale.

- "El Otro" by Ariel Rotter (Argentina), starring JulioChávez

- "O Ano Em Que Meus Pais Saíram De Férias" ("The Year My Parents Went on Vacation") by Cao Hamburger (Brazil)

- "Beaufort" by Joseph Cedar (Israel)

- "Hyazgar" (Desert Dream) by Zhang Lu (South Korea)

- "Tu ya de hun shi" (Tuya's Marriage) by Wang Quanan (China)

- "Ping Guo" (Lost in Beijing) by Li Yu (China)

Out of competition:

- "Letters from Iwo Jima " by Clint Eastwood (USA)

- "The Walker" by Paul Schrader (USA), starring Woody Harrelson, Kristin Scott Thomas, Lauren Bacall, Lily Tomlin, Moritz Bleibtreu and Willem Dafoe

- "300" by Zack Snyder (USA)

- "Notes On A Scandal" by Richard Eyre (UK), starring Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett

February 07, 2007

Teheran - Das mobile Raketensystem vom Typ Tor-M1 aus

Russland sei erfolgreich getestet worden, gab General Hossein Salami heute bekannt. Damit könnten nun alle Kriegsschiffe im Golf unter Beschuss genommen werden, weil sie in Reichweite der neuen Waffen lägen. Das iranische Staatsfernsehen zeigte Bilder von mehreren Raketen, die in der Wüste von mobilen Abschussrampen aus in den Himmel geschossen wurden.

AFP

Tor-M1-Rakete: Drohungen gegen die Amerikaner

Die paramilitärischen Revolutionsgarden hatten gestern mit einem neuen Militärmanöver im Golf begonnen. Damit soll Irans Verteidigungsbereitschaft angesichts einer wachsenden Präsenz der US-Marine im Golf gezeigt werden.

Das Tor-M1-System basiere auf dem Prinzip der Abschreckung, sagte Hossein Salami, der Kommandeur der Revolutionswächter ist.

Iran und Russland hatten 2005 einen Vertrag über den Ankauf von 29 Tor-M1-Raketen mit geschätztem Wert von 700 Millionen Dollar (rund 540 Millionen Euro) abgeschlossen. Im Januar lieferte Russland die Raketen, obwohl die USA heftige Kritik an dem Waffengeschäft geübt hatten. Der Sicherheitsrat der Uno hatte im Dezember Wirtschaftssanktionen gegen Iran verhängt, um das Land zur Aussetzung seines umstrittenen Atomprogramms zu bringen.

Der Westen verdächtigt die Islamische Republik, unter dem Deckmantel der Stromerzeugung an der Entwicklung von Atomwaffen zu arbeiten. Iran hat die Vorwürfe zurückgewiesen und Forderungen nach einem Ende der Anreicherung von Uran abgelehnt.

Zur Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz von morgen bis Sonntag werden unter anderem Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel, der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin und der neue US-Verteidigungsminister Robert Gates erwartet.

als/dpa/Reuters

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Herr Glietsch, von 2005 auf 2006 ist die Gewalt an Schulen um 75 Prozent gestiegen, steht in einem Bericht des Berliner Senats. Haben wir es mit einer heranwachsenden Schülergeneration zu tun, für die Gewalt der Normalfall ist - als Täter oder als Opfer?

DDP

Berlins Polizeipräsident Glietsch: "Gewalt wird als legitimes Mittel zur Bewahrung der 'Familienehre' betrachtet"

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Wer sind die Täter?

Glietsch: Es sind vor allem die jungen Männer, wobei junge gewalttätige Migranten uns am meisten Sorgen machen, wenn es um die Zahl der Delikte, die Brutalität, die Gefährlichkeit, die Rücksichtslosigkeit des Vorgehens geht.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Jenseits aller Zahlen hat man den Eindruck, dass die Lunte bei den Tätern immer kürzer wird: Vom nichtigen Anlass bis zur gewalttätigen Auseinandersetzung scheinen es manchmal nur ein paar Sekunden zu sein.

Glietsch: Ja, die Zahl derjenigen wächst, bei denen die Lunte zu kurz ist. Das ist eine zutreffende Beobachtung.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Wie erklären Sie sich das?

Glietsch: Eine Ursache ist die soziale Ausgrenzung derjenigen, die heute als Täter auftreten. Meist sind es junge Migranten zwischen 12 und 25 Jahren aus bildungsfernen Schichten, die von sozialer Ausgrenzung stärker bedroht sind als deutsche Jugendliche. Viele Einwandererkinder sind in ihrer schulischen Entwicklung behindert, weil zuhause kein Deutsch gesprochen wird, sie verlassen die Schule ohne Abschluss, bekommen also keinen Ausbildungsplatz und gehen keiner geregelten Arbeit nach. Diese Jugendlichen verbringen ihr Leben zunehmend in Gruppen auf der Straße, deren Angehörige Perspektivlosigkeit und Langeweile miteinander teilen. Das fördert Gewalttendenzen.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Aber ist es nicht zu kurz gegriffen, nur soziale Ausgrenzung dafür verantwortlich zu machen? Stecken dahinter nicht auch bestimmte Rollenbilder, die Verherrlichung von Gewalt, Motive wie Ehre?

Glietsch: Es wäre in der Tat zu kurz gegriffen, wenn man die soziale Situation als einzige Ursache für Gewalt sehen würde, aber sie ist ein wesentlicher Aspekt. Dazu kommt, dass in vielen Einwandererfamilien ein archaisches Verständnis von Ehre und der Rolle des Mannes in der Familie herrscht. Gewalt wird als legitimes Mittel zur Bewahrung bzw. Wiederherstellung der "Familienehre" betrachtet. Diese Muster werden von den Jugendlichen übernommen und auf Beziehungen außerhalb der Familie übertragen. Das wirkt sich dann manchmal so aus, dass der Zündfunke sofort überspringt - weil jemand "falsch geguckt" hat oder die Schwester im Vorbeigehen aus Versehen berührt hat. Oft reichen banale Anlässe, um einen Gewaltausbruch auszulösen.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Wie stark ist dabei das Gang-Phänomen? Gibt es verfestigte Strukturen - oder finden sich die Jugendlichen eher zufällig und gehen kurz darauf wieder auseinander?

Glietsch: Eher Letzteres. Früher hatten wir in Berlin des öfteren Probleme mit jungen Menschen, die in festen Strukturen Gewaltdelikte begingen, bis hin zu Raubüberfällen. Das waren nicht nur Migrantenkinder, sondern auch Kinder aus deutschen Familien - oft mit einem ähnlich problematischen sozialen Hintergrund. Heute gibt es so gut wie keine Jugendbanden mehr, die längerfristig in gleichbleibender Zusammensetzung Straftaten begehen. Die Jugendlichen kennen sich zwar, aber Taten entstehen oft aus der Situation heraus.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Wäre eine weitgehende Videoüberwachung wie in Großbritannien ein gangbarer Weg für Berlin, um deutlich zu machen: Ihr seid hier unter Beobachtung?

Glietsch: Ich glaube nicht - und ich denke auch sonst niemand, der in Deutschland Verantwortung für Sicherheit hat -, dass eine flächendeckende Überwachung der Königsweg ist, um langfristig wirksam Gewaltkriminalität zu bekämpfen. Es genügt nicht, nur auf die Angst vor der Entdeckung zu setzen. Es kommt vor allem darauf an, Einstellungen zu prägen beziehungsweise Entstehungsbedingungen zu ändern. Im Übrigen ist meines Erachtens bisher nicht belegt, dass in Großbritannien die Gewaltkriminalität insgesamt erfolgreicher bekämpft wird. Wenn es um die Überwachung überschaubarer Räume mit besonders hoher Kriminalitätsbelastung geht, können wir allerdings in Pilotprojekten beobachten, dass es gelingt, Straftäter zu verdrängen.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Zum Beispiel in U-Bahnen, die in Berlin immer öfter als Drogenumschlagplatz genutzt werden?

Glietsch: Ja, gerade die U-Bahn ist ein Beispiel dafür, wo mit Videotechnik gearbeitet werden kann. Wir bemühen uns in Zusammenarbeit mit der BVG um eine Ausstattung, die wir zur Gefahrenabwehr und zur Strafverfolgung nutzen können. Ich bin sicher, dass wir den Rauschgifthandel in der U-Bahn wirksamer bekämpfen können, indem wir in U-Bahnhöfen und -Bahnen mithilfe von Videoüberwachung mehr beweissichere Festnahmen machen. Aber wir werden damit die Stadt nicht vom Rauschgifthandel befreien.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Besteht die Gefahr, dass in Berlin No-Go-Areas entstehen? Dass bestimmte Gruppen sich nicht mehr in einzelne Viertel wagen - im Osten wie im Westen der Stadt?

Glietsch: Nein, die Gefahr sehe ich nicht - wenn nicht nur wir solchen Tendenzen mit aller Macht begegnen. Es muss der Ehrgeiz aller Verantwortlichen sein, zu verhindern, dass öffentliche Straßen und Plätze nicht mehr oder nur noch von der Polizei betreten werden. Wir sind dabei, unsere Vertrauensbasis bei den hier lebenden Migranten noch weiter zu verstärken. Auch das ist notwendig, um der Gefahr entgegenzuwirken, dass sich Räume entwickeln, in denen der Eindruck entsteht: Hier schauen deutsche Behörden nicht mehr hin. Und um zu verhindern, dass Menschen aus einem anderen Kiez sich nicht mehr in bestimmte Quartiere trauen, weil sie Angst haben.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Viele Jugendliche sagen ganz offen: Die Polizei interessiert uns nicht. Was machen Sie dagegen? Ist die Polizei kein Ansprechpartner mehr?

Glietsch: Das ist so pauschal nicht richtig: Die Polizei wird von den Jugendlichen, über die wir sprechen, in bestimmten Situationen nicht als Ansprechpartner gesehen. Wir haben aber festgestellt, dass man mit Jugendlichen, die mit der Polizei zum Beispiel im Wrangelkiez aneinander geraten sind, durchaus reden kann. Die Polizei darf es nicht immer für bare Münze nehmen, wenn die Jugendlichen sagen: Mit denen reden wir nicht. Vor Imponiergehabe dürfen wir nicht kapitulieren.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Wenn man sich die Tätertypen anguckt, die rechtsextremen Jugendlichen genauso wie die jungen Männer aus Migrantenfamilien: Sind das nicht zwei Seiten derselben Medaille?

Glietsch: Die Zahl der rechtsextremen Gewalttaten hat sich im vergangenen Jahr in Berlin auf mehr als 100 verdoppelt, aber die Ursache der sozialen Ausgrenzung spielt meiner Einschätzung nach bei den Tatverdächtigen mit Migrationshintergrund eine viel größere Rolle als bei Rechtsextremisten. Diese Täter sind im Durchschnitt älter, kommen überwiegend nicht aus sozial schwachen, sondern eher aus unvollständigen Familien, sie verfügen meist über einen Schulabschluss und einen Arbeitsplatz. Im Vergleich zu dem, der aus einer Einwandererfamilie kommt und mit 16 ohne Hauptschulabschluss auf der Straße rumhängt, haben sie durchaus eine Perspektive. Hier spielen andere, individuelle Bedingungen eine größere Rolle.

Das Interview führten Claus Christian Malzahn und Anna Reimann

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Die Tonart der USA gegenüber Iran wird schärfer. Washington wirft den Iranern vor, schiitische Milizen im Irak zu unterstützen, beschuldigt sie sogar, hinter einem Anschlag auf US-Soldaten zu stecken. Wie viel Einfluss hat Teheran wirklich im Irak?

Reissner: Das ist sehr schwer abzuschätzen. Richtig ist: Teheran unterstützt bestimmte Gruppen im Irak. Politisch lenken kann Teheran diese allerdings nicht. Dass die USA jetzt deutliche und konkrete Hinweise auf direkte finanzielle und militärische Hilfen geben, ist ein Zeichen dafür, dass man vor allem gegen Iraner im Irak vorgehen will.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Etwa gegen iranische Agenten im Irak, für deren Gefangennahme und Tötung die US-Regierung seinen Militärs kürzlich grünes Licht gegeben haben soll. Sucht Iran eher eine schiitische Waffenbrüderschaft gegen die Sunniten oder einen Stellvertreterkrieg gegen die USA?

ZUR PERSON

Der Islamwissenschaftler Johannes Reissner ist Iran- Experte bei der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Berlin.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Das iranische Engagement richtet sich also konkret gegen die USA?

Reissner: Ja, aber das mit großer Vorsicht. Man sollte bedenken, dass Iran sehr sorgfältig kalkuliert. Schließlich hat das Regime ein Interesse an einem halbwegs stabilen Irak. Man will ja nicht, dass einem der Nachbar um die Ohren fliegt. Wirklich gefährlich an der gegenwärtigen Situation ist die einseitige amerikanische Propaganda, die auch von einigen sunnitischen, arabischen Ländern aufgegriffen wird. Es wird so getan, als käme alles Übel in der Region aus Iran. Das ist eine sehr gefährliche Haltung, die letztendlich auch politikunfähig macht.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Sie sprechen von einseitiger amerikanischer Propaganda. Tatsache ist aber, dass zuvor auch aus Teheran schon zahlreiche Drohungen kamen. Auch im Atomstreit zeigt man sich dort nicht kooperativ. Wie sähe denn eine angemessene Reaktion der USA auf die iranischen Nadelstiche aus?

Reissner: Beides tun: In der Nuklearfrage hart bleiben und Teheran ein ernsthaftes Angebot zu Gesprächen machen. Das scheint im Augenblick illusorisch, doch dann wäre Iran am Zug.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Die Vorwürfe der USA über eine Einflussnahme Teherans im Nachbarland sind das eine. Offiziell geriert sich Teheran als konstruktiver Partner in der Region, kündigte zuletzt eine "Kooperation in Sicherheitsfragen" mit dem Irak an.

Reissner: De facto läuft es auf eine Doppelstrategie hinaus. Iran will für einen Abzug der Amerikaner aus der Region agieren und sich zugleich allen arabischen Nachbarn als sicherheitspolitisch nützlicher Partner darstellen, was diese aber nicht glauben.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: George W. Bush bestreitet, einen Militärschlag gegen Iran zu planen. Dennoch ist auffällig, dass in Washington entsprechende Spekulationen derzeit vermehrt gestreut werden. Wäre eine solche Operation völlig abwegig, weil der Preis zu hoch ist?

Reissner: Auszuschließen ist nichts. Aber im Augenblick sieht es sehr danach aus, dass Washington zwar den Druck auf Iran erhöhen will und gezielt gegen Iraner im Irak vorgeht - aber man will nicht die Grenze überschreiten und direkt Iran angreifen.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Eigentlich geht es um zwei verschiedene Themen, die miteinander verbunden werden: der iranische Einfluss im Irak und der ungelöste Streit um die iranischen Atomambitionen.

Reissner: So ist es. Und das Ganze steht noch auf der ideologischen Basis der Gegenüberstellung von Gut und Böse. Die Iraner sind in den Augen von George W. Bush nun einmal das Böse schlechthin. Diese politische Blindheit macht die Lage in der Region natürlich noch komplizierter. Eine vernünftige europäische Politik in der Region wird dadurch sehr schwierig.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Wie müsste eine europäische Linie denn aussehen, um wieder ein bisschen Druck aus dem Kessel zu lassen?

Reissner: Die Europäer müssen den Iranern klarmachen, dass auch sie sich bewegen müssen, dass sie zum Kompromiss bereit sein müssen. Unbedingt notwendig ist es aber auch zu signalisieren, dass Europa trotz des Atomstreits noch immer ein Interesse an Iran hat. Für die Europäer ist Iran eben nicht das Böse. Sie müssen sie die Chance nutzen, mit denjenigen in Iran zu reden, mit denen man reden kann. Seit den letzten Wahlen im Dezember ist im Land politisch ja einiges in Bewegung gekommen.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In der Tat häuften sich in Iran zuletzt Stimmen, die den Konfrontationskurs des Hardliner-Präsidenten Mahmud Ahmadinedschad deutlich kritisierten. Gibt es in der Bevölkerung ernsthafte Befürchtungen, die Amerikaner könnten militärisch zuschlagen?

Reissner: Die kritischen Stimmen in Iran sind selbstbewusster geworden. Einerseits gibt es Sorgen vor einem möglichen Militärschlag. Vor allem ist es aber die Furcht vor Wirtschaftssanktionen. Indirekte Sanktionen im Finanzwesen sind ja schon seit Anfang 2006 in Kraft.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Formiert sich denn eine reformorientierte Opposition, die in der Lage ist, die Hardliner herauszufordern?

Reissner: Das lässt sich derzeit noch schwer einschätzen. Man kann aber beobachten, dass sich die iranische Mittelschicht - ganz gleich ob reformorientiert oder konservativ gesinnt - zwar auf das Recht zur friedlichen Nutzung der Atomenergie beruft, sich aber zugleich die Frage stellt, zu welchem Preis dieses Recht durchzusetzen ist.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Werden auch die USA über kurz oder lang mit Teheran reden?

Reissner: Wohl eher über lang. Im Augenblick gilt: Solange Iran als das Böse betrachtet wird, könnte das auch Israelis und sogenannte moderate Araber ein Stück näher bringen. Man hätte dann wieder einen gemeinsamen Feind, ähnlich wie die Sowjetunion zur Zeit des Kalten Krieges. Wenn die Amerikaner ernsthaft mit Iran in Dialog treten wollten, würden sie sehr schnell Ansprechpartner finden.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Gespräche mit der iranischen Führung haben sich nicht immer als fruchtbar erwiesen. Der Atomstreit ein gutes Beispiel.

Reissner: Die Amerikaner haben sich ja noch gar nicht direkt an den Gesprächen beteiligt. Eines der Probleme der Europäer bei den Verhandlungen war ja, dass sie immer zwischen den USA und Iran standen.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Ist kurzfristig mit einer weiteren Zuspitzung der Lage zu rechnen, weil Teheran auf die schärfere Tonart der Amerikaner seinerseits scharf reagieren wird?

Reissner: Diese Gefahr ist von beiden Seiten gegeben. Wobei sich allerdings die Iraner angesichts der amerikanisch-israelischen Drohgebärden bisher vernünftiger und vorsichtiger verhalten. Aber es gibt in Iran sehr unterschiedliche Machtzentren. Es ist somit nicht ausgeschlossen, dass bestimmte Kräfte sich zu unüberlegten Äußerungen oder Aktivitäten hinreißen lassen, die die Situation anheizen oder einen eventuellen Annäherungskurs sabotieren könnten.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Aber die entscheidende Außenpolitik macht nicht der Scharfmacher Ahmadinedschad.

Reissner: Genau das wird oft vergessen: Die Außenpolitik wird vom Obersten Revolutionsführer und vom Nationalen Sicherheitsrat gemacht. Die Öffentlichkeit sollte wissen: Große Töne von Präsident Ahmadinedschad sind immer noch etwas anderes als große Töne von Herrn Bush.

Das Interview führte Philipp Wittrock

New York - Den Uno-Beschlüssen zufolge müsse die Islamische Republik zuerst ihre umstrittenen Atomarbeiten vollständig und überprüfbar einstellen, sagte der amtierende US-Botschafter bei den Vereinten Nationen, Alejandro Wolff. Nur danach könnten die Sanktionen aufgehoben werden. "Das ist also sehr eindeutig und kann nicht neu interpretiert werden", erklärte Wolff.

Der Chef der Internationalen Atomenergiebehörde, Mohamed ElBaradei, hatte angeregt, dass Iran sein Atomprogramm vorübergehend unterbricht und im Gegenzug die Sanktionen des Uno-Sicherheitsrats ausgesetzt werden. "Wir brauchen eine Kurskorrektur, weil wir uns auf einen Kollisionskurs zubewegen", sagte ElBaradei in Davos auf dem Weltwirtschaftsforum bei der Vorstellung seines Vorschlags.

Auch in Iran war die Idee mit Zurückhaltung aufgenommen worden. Die Führung in Teheran hatte erklärt, sie benötige Zeit, um den Vorschlag zu prüfen. Irans Atomprogramm sei zu vielfältig, um schon jetzt eine eindeutige Antwort geben zu können, sagte der iranische Chefunterhändler Ali Laridschani am Sonntag. Der Westen beschuldigt Iran, nach Atomwaffen zu streben. Das Land lehnt dies ab und verweist auf zivile Ziele.

Die Uno verhängte unlängst Sanktionen gegen Iran, die USA schließen einen Militärschlag gegen Atomreaktoren des Landes nicht aus. Mehrere westliche Länder haben eine Verschärfung der Strafmaßnahmen angedroht, falls ElBaradei in einem zum 21. Februar angeforderten Bericht an die Uno zu dem Schluss kommt, dass Iran die Urananreicherung fortsetzt.

ler/Reuters

امریکا با پیشنهاد تعلیق هم زمان تحریم و غنی سازی مخالفت کرد.

 نخود هر اش که پا برهنه میاد وسط حرف.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we're talking about the Holocaust because we want to talk about the possible nuclear armament of Iran -- which is why the West sees you as a threat.

Ahmadinejad: Some groups in the West enjoy calling things or people a threat. Of course you're free to make your own judgment.

SPIEGEL: The key question is: Do you want nuclear weapons for your country?

Ahmadinejad: Allow me to encourage a discussion on the following question: How long do you think the world can be governed by the rhetoric of a handful of Western powers? Whenever they hold something against someone, they start spreading propaganda and lies, defamation and blackmail. How much longer can that go on?

SPIEGEL: We're here to find out the truth. The head of state of a neighboring country, for example, told SPIEGEL: "They are very keen on building the bomb." Is that true?

Ahmadinejad: You see, we conduct our discussions with you and the European governments on an entirely different, higher level. In our view, the legal system whereby a handful of countries force their will on the rest of the world is discriminatory and unstable. One-hundred and thirty-nine countries, including us, are members of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) in Vienna. Both the statutes of IAEA and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well as all security agreements grant the member countries the right to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. That is the legitimate legal right of any people. Beyond this, however, IAEA was also established to promote the disarmament of those powers that already possessed nuclear weapons. And now look at what's happening today: Iran has had an excellent cooperation with IAEA. We have had more than 2,000 inspections of our plants, and the inspectors have obtained more than 1,000 pages of documentation from us. Their cameras are installed in our nuclear centers. IAEA has emphasized in all its reports that there are no indications of any irregularities in Iran. That is one side of this matter.

SPIEGEL: IAEA doesn't quite share your view of this matter.

Ahmadinejad: But the other side is that there are a number of countries that possess both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. They use their atomic weapons to threaten other peoples. And it is these powers who say that they are worried about Iran deviating from the path of peaceful use of atomic energy. We say that these powers are free to monitor us if they are worried. But what these powers say is that the Iranians must not complete the nuclear fuel cycle because deviation from peaceful use might then be possible. What we say is that these countries themselves have long deviated from peaceful usage. These powers have no right to talk to us in this manner. This order is unjust and unsustainable.

SPIEGEL: But, Mr. President, the key question is: How dangerous will this world become if even more countries become nuclear powers -- if a country like Iran, whose president makes threats, builds the bomb in a crisis-ridden region?

Ahmadinejad: We're fundamentally opposed to the expansion of nuclear-weapons arsenals. This is why we have proposed the formation of an unbiased organization and the disarmament of the nuclear powers. We don't need any weapons. We're a civilized, cultured people, and our history shows that we have never attacked another country.

SPIEGEL: Iran doesn't need the bomb that it wants to build?

Ahmadinejad: It's interesting to note that European nations wanted to allow the shah's dictatorship the use of nuclear technology. That was a dangerous regime. Yet those nations were willing to supply it with nuclear technology. Ever since the Islamic Republic has existed, however, these powers have been opposed to it. I stress once again, we don't need any nuclear weapons.

We stand by our statements because we're honest and act legally. We're no fraudsters. We only want to claim our legitimate right. Incidentally, I never threatened anyone - that, too, is part of the propaganda machine that you've got running against me.

SPIEGEL: If this were so, shouldn't you be making an effort to ensure that no one need fear your producing nuclear weapons that you might use against Israel, thus possibly unleashing a world war? You're sitting on a tinderbox, Mr. President.

Ahmadinejad: Allow me to say two things. No people in the region are afraid of us. And no one should instill fear in these peoples. We believe that if the United States and these two or three European countries did not interfere, the peoples in this region would live peacefully together as they did in the thousands of years before. In 1980, it was also the nations of Europe and the United States that encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack us.

Our stance with respect to Palestine is clear. We say: Allow those to whom this country belongs to express their opinion. Let Jews, Christians and Muslims say what they think. The opponents of this proposal prefer war and threaten the region. Why are the United States and these two or three European nations opposed to this? I believe that those who imprison Holocaust researchers prefer war to peace. Our stance is democratic and peaceful.

SPIEGEL: The Palestinians have long gone a step further than you and recognize Israel as a fact, while you still wish to erase it from the map. The Palestinians are ready to accept a two-state solution while you deny Israel its right to existence.

Ahmadinejad: You're wrong. You saw that the Palestinian people elected Hamas in free elections. We argue that neither you nor we should claim to speak for the Palestian people. The Palestinians themselves should say what they want. In Europe it is customary to call a referendum on any issue. We should also give the Palestinians the opportunity to express their opinion.

SPIEGEL: The Palestinians have the right to their own state, but in our view the Israelis naturally have the same right.

Ahmadinejad: Where did the Israelis come from?

SPIEGEL: Well, if we tried to work out where people have come from, the Europeans would have to return to east Africa where all humans originated.

Ahmadinejad: We're not talking about the Europeans; we're talking about the Palestinians. The Palestinians were there, in Palestine. Now 5 million of them have become refugees. Don't they have a right to live?

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, doesn't there come a time when one should accept that the world is the way it is and that we must accept the status quo? The war against Iraq has put Iran in a favorable position. The United States has suffered a de facto defeat in Iraq. Isn't it now time for Iran to become a constructive power of peace in the Middle East? Which would mean giving up its nuclear plans and inflammatory talk?

Ahmadinejad: I'm wondering why you're adopting and fanatically defending the stance of the European politicians. You're a magazine, not a government. Saying that we should accept the world as it is would mean that the winners of World War II would remain the victorious powers for another 1,000 years and that the German people would be humiliated for another 1,000 years. Do you think that is the correct logic?

SPIEGEL: No, that's not the right logic, nor is it true. The Germans have played a modest, but important role in post-war developments. They do not feel as though they have been humiliated and dishonored since 1945. We are too self-confident for that. But today we want to talk about Iran's current mission.

Ahmadinejad: Then we would accept that Palestinians are killed every day, that they die in terrorist attacks, and that houses are being destroyed. But let me say something about Iraq. We have always favored peace and security in the region. For eight years, the Western countries provided arms to Saddam in the war against us, including chemical weapons, and gave him political support. We were against Saddam and suffered severely because of him, so we're happy that he has been toppled. But we don't accept a whole country being swallowed under the pretext of wanting to topple Saddam. More than 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives under the rule of the occupying forces. Fortunately, the Germans haven't been involved in this. We want security in Iraq.

SPIEGEL: But, Mr. President, who is swallowing Iraq? The United States has practically lost this war. By cooperating constructively, Iran might help the Americans consider their retreat from the country.

Ahmadinejad: This is very interesting: The Americans occupy the country, kill people, sell the oil and when they have lost, they blame others. We have very close ties to the Iraqi people. Many people on both sides of the border are related. We have lived side by side for thousands of years. Our holy pilgrimage sites are located in Iraq. Just like Iran, Iraq used to be a center of civilization.

SPIEGEL: What are you trying to say?

Ahmadinejad: We have always said that we support the popularly elected government of Iraq. But in my view the Americans are doing a bad job. They have sent us messages several times asking us for help and cooperation. They have said that we should talk together about Iraq. We publicly accepted this offer, although our people do not trust the Americans. But America has responded negatively and insulted us. Even now we're contributing to security in Iraq. We will hold talks only if the Americans change their behavior.

SPIEGEL: Do you enjoy provoking the Americans and the rest of the world now and then?

Ahmadinejad: No, I'm not insulting anyone. The letter that I wrote to Mr. Bush was polite.

SPIEGEL: We don't mean insult, but provoke.

Ahmadinejad: No, we feel animosity toward no one. We're concerned about the American soldiers who die in Iraq. Why do they have to die there? This war makes no sense. Why is there war when there is reason as well?

SPIEGEL: Is your letter to the president also a gesture toward the Americans that you wish to enter into direct negotiations?

Ahmadinejad: We clearly stated our position in this letter on how we view the problems in the world. Some powers have befouled the political atmosphere in the world because they consider lies and fraud to be legitimate. In our view that is very bad. We believe that all people deserve respect. Relationships have to be regulated on the basis of justice. When justice reigns, peace reigns. Unjust conditions aren't sustainable, even if Ahmadinejad does not criticize them.

SPIEGEL: This letter to the American president includes a passage about Sept. 11, 2001. The quote: "How could such an operation be planned and implemented without the coordination with secret and security services or without the far-reaching infiltration of these services?" Your statements always include so many innuendos. What is that supposed to mean? Did the CIA help Mohammed Atta and the other 18 terrorists conduct their attacks?

Ahmadinejad: No, that's not what I meant. We think that they should just say who is to blame. They should not use Sept. 11 as an excuse to launch a military attack against the Middle East. They should take those who are responsible for the attacks to court. We're not opposed to that; we condemned the attacks. We condemn any attack against innocent people.

SPIEGEL: In this letter you also write that Western liberalism has failed. What makes you say that?

Ahmadinejad: You see, for example you have a thousand definitions of the Palestian problem and you offer all sorts of different definitions of democracy in its various forms. It does not make sense that a phenomenon depends on the opinions of many individuals who are free to interpret the phenomenon as they wish. You can't solve the problems of the world that way. We need a new approach. Of course we want the free will of the people to reign, but we need sustainable principles that enjoy universal acceptance - such as justice. Iran and the West agree on this.

SPIEGEL: What role can Europe play in the resolution of the nuclear conflict, and what do you expect of Germany?

Ahmadinejad: We have always cultivated good relations with Europe, especially with Germany. Our two peoples like each other. We're eager to deepen this relationship.

Europe has made three mistakes with respect to our people. The first mistake was to support the shah's government. This has left our people disappointed and discontent. However, by offering asylum to Imam Khomeini, France earned a special position that it lost again later. The second mistake was to support Saddam in his war against us. The truth is that our people expected Europe to be on our side, not against us. The third mistake was Europe's stance on the nuclear issue. Europe will be the big loser and will achieve nothing. We don't want to see that happen.

SPIEGEL: What will happen now in the conflict between the West and Iran?

Ahmadinejad: We understand the Americans' logic. They suffered damage as a result of the victory of the Islamic Revolution. But we're puzzled why some European countries are opposed to us. I sent out a message on the nuclear issue, asking why the Europeans were translating the Americans' words for us. After all, they know that our actions are aimed toward peace. By siding with Iran, the Europeans would serve their own and our interests. But they will suffer only damage if they oppose us. For our people is strong and determined.

The Europeans risk losing their position in the Middle East entirely, and they are ruining their reputation in other parts of the world. The others will think that the Europeans aren't capable of solving problems.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Stefan Aust, Gerhard Spörl and Dieter Bednarz in Tehran.

 May 30, 2006

AP

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "By siding with Iran, the Europeans would serve their own and our interests."

Ahmadinejad: It depends. Naturally, I'll be watching the game in any case. I don't know yet whether I'll be at home in front of the television set or somewhere else. My decision depends upon a number of things.

SPIEGEL: For example?

Ahmadinejad: How much time I have, how the state of various relationships are going, whether I feel like it and a number of other things.

SPIEGEL: There was great indignation in Germany when it became known that you might be coming to the soccer world championship. Did that surprise you?

Ahmadinejad: No, that's not important. I didn't even understand how that came about. It also had no meaning for me. I don't know what all the excitement is about.

Ahmadinejad: I don't exactly understand the connection.

SPIEGEL: First you make your remarks about the Holocaust. Then comes the news that you may travel to Germany -- this causes an uproar. So you were surprised after all?

SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent when confronted with so much outrage?

Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don't know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?

SPIEGEL: Of course we are entitled to write about the findings of the past 60 years' historical research. In our view there is no doubt that the Germans -- unfortunately -- bear the guilt for the murder of 6 million Jews.

Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe.

On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn't take place, why then did this regime of occupation ...

SPIEGEL: ... You mean the state of Israel...

SPIEGEL: That has long since happened in Germany.

Ahmadinejad: We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact - we greatly regret this - that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present.

Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another. And if the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial groups from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research to a certain group? Of course, I don't mean you, but rather the European governments.

SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth?"

Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.

SPIEGEL: Even though no Western scholars harbor any doubt about the Holocaust?

SPIEGEL: Who is that supposed to be? Which researchers do you mean?

Ahmadinejad: You would know this better than I; you have the list. There are people from England, from Germany, France and from Australia.

SPIEGEL: You presumably mean, for example, the Englishman David Irving, the German-Canadian Ernst Zündel, who is on trial in Mannheim, and the Frenchman Georges Theil, all of whom deny the Holocaust.

Ahmadinejad: The mere fact that my comments have caused such strong protests, although I'm not a European, and also the fact that I have been compared with certain persons in German history indicates how charged with conflict the atmosphere for research is in your country. Here in Iran you needn't worry.

SPIEGEL: Well, we are conducting this historical debate with you for a very timely purpose. Are you questioning Israel's right to exist?

Ahmadinejad: Look here, my views are quite clear. We are saying that if the Holocaust occurred, then Europe must draw the consequences and that it is not Palestine that should pay the price for it. If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from. I believe that the German people today are also prisoners of the Holocaust. Sixty million people died in the Second World War. World War II was a gigantic crime. We condemn it all. We are against bloodshed, regardless of whether a crime was committed against a Muslim or against a Christian or a Jew. But the question is: Why among these 60 million victims are only the Jews the center of attention?

SPIEGEL: That's just not the case. All peoples mourn the victims claimed by the Second World War, Germans and Russians and Poles and others as well. Yet, we as Germans cannot absolve ourselves of a special guilt, namely for the systematic murder of the Jews. But perhaps we should now move on to the next subject.

Ahmadinejad: No, I have a question for you. What kind of a role did today's youth play in World War II?

SPIEGEL: None.

Ahmadinejad: Why should they have feelings of guilt toward Zionists? Why should the costs of the Zionists be paid out of their pockets? If people committed crimes in the past, then they would have to have been tried 60 years ago. End of story! Why must the German people be humiliated today because a group of people committed crimes in the name of the Germans during the course of history?

SPIEGEL: The German people today can't do anything about it. But there is a sort of collective shame for those deeds done in the German name by our fathers or grandfathers.

Ahmadinejad: How can a person who wasn't even alive at the time be held legally responsible?

SPIEGEL: Not legally but morally.

Ahmadinejad: Why is such a burden heaped on the German people? The German people of today bear no guilt. Why are the German people not permitted the right to defend themselves? Why are the crimes of one group emphasized so greatly, instead of highlighting the great German cultural heritage? Why should the Germans not have the right to express their opinion freely?

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, we are well aware that German history is not made up of only the 12 years of the Third Reich. Nevertheless, we have to accept that horrible crimes have been committed in the German name. We also own up to this, and it is a great achievement of the Germans in post-war history that they have grappled critically with their past.

Ahmadinejad: Are you also prepared to tell that to the German people?

SPIEGEL: Oh yes, we do that.

Ahmadinejad: Then would you also permit an impartial group to ask the German people whether it shares your opinion? No people accepts its own humiliation.

SPIEGEL: All questions are allowed in our country. But of course there are right-wing radicals in Germany who are not only anti-Semitic, but xenophobic as well, and we do indeed consider them a threat.

Ahmadinejad: Let me ask you one thing: How much longer can this go on? How much longer do you think the German people have to accept being taken hostage by the Zionists? When will that end - in 20, 50, 1,000 years?

SPIEGEL: We can only speak for ourselves. DER SPIEGEL is nobody's hostage; SPIEGEL does not deal only with Germany's past and the Germans' crimes. We're not Israel's uncritical ally in the Palestian conflict. But we want to make one thing very clear: We are critical, we are independent, but we won't simply stand by without protest when the existential right of the state of Israel, where many Holocaust survivors live, is being questioned.

Ahmadinejad: Precisely that is our point. Why should you feel obliged to the Zionists? If there really had been a Holocaust, Israel ought to be located in Europe, not in Palestine.

SPIEGEL: Do you want to resettle a whole people 60 years after the end of the war?

Ahmadinejad: Five million Palestinians have not had a home for 60 years. It is amazing really: You have been paying reparations for the Holocaust for 60 years and will have to keep paying up for another 100 years. Why then is the fate of the Palestinians no issue here?

SPIEGEL: The Europeans support the Palestinians in many ways. After all, we also have an historic responsibility to help bring peace to this region finally. But don't you share that responsibility?

Ahmadinejad: Yes, but aggression, occupation and a repetition of the Holocaust won't bring peace. What we want is a sustainable peace. This means that we have to tackle the root of the problem. I am pleased to note that you are honest people and admit that you are obliged to support the Zionists.

SPIEGEL: That's not what we said, Mr. President.

Ahmadinejad: You said Israelis.

Iran's ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq -- including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital -- just as the Bush administration has been warning the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs.

REUTERS

Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, shown here in a Jan. 18 file photo, told The New York Times of Iran's plans for Iraq.

The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called "the security fight." In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction, an area of failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago.

"We have experience of reconstruction after war," Mr. Qumi said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. "We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis."

Mr. Qumi also acknowledged, for the first time, that two Iranians seized and later released by American forces last month were security officials, as the United States had claimed. But he said that they were engaged in legitimate discussions with the Iraqi government and should not have been detained.

Mr. Qumi's remarks, in a 90-minute interview over tea and large pistachio nuts at the Iranian Embassy here, amounted to the most authoritative and substantive response the Iranians have made yet to increasingly belligerent accusations by the Bush administration that Iran is acting against American interests in Iraq.

President Bush has said the American military is authorized to take whatever action necessary against Iranians in Iraq found to be engaged in actions deemed hostile.

The Iranian ambassador abruptly agreed to a longstanding request for the interview -- made repeatedly after the first American seizure of Iranians here on Dec. 21 -- and seemed eager to rebut the accusations.

The political and diplomatic standoff that followed the Dec. 21 raid until the Iranians were released nine days later has contributed, along with a dispute over the Iranian nuclear program, to greatly increased tensions between the United States and Iran. This month, American forces detained five more Iranians in a raid on a diplomatic office in the northern city of Erbil.

While providing few details, the United States has said that evidence gleaned in the Baghdad raid, made on an Iraqi Shiite leader's residential compound, proves the Iranians were involved in planning attacks.

How much direction, if any, Mr. Qumi was taking from his government was unclear in the interview, in which he showed disdain for the American accusations as well as a few flashes of restrained sarcasm.

He ridiculed the evidence that the American military has said it collected, including maps of Baghdad delineating Sunni, Shiite and mixed neighborhoods -- the kind of maps, American officials have said, that would be useful for militias engaged in ethnic slaughter. Mr. Qumi said the maps were so common and easily obtainable that they proved nothing.

He declined to say whether he believed the maps bore sectarian markings or address other pieces of evidence the Americans said they had found, like manifests of weapons and material relating to the technology of sophisticated roadside bombs. But that is not why the Iranians were in the compound, he said.

"They worked in the security sector in the Islamic Republic, that's clear," Mr. Qumi said, referring to Iran. But he said that the Iranians were in Iraq because "the two countries agreed to solve the security problems." The Iranians "went to meet with the Iraqi side," he said.

In a surprise announcement, Mr. Qumi said Iran would soon open a national bank in Iraq, in effect creating a new Iranian financial institution right under the Americans' noses. A senior Iraqi banking official, Hussein al-Uzri, confirmed that Iran had received a license to open the bank, which he said would apparently be the first "wholly owned subsidiary bank" of a foreign country in Iraq.

"This will enhance trade between the two countries," Mr. Uzri said.

Mr. Qumi said the bank was just the first of what he said would be several in Iraq -- an agricultural bank and three private banks also intend to open branches. Other elements of new economic cooperation, he said, include plans for Iranian shipments of kerosene and electricity to Iraq and a new agricultural cooperative involving both countries.

He would not provide specifics on Iran's offer of military assistance to Iraq, but said it included increased border patrols and a proposed new "joint security committee."

Any Iranian military assistance to Iraq would be fraught with potential difficulties. Aside from provoking American objections, such assistance could further alienate Sunni Arabs, many of whom already suspect that Iran, overwhelmingly Shiite, is encouraging Iraq's Shiite-led government in persecuting them.

A number of American and Iraqi officials said Sunday that it was difficult to respond to Mr. Qumi's statements until they had been communicated through official routes. A spokesman for the American Embassy in Baghdad, Lou Fintor, declined to address the statements.

Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, said Sunday that the United States had a significant body of evidence tying Iran to sectarian attacks inside Iraq. "There is a high degree of confidence in the information that we already have, and we are constantly accumulating more," Mr. McCormack said.

He did not address any of the specifics of Mr. Qumi's comments about plans for stronger economic and security ties, but said that Iran currently plays "a negative role in many respects" in the country.

"We are welcoming all the initiatives to participate in the process of reconstruction," said Qasim Daoud, a former national security adviser who is now a secular Shiite member of Parliament. "My belief is that our strategic alliance is with the Americans, but at the same time we are looking for the participation of any country that would like to participate," Mr. Daoud said.

Barham Salih, a deputy prime minister who is Kurdish and whose duties include economic matters, took sharper issue with Mr. Qumi's criticism of the American presence.

"Iraqi national interest requires seeking good neighborly relations with Iran as with other neighbors, but that requires respect for Iraqi sovereignty," Mr. Salih said.

Mr. Qumi spoke largely in Persian during the interview, but he occasionally broke into English when he wanted to be certain that a point had been conveyed forcefully.

Although Mr. Qumi was not given specific questions before the interview, he was made aware of the general topics that would be covered and seemed prepared with detailed answers in many cases. He seemed keen to give his government's view of what occurred in the early morning of Dec. 21, when American forces raided the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq's most powerful Shiite leaders, who had traveled to Washington three weeks before to meet President Bush.

Within the compound, the Iranians were seized in the house of Hadi al-Ameri, who holds two powerful positions: he is chairman of the Iraqi Parliament's security committee and leader of the Badr Organization, the armed wing of Mr. Hakim's party, which spent years in exile in Iran.

Although the Americans have suggested that the Iranians were providing support for militias like the Badr Organization, Mr. Qumi said that his countrymen were dealing with Mr. Ameri in his government capacity.

The Iranians would not even have stayed the night in the compound except, in a situation faced by many Baghdad residents, their business lasted beyond the early-evening curfew and they were forced to spend the night, Mr. Qumi said.

Mr. Qumi also warned the United States against playing out tensions in what he called "the nuclear file" in Iraq. "We don't need Iraq to pay the cost of our animosity with the Americans," Mr. Qumi said.

As the interview was breaking up, Mr. Qumi made one last stab at the Americans. If Iran is allowed to undertake reconstruction activities in Iraq, he said, all international construction companies would be welcome. "Urge the American companies to come here," he said.

Abdul Razzaq al-Saiedi contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.

January 29, 2007

DPA

The US attack on Baghdad (2003): "No President on my watch has had a spotless record when it comes to the CIA."

Drumheller: Yes, absolutely. I was a great friend of the Europeans. I grew up in Wiesbaden. I love Germany very much.

SPIEGEL: Arrest warrants have been issued in Europe for a number of your former colleagues. They are suspected of involvement in the illegal kidnappings of suspected terrorists as part of the so-called "renditions" program. Doesn't this worry you?

Drumheller: No. I'm not worried, but I am not allowed to discuss the issue.

SPIEGEL: One of the cases is the now famous kidnapping of Khalid el-Masri, a German-Lebanese who was taken into custody at the end of 2003 in Macedonia and later flown to Afghanistan. How could the CIA allow an innocent person to be arrested?

SPIEGEL: The renditions program saw the kidnapping of suspected Islamist extremists to third countries. Were you involved in the program?

Drumheller: I would be lying if I said no. I have very complicated feelings about the whole issue. I do see the purpose of renditions, if they are carried out properly. Guys sitting around talking about carrying out attacks as they smoke their pipes in the comfort of a European capital tend to get put off the idea if they learn that a like-minded individual has been plucked out of safety and sent elsewhere to pay for his crimes.

SPIEGEL: We disagree. At the very least, you need to be certain that the targets of those renditions aren't innocent people.

Drumheller: It was Vice President Dick Cheney who talked about the "dark side" we have to turn on. When he spoke those words, he was articulating a policy that amounted to "go out and get them." His remarks were evidence of the underlying approach of the administration, which was basically to turn the military and the agency loose and let them pay for the consequences of any unfortunate -- or illegal -- occurences.

SPIEGEL: So there was no clear guidance of what is allowed in the so called "war on terrorism"?

TYLER DRUMHELLER

Martin H. Simon

Tyler Drumheller, 54, had a 25- year career working for the CIA. In 2001, he was promoted to become the American intelligence agency's chief of European operations. The spectacular kidnappings of suspected al- Qaida terrorists -- including the German- Syrian Mohammed Haydar Zammar and the German- Syrian Khaled el- Masri -- by CIA commandos happened under his watch. Drumheller, who retired in 2005, recently published his memoir, "On the Brink," in the United States.

Drumheller: Every responsible chief in the CIA knows that the more covert the action, the greater the need for a clear policy and a defined target. I once had to brief Condoleezza Rice on a rendition operation, and her chief concern was not whether it was the right thing to do, but what the president would think about it. I would have expected a big meeting, a debate about whether to proceed with the plan, a couple of hours of consideration of the pros and cons. We should have been talking about the value of the target, whether the threat he presented warranted such a potentially controversial intervention. This is no way to run a covert policy. If the White House wants to take extraordinary measures to win, it can't just let things go through without any discussion about their value and morality.

SPIEGEL: Perhaps the White House wanted to gloss over its own responsibility.

Drumheller: Let me give you a general thought: From the perspective of the White House, it was smart to blur the lines about what was acceptable and what was not in the war on terrorism. It meant that whenever someone was overzealous in some dark interrogation cell, President (George W.) Bush and his entourage could blame someone else. The rendition teams are drawn from paramilitary officers who are brave and colorful. They are the men who went into Baghdad before the bombs and into Afghanistan before the army. If they didn't do paramilitary actions for a living, they would probably be robbing banks. Perhaps the Bush Administration deliberately created a gray area on renditions.

SPIEGEL: Investigations in the European Parliament and the German parliament, the Bundestag, are trying to ascertain the extent to which European governments cooperated with the CIA after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. How close is the relationship?

Drumheller: On terrorist issues very closely -- we did some very good things with the Europeans. Two weeks after Sept. 11, August Hanning (the head of the German foreign intelligence service, the BND) came with a delegation to discuss how we can make cooperation better. Elements of the Bush administration developed the view that European personal privacy laws were somehow to blame, that the Europeans are too slow. We can be very frustrating to work with. I always said, 'Stop preaching to them.' The Europeans have been dealing with terrorism for years, we can learn from their successes and failures. Its not a good spy story, but it's actually how you do this.

SPIEGEL: How important is Europe to the CIA?

Drumheller: The only way we will ever be able to protect ourselves properly is if we can get a handle on the threat in Europe, since that is the continent where fanatics can best learn their most crucial lesson: How to disappear in a Western crowd. Europe has become the first line of defense for the United States. It has become a training ground for terrorists, especially since the war in Iraq has heralded an underground railroad for militants to go and fight there. It is being used for young fanatics in Europe to be smuggled into Iraq to fight Americans and, assuming they survive, to return home, where they present a more potent threat than they did before they left. Since the odds against penetrating the top of al-Qaida are phenomenally high, we must pursue the foot soldiers.

SPIEGEL: But given the uproar in Germany and all over Europe, it looks highly unlikely that they will cooperate fully with the CIA.

Drumheller: The guys who attacked the World Trade Center didn't fly from Kabul to New York. They came from Hamburg. So the value in befriending the local intelligence services in Europe instead of alienating them is clear: We need to ensure that they are telling us everything they know.

SPIEGEL: But it was your agency that was coming up with all the wrong information concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. To what degree is the intelligence community responsible for the disaster?

Drumheller: The agency is not blameless and no president on my watch has had a spotless record when it comes to the CIA. But never before have I seen the manipulation of intelligence that has played out since Bush took office. As chief of Europe I had a front-row seat from which to observe the unprecedented drive for intelligence justifying the Iraq war.

SPIEGEL: One of the crucial bits of information the Bush administration used to justify the invasion was the supposed existence of mobile biological weapons laboratories. That came from a German BND source who was given the code-name "Curveball." An offical investigation in the United States concluded that of all of the false statements that were made, this was the most damaging of all.

Drumheller: I think it is, it was a centerpiece. Curveball was an Iraqi who claimed to be an engineer working on the biological weapons program. When he became an asylum-seeker in Germany, the BND questioned him and produced a large number of reports that were passed here through the Defense Intelligence Agency. Curveball was a sort of clever fellow who carried on about his story and kept everybody pretty well convinced for a long time.

SPIEGEL: There are more than a few critics in Washington who claim that the Germans, because of Curveball, bear a large part of the repsonsibility for the intelligence mess.

Drumheller: There was no effort by the Germans to influence anybody from the beginning. Very senior officials in the BND expressed their doubts, that there may be problems with this guy. They were very professional. I know that there are people at the CIA who think the Germans could have set stronger caveats. But nobody says: "Here's a great intel report, but we don't believe it." There were also questions inside the CIA's analytical section, but as it went forward, this information was seized without caveats. The administration wanted to make the case for war with Iraq. They needed a tangible thing, they needed the German stuff. They couldn't go to war based just on the fact that they wanted to change the Middle East. They needed to have something threatening to which they were reacting.

SPIEGEL: The German government was convinced that "Curveball" would not be used in the now famous presentation that then US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave in 2003 before the United Nations Security Council.

AP

Then Secretary of State Colin Powell as he presented "evidence" of weapon of mass destruction in Iraq to the United Nations general assembly: "We probably gave Powell the wrong speech."

SPIEGEL: But it turned out to be the centerpiece in Powell's presentation -- and nobody had told him about the doubts.

Drumheller: I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it.

SPIEGEL: So the White House just ignored the fact that the whole story might have been untrue?

Drumheller: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy. Right before the war, I said to a very senior CIA officer: "You guys must have something else," because you always think it's the CIA. "There is some secret thing I don`t know." He said: "No. But when we get to Baghdad, we are going to find warehouses full of stuff. Nobody is going to remember all of this."

SPIEGEL: After the war, the CIA was finally able to talk to "Curveball" -- something the BND had never allowed before. What was the result?

Drumheller: In March 2004, a fluent German-speaking officer, one of my best guys, who had a scientific background went to Germany and worked for about two weeks. Finally, at the end of it, Curveball just sort of sat back and said: "I don't have anything more to say." But he never admitted. People here always ask, was he polygraphed? Well, lie detector tests aren't used very much in Germany.

SPIEGEL: Do you think it would have make a difference if the Germans had allowed you to question Curveball earlier?

Drumheller: If they had allowed us to question him the way we did in March of 2004, it would have. Maybe the whole story would have turned out in a different way.

SPIEGEL: In your book, you mention a very high-ranking source who told the CIA before the war that Iraq had no large active WMD program. It has been reported that the source was Saddam Hussein's foreign minister, Naji Sabri.

SPIEGEL: So what happened?

Drumheller: There were a lot of ironies throughout this whole story. We went on a sort of worldwide chase after this fellow, and in the end, he was in one place, and our officer was in another country asking for permission to travel. I called up people who were controlling operations, and they said: "Don't worry about it. It's too late now. The war is on. The next time you see this guy, it will be at a war crimes tribunal."

SPIEGEL: Should you have pressed harder?

Drumheller: We made mistakes. And it may suit the White House to have people believe in a black and white version of reality -- that it could have avoided the Iraq war if the CIA had only given it a true picture of Saddam's armaments. But the truth is that the White House believed what it wanted to believe. I have done very little in my life except go to school and work for the CIA. Intellectually I think I did everything I could. Emotionally you always think you should have something more.

Interview conducted by Georg Mascolo and Holger Stark.

January 29, 2007

• اطلاعات بیشتر

To dampen the noise coming from their forbidden gathering, the hosts have pushed a clothes rack, heavily laden with winter coats, in front of their apartment door. The windows are covered with blankets. In the apartment, young women dance with young men, the whisky is from America and the red wine from Armenia. It's the sort of affair that can get you into a lot of trouble in Tehran.

AP

The USS John C. Stennis left for the Persian Gulf over the weekend.

Half of the alcohol is gone within the first half hour. The host appears with a tray of fruit juices and offers it apologetically to her guests. The more threatening the country's policies, says one young women, the more she and likeminded young Iranians are likely to party. But then she says that she prefers not to talk about politics. It would spoil the atmosphere.

But politics are difficult to avoid, and in the kitchen it has become the subject of the evening: American threats; the risk of an Israeli bomb attack; and the risk of war. "If that happens," says one man, "the country will unite and it will make Ahmadinejad even stronger." All the guests approve of the Iranian president's policies, but not his rhetoric. They say that the United States is acting arrogantly and blindly by assuming that the Iranians are acting purely with malicious intent. "The Americans are conducting a disastrous war of aggression in Iraq," says an architect, "and we are supposed to be the axis of evil?"

Sharpened its tone

A buildup of US aircraft carriers in the Gulf has happened five times in the last 15 years: at the beginning of the 1991 Gulf war; leading up to the "Operation Desert Strike" in 1996; prior to "Operation Desert Fox" in 1998; in the spring of 2003; and today. In only one of these cases was a buildup on this scale not followed by a military strike: in early May 1998, when the Iraqi regime temporarily accepted the conditions imposed by the United Nations Security Council.

The replacement of army General John Abizaid, a staunch opponent of military action against Iran, as the commander of US forces in the Middle East was announced in early January. And in mid-January, the Pentagon announced that it had supplied US allies Kuwait and Qatar with the latest version of its Patriot air defense system. The US Navy Expeditionary Strike Group 2, or ESG 2, will be deployed to Bahrain in February.

"Material support for attacks on American troops"

Observers in the Middle East are worried about the US's growing unwillingness to compromise when it comes to Iran and its ally Syria. In explaining his new strategy for the Middle East, President Bush said that the regimes in Tehran and Damascus are allowing terrorists and insurgents to enter Iraq, and that Iran, in particular, is "providing material support for attacks on American troops."

What exactly the Iranians are suspected of having done remains disturbingly vague, especially when measured against the political significance of arresting Iranian diplomats. Washington, though, suspects Iran of helping finance, train and arm terrorists inside Iraq.

The Americans aren't the only ones with such suspicions. As early as the autumn of 2005, the British in southern Iraq found two unexploded bombs that could be traced to Iran. The British claimed that the bombs' infrared-guided, armor-piercing warheads were developed by Hezbollah in Lebanon and delivered to Shiite militias in Iraq via the Iranian revolutionary guards. The British were also convinced that the Iranians were training large numbers of Iraqi fighters in camps across the border in Iran.

Mortal enemies of the Sunnis

However, the assertion that Iran is not only supporting Shiite militias in Iraq's religious war, but is also responsible for the deaths of American soldiers raises a question. The US military continues to face its heaviest casualties in the Sunni triangle, where it is primarily fighting against the al-Qaida terrorist organization and supporters of the regime of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Why should Iran be providing both of these groups with weapons? After all, they are both Sunni groups and as such are the mortal enemies of Iran and its Shiite allies.

US Vice President Richard Cheney has said that Iran is simply "fishing in troubled waters." Outgoing US Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte told the US Senate last week that Tehran "regards its ability to conduct terrorist operations abroad as a key element of its national security strategy."

No one denies that weapons of Iranian origin are constantly turning up in Iraq. The Kurds, in particular, are doing a steady trade with Iran, including illegal weapons shipments across the border. How much of that trade consists purely of smuggled goods and how much of it is deliberate support for the insurgency is a matter of speculation.

But even Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has wondered aloud why Iranians would want to incite unrest in Iraq given that Shiites are already in power. His comments hinted at the dilemma into which Washington has maneuvered itself, caught as it is between Baghdad, Tehran and Riyadh. Iran was the first neighbor to recognize the Iraqi postwar government, which it supports officially to this day. It is America's Sunni allies in the region who are most adamantly opposed to Shiite dominance in Iraq.

The Arab Sunnis, though fearful of Iran's aggressive posturing, no longer seem to trust their American protectors.

"Storm warnings"

But what does the Bush administration's strategy on Iran amount to? While commentators in the region are issuing what Dubai's Gulf News calls initial "storm warnings," Americans still try to sell their military buildup as an attempt to intimidate the Iranians. The White House hopes to unnerve Iran and encourage realists in Tehran to oppose President Ahmadinejad. The Americans' message to their archenemy is that even a weakened United States will not leave the region without a fight.

But is the message being heard? Mohammed Atrianfar, publisher of Tehran's leading reformist newspaper Shargh and a close associate of former President Mohammed Khatami, says that American threats have forced Iranians into a "trap between the fury of their own government and the fury of the Americans. There is not a single Iranian who is not in favor of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. We are all behind that."

According to Atrianfar, the country -- and the government -- is not nearly as unified as it appears to be under President Ahmadinejad. "A government is like an iceberg. You don't see most of it," says Atrianfar.

He could be right. Something unusual happened in Tehran during Ahmadinejad's recent trip to South America. A number of newspapers allied with the country's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, voiced their criticism of the president's unwillingness to compromise, both on the issue of nuclear energy and with respect to the UN. Ahmadinejad's intransigence, they wrote, is hurting the country economically.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

 January 22, 2007

AP

She's in the running

"I'm in," she says in a statement on her new campaign Web site. "And I'm in to win."

Mrs. Clinton, 59, called for "bold but practical changes" in foreign, domestic, and national security policy and said that she would focus on finding "a right end" to the Iraq war, expanding health insurance, pursuing greater energy independence and strengthening Social Security and Medicare.

In her statement, Mrs. Clinton also squarely confronted an issue that concerns many Democrats: Whether she can, in fact, win the presidency. Some voters still associate her most with the controversies of the Clinton administration, and Republicans have long attacked and caricatured her, and plan to brand her as indecisive on Iraq.

If successful, Mrs. Clinton would be the first female presidential nominee of a major American political party, and she would become the first spouse of a former president to seek a return to the White House. President Bill Clinton left office in January 2001 after two terms marked by robust economic expansion and a series of investigation into his personal life and the Clintons' business dealings.

The successes and shadows of those years will likely loom over Mrs. Clinton, who was both a hands-on adviser and a divisive presence in his administration.

Yet Mrs. Clinton has become a major political figure in her own right: She is broadly popular with women, African-Americans, and other core groups in the Democratic Party, and she is one of the party's best fund-raisers and most sought-after speakers. She is admired by many independents and Republicans in New York, winning re-election last year by a 30 percentage-point margin. While she is not associated with any major piece of legislation, she is widely regarded as an effective, thoughtful lawmaker who has built bipartisan ties.

Her early support for the Iraq war, however, and her unpopularity in the 1990s have stirred doubts among Democrats about whether she can win the presidency. And she remains an enigma and a caricature to many people: Radically liberal, coldly ambitious, or ethically compromised. Her friends say that she is none of these, but acknowledge that part of her challenge is letting voters see the full her and not simply a controlled, rehearsed politician - no easy task for such a private and protective person.

Beginning Monday at 7 p.m., she plans to hold three nights of live video discussions online in which she will answer voters' questions. She pledged in her statement to continue "a national conversation about how we can work to get our country back on track."

Her old Senate campaign Web site was also transformed this morning, with a new banner - "Hillary for President" - as well as a page for fund-raisers ("Hillraisers"), and a series of essays and campaign memos that promote her presidential candidacy.

"This is a big election with some very big questions," she said on her Web site. "How do we bring the war in Iraq to the right end? How can we make sure every American has access to adequate health care? How will we ensure our children inherit a clean environment and energy independence? How can we reduce the deficits that threaten Social Security and Medicare?"

Senator Clinton is the seventh Democrat to join the likely field of candidates who will officially start vying for the nomination next January in the Iowa presidential caucuses.

She joins Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who announced plans to run on Tuesday; former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the 2004 vice presidential nominee; Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut; former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa; and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio. An eighth, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, is expected to declare on Sunday that he is forming an exploratory committee as well.

Mrs. Clinton appears at the head of the Democratic pack in many national polls, yet she is in a tighter spot in some voter surveys in Iowa and New Hampshire, which kick off the presidential nominating process. Recent polls show Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards doing well in those states.

Her entry into the race was long anticipated; even before she won her Senate seat in 2000, people joked about the restoration of the Clinton White House someday, with her in the Oval Office.

Her advisers this week rejected an idea spreading in Democratic circles that she would rush to announce as a way to overshadow Mr. Obama, who has engendered intense Democratic interest as a steady critic of the Iraq war and as a skilled orator who comes across as a nonpartisan and unifying force in politics.

Like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama is also poised to make history. If successful in the primaries, he would be the first African-American to win the Democratic nomination. He is her only real rival at this point in drawing huge crowds of voters at political stops and in driving the 2008 political discussion in the media.

The past week alone has shown the ways that the Clinton and Obama candidacies are intersecting: He announced Tuesday and dominated political coverage in the media; she swept in on Wednesday, fresh from her trip to Iraq, and appeared on the network morning shows to talk about the war (pushing the news of his candidacy to second place); later that day, he issued a statement embracing a cap on American troops in Iraq, hours after she had made a similar proposal. And they are now both jockeying for donors in New York, Hollywood, and elsewhere.

If Mr. Obama's ideas and experience are still under development - a concern for some Democrats - Mrs. Clinton's agenda and history are a mixed bag for many voters.

Her political message flows from centrist Democratic views - or, as she likes to say, common sense: Staking out pragmatic, doable, middle-of-the-road positions that can win the broadest popular support. She supports abortion rights, for instance, but has called abortion a "tragic choice" and speaks urgently about the need for more adoptions. She supports a ban on flag burning, but would not go so far as to amend the Constitution, as some conservatives wish. She supports gay rights generally, but not gay marriage.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, has sought to offer himself as a fresh start for national politics after a succession of presidents named Bush, Clinton, and Bush - and after four decades of divisive rancor, from the sixties and Vietnam to Roe v. Wade, Watergate, Iran-contra, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and now the Iraq war.

On Iraq, perhaps the most defining issue for Democratic candidates in the race at this stage, Mrs. Clinton voted in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to use military force. As is her style, Mrs. Clinton, a Wellesley-educated, Yale-trained lawyer, offered arguments for and against that vote on the floor of the Senate that day; she urged more diplomatic efforts, but also said of her vote, "I cast it with conviction."

While she has not explicitly repudiated that vote, she has moved away from it, becoming a forceful critic of the White House war strategy and saying last month that she would not vote the same way today.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama - as well as the other five Democrats running - have sufficiently different histories and political postures on Iraq that it could be a pivotal issue for voters choosing between them. Mr. Obama, for his part, was a member of the Illinois Legislature in 2002, where he was a vocal opponent of invasion.

Both senators, like most of the other Democrats running, are now fierce opponents of the Bush war plan. Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Biden have sought to raise their profiles in the media as war critics, giving speeches and interviews about Iraq and, after Mr. Bush's address to the nation last week, appearing on news outlets to criticize him.

Mrs. Clinton is a more cautious politician, preternaturally so, and she does not gravitate toward the cameras; they gravitate toward her. She did not appear on television after the president's speech; instead she went to Iraq to hear from military commanders, a means of fashioning and updating her views on the war.

Indeed, she is already the most overly scrutinized politician in America - from her political positions to her wardrobe and hairstyles - and she is careful and sensitive about her public profile. She has worked hard in the Senate to form alliances with Republicans, including some of those who sought to remove her husband from office in 1999 after it was revealed that he had tried to hide information about his extramarital affair with a White House intern, Ms. Lewinsky.

Some of her friends chide her for still being the "Goldwater girl" of her youth, growing up in a Republican household in the Chicago suburbs. Advisers say that she is not predisposed to risk, but rather pursues "evidence based decision-making" - a favorite phrase of hers - and avoiding the appearance of suddenly changing her positions or seeming indecisive.

Indeed, most of her life in politics and the law was devoted to methodical, behind-the-scenes work: After attending Yale Law School, where she met Mr. Clinton, she worked on the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. She then moved to Arkansas and married Mr. Clinton, and she became his political partner and a senior policy adviser when he was governor there.

After her husband's election as president in 1992, Mrs. Clinton took on the role of crafting and shepherding his administration's massive proposal for universal health insurance. But the complexity of the proposal, and the secrecy of the White House deliberations, sapped support among members of Congress, and Mrs. Clinton - while praised for some of her public presentations - shared the blame when the plan collapsed. (She jokes now about still bearing the "scars" from that experience, and she has favored incremental policy ideas to expand health care.)

Mrs. Clinton has said that she is a far better lawmaker and politician today because of her experiences and lessons during the White House years. Yet it is unclear how difficult it will be to persuade Americans to see her in a fresh light and give her a full hearing, given that she is so well known and that voters' attitudes about her are so firmly shaped at this point.

January 20, 2007

AP

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a meeting in Berlin.

RICE: Yes. It was a very useful trip. I asked how people would like to go forward for the acceleration of the roadmap and to really now begin to work for the establishment of a Palestinian state. And out of those discussions, it became clear that a set of informal talks between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would be useful, so to speak, to break the ice. They've not talked about the issues concerning the establishment of the state for six years. And so I will go back sometime in the next few weeks to help facilitate those talks between them. But I think this is a good way to start work toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

SPIEGEL: Do you see any signs suggesting that the dangerous situation in the Middle East can be defused?

RICE: I do believe it can be. The Chinese have a character for crisis; it's danger and opportunity. And our job now is to press the opportunity. Obviously, it's a complicated time in the Middle East. But very often opportunities come out of difficult times and we will try to pursue those opportunities.

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, how much time will the US government grant Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's administration to prove that this time it is serious about disarming the militia?

RICE: The Maliki government came to us to say that this was a time to deal with the problems in Baghdad. And I think they understand very well that that means being evenhanded, dealing with Sunni and Shia death squads. The disarming of the militia is, of course, a part of the prime minister's plan. I believe that they will do that.

But the first goal really is to deal with the population security problem in Baghdad. And that is why the president will make available additional American forces to help reinforce the Iraqis as they deal with their neighborhoods and try to give the population a sense of security. You can't have militias in a democratic state. But I think the first thing they will try to do is to deal with the death squads and the people who are really causing the dangers to the population.

SPIEGEL: When will the new strategy take effect?

REUTERS

US soldiers in Baghdad: Going after the death squads.

SPIEGEL: Would you say that the war in Iraq is winnable?

RICE: Oh, absolutely I think it is. It's not easy. This is a revolution really in the Middle East, a political-social revolution. Iraq was drawn on the fault lines of ethnic and religious differences. For the first time they're being challenged to resolve their differences by politics, not by the repression of one group by another. There are very deep grievances that sometimes spring to the surface, and so it's not easy.

But when you talk with Iraqi leaders or with just the Iraqi people, they want what everyone else wants: They want a stable and peaceful life. And I think the defeat of those extremists who are trying to deny them that kind of Iraq is what really needs to be done. It's not as if all Iraqis are running through the streets fighting each other, Sunni and Shia. These are people who are intermarried, their tribes are very often both Sunni and Shia, but they are being challenged by violent extremists and by death squads.

SPIEGEL: How big do you think these groups are?

RICE: I don't know how small, but certainly not large, not the majority of the Iraqi people.

SPIEGEL: So you wouldn't describe the situation in Iraq as a civil war?

RICE: No, because the Iraqi people and their government have not given up on a unified Iraq. You don't hear Iraqi leaders saying, oh, we cannot work with the Sunni or the Shia. They have a national reconciliation plan. And so I think we should talk about this the way they talk about it, which is the need to reestablish civil order.

SPIEGEL: In Berlin, you held talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Were you confronted with any skepticism or criticism over the new American strategy in Iraq?

AP

Jubilant supporters of radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq.

SPIEGEL: Don't you think it's time for Washington to hold direct talks with Iran?

RICE: No, I don't. I think the Iranians are in violation every day of international demands. I think they are engaged in activities that are leading to the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. I think they are behind much of the instability in Lebanon and they are with the rejectionists in the Palestinian territories.

I think everybody knows what Iran needs to do. We don't need to tell them. And I, by the way, would have reversed 27 years of American policy to sit with my Iranian counterparts, if only they would meet the demands of the international community. So the question isn't why we won't talk to them. The question should be why they won't talk to us.

SPIEGEL: What information do you actually have about Iranian support for militias and insurgents in Iraq?

RICE: We believe that there are networks that are financed and sometimes perhaps trained by some elements in Iran. Some of these explosive devices are extremely sophisticated and these are not technologies that one gets off the shelf, so to speak. So the president has made clear that we will go after those networks. We will do it in Iraq.

SPIEGEL: Will you cross over the border into Iran?

RICE: General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked this and he said the American military has not even asked about that because they believe this is something that can be done in Iraq. We are not trying to escalate this. Our plan is to try to respond to Iranian activity that is harming us.

SPIEGEL: Do you believe there is a risk of escalation if you go after the Iranian networks in Iraq?

RICE: I think the Iranians should stop what they're doing. We're not going to sit by and let them engage in activities that kill our soldiers.

SPIEGEL: Let's discuss sanctions against Iran. The United Nations Security Council has passed a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN charter. Do you have any suggestions on how ...

RICE: ... We'll talk to the allies about what do in the next round.

SPIEGEL: You would like to see tougher sanctions. Should German companies and banks curtail their business relations with Iran or eliminate them altogether?

RICE: This is a decision for the private sector. But I will say this: I've been a corporate director, I've been in that world. And you know, I think people ought to think about the risk of doing business with Iran. I think people ought to think about the risk of further sanctions. The United States is clearly sanctioning Iranian banks and our laws are very tough on those who deal with banks that we have sanctioned.

And so I would just say that this is a time for everybody to look at what Iran is. Iran is a state under a Chapter 7 resolution. They're in very, very small company along with North Korea, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia, two countries that I think will get out of Chapter 7 now. Being in Chapter 7 is hardly the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

SPIEGEL: The non-partisan Baker-Hamilton Commission released a report in December calling for an international conference on the future of Iraq and the crisis region that surrounds it. You don't consider that to be a good idea. Would you prefer to go step by step and talk separately with each player in the Middle East?

RICE: Well, let's remember that there's a lot of diplomacy going on. The Iraqis are running their own diplomacy, so they are going to talk to Iran, they're going to talk to Syria. The region has what they are calling the Arab Initiative for Reconciliation, which is an Arab League initiative. That includes everyone. The international compact which Iraq and the UN run together is an opportunity for all of Iran's neighbors to be there, including Iran and Syria. We had a meeting in New York. The Iranians were there. The Syrians were there. This was at the time of the United Nations General Assembly. So there are forums.

If the Iranians and the Syrians wish to support stability in Iraq, there are plenty of ways for them to do it. The notion that if we just talk to them, then they would suddenly be prepared to stabilize Iraq is not right. You can't just talk about talks -- you have to say what would come of this. Imagine if we were to sit down with the Iranians. Does anyone really believe that they will say, all right, we'll talk about stabilizing Iraq over here, but we have no demands about our nuclear program. Or with the Syrians, oh yes, we'll talk about stabilizing Iraq, but we have no demands about Lebanon. Of course, the only reason to talk to us would be to extract a price; and that's not diplomacy, that's extortion.

SPIEGEL: How do you feel about the talks that took place between Syria and Israel that ended last summer?

RICE: These were apparently not government-sponsored and Prime Minister Olmert has spoken. Everybody would like to see peace between Israel and Syria, too. But Syria is currently engaged in behavior that is not stabilizing in the region. And in fact, just as the world is trying to strengthen Mahmoud Abbas, they continue to deal with elements of the Palestinians that are trying to destabilize the situation.

SPIEGEL: But isn't it useful to bring Syria into talks and, if possible, also discuss the Golan Heights in order to engage them?

RICE: As I've said to you, they don't need us to tell them what they need to do. And I'm concerned that the purpose of having the discussions with us might be to extract a price, and it's a price we're not prepared to pay.

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, we thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by the SPIEGEL editors Stefan Aust, Ralf Beste, Georg Mascolo and Gerhard Spörl.

January 22, 2007