Quotes from President Ahmadinejad of Iran

Quotes from Speeches, Interviews, and Open Letters of President Ahmadinejad of Iran

Location: Toronto, Canada


Quotes from Speeches, Interviews, and Open Letters of President Ahmadinejad of Iran

[…] The United Nations must be the focal point of reliance, hope and participation for all peoples and governments, and a forum for dialogue, understanding and cooperation to achieve peace and tranquility throughout the globe. Attainment of this objective requires:

1. Justice must reign supreme in the Organization, and in accordance with its Charter, all Member-States must have equal rights. Greater power or wealth should not accord expanded rights to any member.


4. The host country should not enjoy any right or privilege over the rest of the membership and the Organization and its headquarters must be easily accessible for all.

In recognition of these principles, the following will become essential:

1. The greatest challenge of our age is the gradual spiritual depravation of human beings brought about by the distancing of the prevailing order from morality and unity of monotheism. The United Nations should lead in promotion of spirituality and compassion for humanity. Only through this, uniting of nations can in fact be realized.

2. Acceptance of unilateralism is exactly the negation of the United Nations and its raison d'etre. Therefore, the United Nations, in its entity, should confront this vicious malady.

3. Today, the physical and psychological security of peoples and nations is ever more endangered. Unilateralism, production and use of weapons of mass destruction, intimidation, resort to the threat or use of force and imposition of destructive wars on peoples for the sake of security and prosperity of a few powers have indeed redoubled the historic responsibility of the United Nations to resolutely endeavor to institutionalize justice in all aspects of global interactions in the interest of human tranquility. In our view, it is impossible to achieve security, peace, stability, prosperity and progress in parts of the world at the expense of instability, militarism, discrimination, poverty and deprivation in others.

4. The raison d'etre of the United Nations is to promote global peace and tranquility. Therefore, any license for pre-emptive measures -- which are essentially based on gauging intentions rather than objective facts and are in fact a modern manifestation of interventionist and war-mongering tendencies of the past -- is in blatant contradiction to the very foundations of the United Nations and the letter and spirit of its Charter.

5. The composition of the Security Council must gain a logical and democratic balance. If permanent membership is accepted for some, then an acceptable mix of representatives of all continents and major civilizations must acquire permanent seats in the Council. I wish to underline our deep dismay that over fifty Islamic countries encompassing more than one 1.2 billion people do not have a permanent seat in the Security Council, nor does Africa with its huge capabilities and potentials, and that the vast continent of Asia with its ancient civilizations has only one permanent seat.

-- From Speech at United Nations General Assembly, September 14, 2005

[…] Unfortunately, the world is rife with discrimination and poverty.

Discrimination produces hatred, war and terrorism. They all share the common root of lack of spirituality coupled with injustice. […]

Terrorism and WMDs are two major threats before the international community. The Islamic Republic of Iran, as one of the main victims of terrorism and chemical weapons, fully appreciates the difficulties that lie ahead in the road to combat these menaces. Today, the most serious challenge is that the culprits are arrogating to themselves the role of the prosecutor. Even more dangerous is that certain parties relying on their power and wealth try to impose a climate of intimidation and injustice over the world by bullying, while — through their huge media resources — portray themselves as defenders of freedom, democracy and human rights.

People around the world are fully aware of what is happening in the occupied Palestine. Women and children are being murdered and adolescents taken prisoner. Houses are being demolished and farms burnt down. Yet, when the people of Palestine resist these conditions, they are accused of terrorism. At the same time, the occupier, which does not abide by any principles and terror is part of its pronounced and routine policy enjoys the support of the previously mentioned governments. Let me be blunter. State terrorism is being supported by those who claim to fight terrorism. […]

What needs our particular attention is the fact that peaceful use of nuclear energy without possession of nuclear fuel cycle is an empty proposition. Nuclear power plants can indeed lead to total dependence of countries and peoples if they need to rely for their fuel on coercive powers, who do not refrain from any measure in furtherance of their interests. No popularly elected and responsible government can consider such a situation in the interest of its people. The history of dependence on oil in oil rich countries under domination is an experiment that no independent country is willing to repeat. […]

International precedence tells us that nuclear fuel- delivery contracts are unreliable and no legally binding international document or instrument exists to guarantee the delivery of nuclear fuel. On many occasions such bilateral contracts have either been suspended or stopped altogether for political reasons. Therefore, the Islamic Republic of Iran, in its pursuit of peaceful nuclear technology, considers it within its legitimate rights to receive objective guarantees for uranium enrichment in the nuclear fuel cycle. […]

-- From Speech at United Nations General Assembly, September 17, 2005

[…] If countries act on the basis of a set of principles, there can be common ground in many areas. […]

If everyone is prepared to act on clear principles, there can be the possibility for common interests. […]

We do not have any problem with the people of the United States. If there was not the obstacle of the U.S. government, we were prepared to send assistance to the victims of Katrina. My government has decided to facilitate travel to the United States for Iranian nationals. I want a direct flight. We want peace and calm for all peoples of the world and human dignity for all people. For us, humanity is important. Nationality is not important. We believe that all humanity has the right to live in peace and dignity. Our criticism is targeted to a limited number in the ruling establishment.

American journalists come to Iran and they don't face any problems and they can meet all Iranian officials. It's not the same in the United States. They do not allow our journalists to go there and they put a lot of limitations on their activities. […]

When I said there is a possibility of negotiations, there are certain conditions that need to be realized. If these conditions are met, the form (of negotiations) is not important. The way they have treated our people here has left no ground for talks. They [the US government] think no one can live without them and this is a wrong notion. We have proved we can live without them. As long as they take that overbearing position of strength and threats, nothing will happen. […]

They think they can solve everything with a bomb. The time for such things is long over. Today we have the rule of rationality and thought. For example, a president has asked a question about the Holocaust. So many questions and publicity that the president is a warmonger. I think the Americans still don't know what's happening in the world. They think in a world manufactured by themselves. They have given support to those who published the cartoons [of the Prophet] and this is not the right thing to do. This kind of defamation is an insult and will not contribute to the resolution of problems. The wave of disgust toward U.S. policies is increasing. They only recognize their own friends, not others. We have in this world 6 billion people. It's not an American club. The majority are not Americans and are not interested to be Americans.

Why should there be impositions on them? If there are clear principles, the world will be a better place.

-- From Interview with USA Today, February 13, 2006

[…] The existence of the [Zionist] regime is tantamount to the permanent imposition of an unbridled threat, so that none of the Islamic nations and countries of the region can feel secure from its threat. The closer these countries and nations are to the epicenter of this threat, the more insecure they feel. The people of Palestine exist within the context of such a threat. For that reason, they have not spent even a single day with peace of mind and tranquility for at least the past sixty years. Three generations of the children of Palestine have lived and are presently living under these circumstances. The peoples of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the entire Middle East are essentially in a similar situation.

As a result of the presence of the usurper Zionist regime, an enormous portion of the wealth and assets of the Islamic countries and the region are spent on maintaining defensive strength, and at times on actual defense. In addition, an important part of the human resources, which are the most fundamental assets of any nation, have been expended for the same purpose. […]

Sowing disunity among the nations and governments of the region is the foundation of the continued existence of this usurper regime. By their insidious interference and by creating an atmosphere of mistrust and resentment, they divide the countries and governments of the region, so that in this atmosphere and by setting up certain covert relationships, they make possible the imposition of costly military and economic pacts, along with the disgraceful political burdens of the dominant system on the nations and governments of the region. The Zionist regime is the focus of accord for the bullying countries and the adversaries of the Islamic community, and an adversary of Muslims. Enemies and ill-wishers, by strengthening and supporting such a threat, put effective pressure on the Islamic community and the countries and nations of the region, and, despite their deep and numerous differences, they converge and are united at this single point.

In fact, all of the dominant powers impose their power on Muslims through the regime that occupies Jerusalem; and that regime, as their agent, has assumed the responsibility to terrorize, threaten, sow disunity, and sabotage the political, economic and cultural relations between the countries of the region with each other and with other countries of the world.

The bullying powers use various excuses to prevent the transfer of science, technology and progress to the nations of the region, and regard [our advancement] as a threat to the corrupt Zionist regime. They do not allow the countries of the region to tread on the path to progress and advancement. They even oppose indigenous technologies in the Islamic countries, and interpret any scientific advancement as a threat to the security of the regime that occupies Jerusalem.

Do you see how they treat our nation that, relying on the creativity of its own scientists, has been able to achieve access to nuclear technology? Whereas today, nuclear technology is one of the primary foundations for progress and serving the people; and in the not too distant future, nations lacking this technology will have no choice but to resort to it in order to provide their energy needs, as well as to use nuclear technology in scientific, technical, and manufacturing fields. […]

The Holocaust in Palestine has persisted for more than sixty years. […]

The question of Palestine is not solely a question for the Islamic world, but rather today’s issue for humanity. The tragedy of the occupation in Palestine and daily atrocities have harmed the dignity and honour of humanity. […]

Oppression and aggression are not compatible with belief in God, human dignity and justice. The Zionist regime is a clear example of oppression, and its fundamental nature represents an actual and permanent threat. Its establishment was for this very purpose, namely to put in place a permanent threat in the region. Therefore, its continued existence is a continuation of threat and oppression, and it would not exist without threat and aggression, and is not inherently able to survive in an atmosphere of peace and tranquility. Such a regime, even if it remains established in one square meter of the land of Palestine, will continue to be a threat.

Take a good look at the bullying powers of the world. When it comes to supporting the Zionist regime, they recognize no red line and boundaries for justice, human rights and human dignity. The usurper Zionist regime is the point of convergence of all of the corruption and injustices of the corrupt and bullying powers. […]

Open the doors to the prison of occupied Palestine, and allow the immigrants to return to their original homes, and summon the usurpers of the land of Palestine as well. Of course, if you still consider yourself indebted to them, then find a proper place for them in your own territories; otherwise, call upon them to return to their countries of origin to live like their forefathers.

Today we are all accountable in facing the question of Palestine. The enemies of humanity are struggling to preserve this nest of intrigue. They are using the resources and wealth of their own people to keep such a regime in power, at the expense of the poverty and destitution of their own nations. […]

The question of Palestine is the present and lasting concern of not only Muslims, but the entire humanity.

Palestine is the point of convergence and differentiation of right and wrong. The freedom of Palestine is the present aspiration of humanity. We must believe that good will prevail and evil will depart. We must believe that Palestine will soon be free.

-- From Speech at Al-Qods [Jerusalem] International Conference, Tehran, April 14, 2006

[…] Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him -- PBUH), the great Messenger of God, Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make War against Terror his slogan, and finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, But at the same time, Have countries attacked, The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed, and on the slight chance that there are criminals in a village, city, or convoy, for example, set the entire village, city or convoy ablaze? Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water resources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, the sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harm’s way, taken away from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that every day some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed off to their families. […]

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations?

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed. […]

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and do not accept dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with the increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.

-- From Letter to President Bush, May 9, 2006

[…] 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. […]

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. […]

Why should they [the German people] 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? […]

How can a person who wasn't even alive at the time be held legally responsible? […]

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 [the Nazis] emphasized so greatly, instead of highlighting the great German cultural heritage? Why should the Germans not have the right to express their opinion freely? […]

Five million Palestinians have not had a home for 60 years. It is amazing really: You [the Germans] 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? […]

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? […]

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. […]

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. […]

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. […]

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. […]

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. […]

I'm wondering why you [the Spiegel Magazine] are 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? […]

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. […]

[...] 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.

-- From Interview with Spiegel Magazine, May 30, 2006

[…] We think that Mr. Bush's team and the parties that support him want to monopolize energy resources in the world. Because once they have that, they can impose their opinions, points of view, and policies on other nations and, of course, line their own pockets. […]

Basically we are not looking for — working for the bomb. The problem that President Bush has is in his mind. He wants to solve everything with bombs. The time of the bomb is in the past. It's behind us. Today is the era of thought, dialogue and cultural exchanges. […]

If an atrocity was committed in Germany, or Europe for that matter, why should the Palestinians answer for this? They had no role to play in this. Why on the pretext of the Holocaust they have occupied Palestine? Millions of people have been made refugees. Thousands of people to-date have been killed. Thousands of people have been put in prison. At the very moment, a great war is raging because of that. […]

We are very saddened that the people of Iraq are being killed. I believe that the rulers of the U.S. have to change their mentality. What is the American army doing inside Iraq? Iraq has a government, a parliament. Iraq is a civilized nation with a long history of civilization. These are people we're dealing with.

[...] Saddam's story has been finished for close to three years, I would say. He belongs in the past. And the Americans are openly saying that 'We are here for the long run,' in Iraq that is. So, according to international law, the responsibility of providing security rests on the shoulder of the occupying power, rather army. So, I ask them why are they not providing security? […]

[...] I was expecting Mr. Bush to change his behavior. I was hoping to open a new window for the gentlemen. One can certainly look on the world from other perspectives. You can love the people. You can love all people. You can talk with the people of the Middle East using another language, other words. Instead of blind support for an imposed regime [Israel], they can establish a more appropriate relationship with the people of the region. […]

[...] Look at the makeup of the American administration, the behavior of the American administration. See how they talk down to my nation. They want to build an empire. And they don't want to live side by side in peace with other nations. […]

So, are you expecting the Americans to threaten us and we sit idly by and watch them with our hands tied?

-- From Interview on CBS program 60 Minutes, August 13, 2006

[…] By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.

Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger. […]

Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generation nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threats against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? To what length can powers producing and possessing these weapons go? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste resulting from the use of their wealth and resources for the production of destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of on instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful not being content with their own rights and still striving to devour the rights of others. […]

Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real justice, compassion and peace than by continuing their production and proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use? […]

Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq when the occupiers are themselves among the permanent members of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard? […]

The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Jerusalem are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they fear that the shedding of light on the facts would undermine the raison d'etre of this regime, as it already has.

The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime [Israel] in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, the regime has been a constant source of threats and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. […]

Worst yet is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.

Just watch what is happening in Palestinian lands. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?

At the same time, a [Hamas] government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its ministers and members of parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community.

Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps? […]

Meanwhile, some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives [in Lebanon] militarily. We witnessed the Security Council of the United Nations practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why?

In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities? […]

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends, including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.

Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?

The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern. […]

A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression.

Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from certain powers; […]

For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of rightful claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and obligations of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged -- these [apparently] do not violate human rights. […]

Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. When the oppressed are crushed by bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council which is charged with maintaining security for all countries?

The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.

The question needs to be asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice? […]

The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.

Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective. […]

No one has superiority over others. No individual or state can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the `international community'.

-- From Speech at UN General Assembly, September 19, 2006

[…] I'm surprised why American politicians are so sensitive and biased with regard to Israel. Is there a relationship, to speak with such prejudice?

Everyone is prevented from questioning the regime. Whenever a question is raised, some American politicians react very strongly to it, whereas we know there's a lot being said about many other countries around the world.

Lebanon was bombarded. In Ghana, people were killed with laser bombs. But it doesn't seem to have created concern among American politicians as much. But when somebody questions or criticizes the Zionist regime, there's so much reaction. Could you tell me why this is the case? […]

So, let Palestinian people decide for themselves. We support the vote of the people. And whatever the result is, we must all accept it. Why should there be objections to this proposal, or to the vote of the people to indicate their will? Don't the people in Palestine have the right to live? Are they not human beings? They live in their own homeland. In their own homeland, they are under attack. […]

Our question is, what about the rights of the Palestinian people? They lived there, and they were displaced and forced to leave their own homeland, under the threat of a gun, and, regretfully, with the support of the American government.

What is happening to the Palestinians? Do they not have the right? Shouldn't we be thinking about that? Their young people are being killed on the streets. Homes are being destroyed over their heads, even in Gaza, even in the West Bank.

After all, they are human beings, too. They have the right to life and to live in their own homeland. Others have come from far and beyond, and are now there ruling there and governing that land. […]

If this event [the Holocaust] happened, where did it happen? The where is the main question. And it was not in Palestine. Why is the Holocaust used as a pretext to occupy the Palestinian lands? […]

The subject of the Holocaust is a different subject. I raised two or three questions that were very clear about it. I said that, in World War II, 60 million people lost their lives. They were killed. Two million of them were noncivilians, so to say, military. The rest were civilian populations.

And they all lost their lives. Their lives were all cared for and respected. But why is it that we concentrate so much on the lives of a group among the 60 million? […]

-- From Interview with CNN, September 21, 2006

[…] Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people. […]

In Iraq, about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government. […]

The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircraft, missiles or nuclear weapons. Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity. The global position of the United States is in all probability weakened because the administration has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead the American people about its policies and practices. […]

Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace, stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war? […]

What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration brought for the American people? It is regrettable that for the US administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the interests of the American people and of the other nations of the world. […]

I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit everyone. […]

It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.

It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, honesty and compassion. […]

-- From Message to the American People, November 29, 2006

[...] The time of the bomb is past. The parties who think that by using the bomb you can control others, they are wrong. Today we are living in the era of intellectual pursuits. You should spend your money on your people. We don't need the bomb. For 28 years we have defended ourselves in the face of enemy onslaught. Every day we are becoming more powerful. And, again, we don't need such weapons. In fact, we think that this is inhuman. So can you please tell me why the U.S. government is fabricating these bombs? Do you want to provide more welfare, happiness to the people through the bomb? Are you going to deal with global poverty? Or do you want to kill people? [...]

Inspectors have said that Iran has not diverted; there's no diversion here, in other words. Again, let me repeat. We have not diverted from a peaceful path. This is what the agencies think. There is a solution here, however, a very simple solution. The countries that have atomic bombs should destroy their stockpiles. And that would make everyone happy. You shouldn't accuse others needlessly, and you shouldn't lose your temper and make life miserable for others as well. They have made mistakes and have diverted themselves. They think that others will do the same. There are many countries which have the technology. Five or six have diverted from the peaceful path, road, rather. So those five or six should return to the correct path. If certain parties think that they have rights which go beyond the normal rights that any nation should have, that will be problematic. I think that the American government should appreciate that it is like any other member of the international community, respect the views of the agency. It's very regrettable to see that certain U.S. officials have insulted the very clear positions taken by the agency, and they have lost their temper. And also they have made threats. They have attacked the director general of the agency. That is shameful. If you think that the agency is a reputable one, you should allow it to go ahead with its business. Why should you, or the agency, for that matter, repeat the words of the secretary of state? Rather, what they need to do is report the facts, the truth. So the problems of the American politicians is because they are interested in their own interests. And they want the rest of the world just to say "yes, sir" and go along with whatever they say. That is finished. It's in the past. [...]

-- From new Interview on CBS program 60 Minutes, September 20, 2007

[...] Now, the important and decisive question concerns the roots and causes of these challenges. A scientific and careful analysis shows that the root of the present situation lies in two fundamental factors. Without doubt, the first factor lies in the relations arising from the consequences of the Second World War.

The victors of the war drew the roadmap for global domination and formulated their policies not on the basis of justice but for ensuring the interests of victors over the vanquished nations. Therefore, mechanisms arising from this approach and the related policies have not been capable of finding just solutions for global problems for 60 years. Some big powers still carry the conduct of the victors of a world war and regard other states and nations, even those that had nothing to do with the war, as the vanquished, and humiliate other nations and demand extortion from the condescending position similar to feudals and peasants of the medieval age. They regard themselves superior to others and are not accountable to any government or international body. [...]

Among all the ineffective organizations, unfortunately, the UN Security Council ranks first. They have created circumstances in which some powers with exclusive and special right to veto in the Security Council act as prosecutor, Judge and executioner, regardless of being a defendant or respondent. It is natural that countries that have been subjected to their infringements have no hope to get what they deserve from the Council.

Unfortunately, humanity has witnessed that in all long wars, like the Korean and Vietnam wars, the war of the Zionists against Palestinians and Lebanon, the war of Saddam against the people of Iran and ethnic wars of Europe and Africa, one of the members of the Security Council was one of the belligerents or supported one party against the other, usually the aggressor, or the conflict itself.

Look at Iraq, they first occupied the country and then received authorization from the Security Council, the same Council in which the same occupiers have the right of veto. Who should the people of Iraq complain about and to where should they take their complaints with hopes of securing their rights? We saw in Lebanon that some powers delayed the decisions of the Security Council hoping for the victory of the Zionist regime. However, when they became disappointed in that usurper regime's victory, they approved of a ceasefire to take effect. But the duty of the Security Council is to prevent the expansion of conflicts, to put in place the ceasefire and promote peace and safety. Who should the people of Lebanon complain about and where should they take their complaints to?

The presence of some monopolist powers has prevented the Security Council from doing its main duties which are safeguarding peace and security based on justice. The credibility of the council has been tarnished and its efficacy in defending the rights of its members has been destroyed. Many nations have lost their confidence in the Council. Some other mechanisms like the monetary and banking mechanisms are in the same undesirable situation and have been turned into tools for the imposition of the wishes of some powers on other nations. It is evident that these mechanisms are not capable of responding to the current needs and solving the challenges and establishing fair and sustainable relations. [...]

-- From new Speech at UN General Assembly, September 25, 2007

Official site


eXTReMe Tracker