When will US stop nuclear doubletalk?: Foad Izadi

Press TV has interviewed Foad Izadi, a professor at the University of Tehran, from Tehran, to discuss nuclear negotiations in Geneva over Iran’s peaceful energy program.

What follows is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: What do you make of the recent comments by the US officials?

Izadi: Well, beside the quote that you had from Wendy Sherman, she in a previous meeting at a Congress hearing had said that there is ‘deception in the DNA of Iranians’, which is another very, I guess, racist remark by an American official.

What is happening in Iran is that these sentences that the American officials use – especially the military threat sentences, the idea of ‘all options are on the table and we may be able to use them’ and they actually attack Iran – these sentences are translated into Farsi.

Iranian people are hearing these things and what the people here are wondering is that if the US government wants to reach a deal with Iran, why are they not reducing this type of rhetoric against the Iranian people?

When you say the Iranians’ DNA has deception, you’re not just talking about the government; you’re talking about 80 million people that live in this country.

So, we see this type of double talk.

On the one hand, we see the American officials talking about the idea of reaching an agreement with Iran; on the other hand, they are talking in a way that is quite negative and unproductive.
The end result is that people are wondering whether Americans are genuine with regard to their first type of rhetoric. This is basically hurting this genuine negotiations and agreements that are supposed to be reached with Iran and the other side.

Press TV: That’s along the lines of my next question. How would you describe the US demeanor towards Iran and towards the negotiations ever since that historic deal was reached in Geneva last year?

Izadi: You know, as part of the agreement, both sides are supposed to negotiate in good faith. This is a quote from the agreement.

When you see one side is threatening to attack the other side militarily, which is against the law, against international law – Article One of the UN charter says the use of threats or the use of force towards another country is illegal. It’s not the use of force that’s illegal, by itself–threat is also illegal.

Whenever you hear Obama, Kerry, Sherman or Cohen talking about “all options are on the table,” they are basically violating the UN charter. And that’s something to remember.

People here are wondering the other side is already violating a law that they’re a part of. The United States government is part of the United Nations. They have said that they are going to abide by the UN charter. They are violating the UN charters basically on a daily basis.

The question that a lot of people here have is that if we sign another type of agreement with these types of people, how much are they going to “interpret” that agreement?