Broadcast 3 March on Iranian state satellite TV (IRINN)

This is an excerpt from the daily interview program "45 Minutes." The guests today are Dr. Javani in Tehran, and Mr. Khorshiddeli in a live feed from Damascus, speaking in Arabic with a Persian interpreter. The announcer is Mohammad Sajedi; he announces and comments frequently for IRINN on various programs, and is is one of the world's great masters of anti-American propaganda.

The guest in Damascus, who has an Iranian name but does not speak Persian for some reason, seems more anti-Zionist than anti-American. They unloaded quite a few frustrations here covering a very familiar contentious ossuary.

For much of the interview the caption "American intervention in the Middle East is the most important factor in crisis and instability" was shown at the bottom of the image frame.

**************************

Announcer: The methods Mr. Bush is using in Iraq are either negative or positive. If they are positive, why are the recommendations being made in the Baker-Hamilton report, and if they are negative, then he should welcome those recommendations.

However, neither of these things were done and a third option was taken, meaning an increase in forces, despite what has happened. There is a contradiction here.

Javani: I think this goes back to the fact that in any case the neo-conservatives have done something in America at this time in its history; some prominent people in America are now saying that the greatest foreign policy mistake in all of America's history was the attack on Iraq.

In any case someone is responsible for this! It is possible that even after decades it will not be possible to recover from the casualties, the losses and the consequences.

Today Bush is at a crossroads. He can either make the utmost effort to turn this defeat into some kind of victory, in other words to turn the remarks of a defeated player into the remarks of a winning player, or, ultimately he can accept this defeat. The issue is here. If Bush accepts this defeat and its consequences, what should he do? He must accept a revision of America's policies in the 21st century.

I think before America attacked Iraq and before its military mobilization to the Middle East region, America could have adopted other methods for achieving its 21st-century policies and moving towards world leadership.

However they usually say when politics reaches a dead end, out comes the sword! Weapons and war begin when politics fail. When Americans have used their ultimate weapon, which is military power, on this scale and to this extent--when a country like Iraq is occupied and 150,000 American soldiers have been there for four consecutive years at great current expense.

According to statistics they themselves have released, this war has cost more than $400 billion. More than 3,200 people have been killed, according to the Pentagon itself. This is interesting. The Russians, who do intelligence work, say that the casualty figures or the statistics on the wounded the Americans give are 1/10th of the reality.

Today look at the problems the American soldiers have, the women who were in the American army returning to their families, the family crises and problems like these. Ms. Albright said Bush has isolated America in the world, for years and years. In other words this problem cannot be put aside easily.

In my view America will never be able to correct this strategic mistake or get back on a track where it will be able to resume world leadership.

Announcer: Mr. Khorshiddeli in Damascus! Many of the world's great analysts believe that in occupying Iraq America made its greatest foreign policy mistake since World War II. If we agree that this is true, can we conclude that America must reconsider its 21st century policies?

Khorshiddeli: Yes, definitely. Kissinger, who has been one of the designers of American foreign policy during the last 30 years, said himself a few days ago that one of the greatest mistakes America has made during the last 30 years was this military occupation of Iraq.

But how can the American government be persuaded to reconsider its policies? How can one persuade such a huge government superpower to reevaluate these policies? I do not think the American government even takes American national interests into consideration.

It should have good relations with the nations of the Middle East, which is an important strategic region, the source of energy and important political objectives. This is a region that is the crossroads of relations with the world, but America is not taking a contemporary approach.

Therefore the basic question is, who can convince the American government to reconsider its policies? If we go back to the Baker-Hamilton Report, we see that it was prepared by ten of America's greatest political analysts. They presented a policy that is acceptable to an extent, but again the American government ignored the report.

Does the American government need another defeat like the one it suffered in Vietnam to be able to revise its policies? What we are seeing in the governments of the Latin American nations shows that the present American government's policies must be reevaluated. It must consider the common interests of governments and the nations with which it has relations. It must not turn to militarism.

America needs to reflect, to return to itself; it must reevaluate it foreign policy.

Something else I would like to say is that America's policy orientation in the Middle East must be liberated from the influence of the Zionist lobby. It is this Zionist lobby that is bending American foreign policy toward Israel's interest. America itself must reevaluate Israel's plans.

Announcer: Mr. Khorshiddeli, many prominent Republicans and the primary neo-conservative architects in America, such as Mr. Richard Perle, Mr. Paul Wolfowitz and even Ms. Rice, believe that they have made a mistake in the past.

In view of the fact that these prominent people are all Republicans and Mr. Bush is paying no attention, can we conclude that Mr. Bush is taking a unilateral approach to the Middle East without regard for the views of others?

Khorshiddeli: That is correct to a great extent. As I said, the American government is ignoring the views of the American people. The present American government is even ignoring the cries and demands of the Europeans. It is also ignoring the views of the UN.

The Bush government and Bush himself are taking a unilateral approach, and all of these problems must be laid at his feet. He wants to continue with this militaristic policy of his until judgment day. This will affect not only America itself, but the entire world as well.

It won't just isolate the American government domestically, it will make a two-sided American policy even in the American Congress. There will be a schism. The American Congress has not yet been able to decide to endorse this sending of additional troops to Iraq.

The American Congress is in a state of political confusion. It does not agree with the Bush policy and many reformists in the American Congress are speaking out against Bush. Many of them believe that the Bush policies will lead to the isolation of America and many of the nations of the world will separate themselves from America. Perhaps we will find the answer to that in the future.