Interview

Former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani met with TIME’s Scott MacLeod and Nahid Siamdoust to discuss the U.S., Rafsanjani’s presidential campaign and Iran’s nukes. Excerpts:

Time. When you announced your candidacy, you said you had doubts Iran’s future. What did you mean?
We don’t want to give the playing ground to the extremist elements. Those who persuaded me believed that a moderating current in charge in the country could improve our relations with the world. I believed in their logic.

Time. May Iranians criticize you for not standing up with a louder voice for democracy in Iran. Are you in favor of democracy in Iran?
I certainly believe in democracy, but I believe we have to take this course step by step. But in Iran after the revolution, we have always had true democracy. Our constitution was also approved by the overwhelming vote the people. Everything in Iran relies on the vote of the people. What else would be your definition of democracy besides this?

Time. What do you offer to the millions of young people who are impatient and unhappy?
We have to provide educational opportunities, think about their employment, provide them better conditions to many if they’d like to. If they have views and opinions, they shouldn’t have any problems expressing them.

Time. Would you be willing to extend a moratorium on Iran’s nuclear development in exchange for improved cooperation and improved relations with the West?
No, we’re not willing to suspend. But we’re ready to provide greater assurances to the world that we won’t move from peaceful nuclear technology. If we need time and negotiations for creating this confidence, we’re prepared. Our key policy is that the world move toward total nuclear disarmament.

Time. Is it Iran’s interest to insist on your right to a fuel cycle even if it means being taken to the U.N. Security Council?
I don’t see any reason why the international community should take us to the Security Council just because we’re trying to apply our own rights. If that is what you think, then you must interpret the world as very brutal. Now, if they do take such drastic actions, it won’t be just Iran that will lose. Others will lose as well.

Time. You were fore sending of your relatives to discuss the possibility of normalizing relations with the U.S. President Reagan once sent you a bible. Does that say something about your approach to dealing with the U.S.?
This means that we don’t have any problems with the people and the country of the United States. Whenever there has been an opportunity for reasonable cooperation, we’ve seized it. It was America that initiated the cutting of relations with Iran. (In 86) we made a limited agreement with them for receiving weapons in return for freeing hostages. But even there, the Americans behaved badly and messed up the game.

Time. Are you the statesman to take the initiative and break out of the cold war with the U.S.?
I think if the U.S. come long, it is possible to end hostilities. (The U.S.) has to take a serious step that indicate its goodwill for cooperation.