Il grande vecchio è Akbar Etemad: l’uomo che ha messo in piedi il programma nucleare di Teheran ai tempi dello scià Pahlavi e che, allo scoppiare della rivoluzione islamica, si è trasferito a Parigi, dove vive ormai da 30 anni.
(in foto: Akbar Etemad, copyright Stefania Maurizi)
Strangelove lo ha intervistato a Parigi per il Venerdì di Repubblica: per 5 lunghe ore, ha parlato con lui di tutto: dalle caratteristiche del programma che aveva messo in piedi fino al programma di oggi, da Ahmadinejad alle Guardie della Rivoluzione a Israele.
E’ un tipo intrigante, Etemad. Ed è uno che sa. Sa tante cose. Etemad è un insider del più potente establishment nucleare al mondo: quello francese. Dopo aver gestito il programma dello scia, Etemad è passato a lavorare per l’establishment nucleare francese, diventando l’amico fidato dei padreterni dell’atomo.
Strangelove riporta qui sotto alcuni stralci della conversazione in inglese:
D: Let’s start with the elections [le ultime elezioni: quelle del 2008]. Were you surprised at the results?
R: No, I was not surprised, because first of all everybody knew that the conservative front in the Parliament was going to win the elections and to be the main power in the country. But the question was, because the conservatives have also two sides, two different directions, the main question was: is the branch which is supporting Ahmadinejad which is going to win? Or the other branch, which is a bit different? According to the results, it’s very hard to say now. According to the results is 50-50: there’s no overwhelming victory for one or the others. The reformers are getting into the Parliament, as expected. Maybe they would have some 40 deputies, they can do anything at all, they can just maybe bring discussions, but the decision belong to the conservatives.
D: They have no executive power in this position.
R: No, this is, the fact is that this is nearly the last one and a half year of Ahmadinejad mandate in Iran, we are going to see if things turn little by little for him or against him for the next election. That is now the question: to see if Ahmadinejad is going to be re-elected or other candidates, like Ali Larijani, who may have stance which differs from Ahmadinejad.
D: And probably there will be some trouble for Ahmadinajed if these people…
R: Maybe yes, maybe. This is the situation in Iran and I think nothing really important would happen until the end of the mandate of Ahmadinejad, we are going to have the same situation.
D: Until 2009, basically.
R: Yes, there would be no evolution. […] I think the situation in Iran stand still. Everybody is waiting to see, even the regime, what comes out, how Ahmadinajed would behave, what would happen in the nuclear crisis, first, and also in the region, in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, because Iran is playing a more and more important role there. Then the problem is not an internal problem, I think the most important point for Iran now, for the regime, is the consideration of the political developments, or other developments in the region. Then the matter of internal problems according to me would be a second hand consideration. From now to the end of Ahmadinejad also for the election of the President afterwards, Iran is put by the intervention of the Americans in the region, Iran is put into have his hands everywhere. That imposes to have a great consideration for developments in the region and that is what would give Iran any direction whatever it is.[…]
D: What do you think about the nuclear crisis, which kind of shape will have, this nuclear crisis?
R: I think the nuclear crisis is going on, but the fact is that at the end the Western countries they see they can do nothing against Iran, this is the lesson they have learned during the last 3-4 years. If they can do anything against Iran, in that field, that means Iran would follow on its programme. And the enrichment programme would go on with the construction of the heavy water reactor.
D: In Arak?
R: In Arak, yes, would go on and I think they would go on with their programme and nothing would stop them. I don’t see what could stop them. And the possibility of military intervention is out now, because it’s too late and the Americans have so many problems in the region: Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine, and so on.
D: Too many fronts.
R: Yes, it’s impossible to do that and the candidates, for example, are against it [military intervention]. It is out. If that possibility is out and the sanctions of the U.N. Security Council don’t work, then there would be nothing to bring Iran to compromise on nuclear issue with the West. Then they would go on to perform their programme, whatever that programme is.
D: What’s the sense of this programme? I mean, they are enriching uranium, but they have no power plants, so what’s the purpose? It is quite suspicious.
R: You’re right, look so suspicious, because they enrich uranium, but they don’t need that, but the fact is that, from my understanding, is what Iran is looking for is to master the technology.
D: To acquire capabilities.
R: Yes, to acquire the capability of doing this or that. Why are they looking for getting this capability? Because they think they have left aside from the West by imposing condition by negation of the contracts they had with the West and so on. Then they say: if this is the case, we have to count on ourselves only. Now, to count on themselves, is to develop technology whatever it is: reactor, water reactor, enrichment and so on. This are all elements of our programme. It could be a civil nuclear programme, it could be a military nuclear programme, nobody knows. When you have technology, you use it the way you want. This is not only the case of Iran, this is the case of any other country, you master it they way you want. You see, by understanding this situation that Iran is frustrated by the West, they think that we have to master this technology and we will see how we use it at the end, this is quite understandable, because if we have to count on themselves to go through all the problems of developing these technologies, of course when they master it, they use it, the way they want.
D: Of course, I see. When you speak about frustration you want to refer to the Eurodif affaire, the Bushehr reactor?
R: Exactly.
D: Why did the Germans stop building the reactor? I mean that reactor…
R: It was nearly finished.
D: And that was 35 years ago, maybe!
R: Yes, still is not working, yes!
D: This is a sort of never ending story.
R: That is frustrating, because Iran has spent a lot of money and time on these projects and suddenly they fall down. Now, of course, I don’t say that this is only the fault of Europeans. After the revolution there was a chaos.
D: Even the Iranian regime was not in favour of the nuclear technology.
R: Yes. They didn’t know, they had other problems, Iraq attacked Iran.
D: They [the Iranian regime] tended to perceive it as a Western technology.
R: Yes, then it was after ten years time after the revolution that again they came back to the nuclear and they decided to restart the programme.
D: So basically at the end of the ’80s.
R: Yes, exactly. And that was the time they started again to think about nuclear and at that time, they could reach an agreement with Siemens to complete the Bushehr reactor. But the German government did not give the export license for the equipment, for political reasons, then Iran had to turn to other countries. There was only Soviet Union at the time, Russia, they are not very good at this kind of things. They had another design and to adapt that design to whatever was constructed at the site is very difficult problem. And at the end Russians they are not sincere in doing that, they are playing with Iran and they are playing with the United States at the same time.
D: Are they still doing this? Why do you think so, which kind of elements bring you to say that the Russians are playing with Iran?
R: Because you don’t need that much time to bring this reactor into the operation. It’s amazing: it’s nearly 14 years time that they are doing it, then you don’t need that much time. Everything is nearly finished , but each time they say: next year, next year, next year. Then while they play with Iran, at the same time they play with the United States, because you see they have something in hands, they don’t want to give it up. If they start the operation of the power plant, this is out. They have the key in their hands, when they negotiate with the Americans: look, if you are not nice, you are going to put the nuclear power plant into operation. When they discuss with the Iranians, they say: well you have to pay some more money. [ridacchia] You see it is going on and this only beneficial to the Russians only, Iran is getting nothing. United States is just talking with the Russians, but the Russians wish some money from Iran and they go on. I am not quite sure, they say this year the power plant is going to be put into operation, I am not quite sure this is going to be done.
D: Which kind of reactor is that? Is it a light water reactor?
R: It is a light water reactor, a pressurised water reactor [PWR], yes.
D: So it is not of concern for plutonium.
R: No, exactly, That is also another problem, there’s no one country which has made nuclear weapons out of the fuel of PWR reactors for producing energy, because it is so much out of the way, I don’t say that technically it could not be done, but it is so much out of the way and it costs so much that nobody would do that. The best way is enrichment, it is much more easier.[…]
D: So, in your opinion there’s no problem with that specific kind of reactor.
R: No, it is just political pressure form one side and the other.
D: However, the problem is the entire frame, you know, what the Americans don’t want is Iran acquiring this capability.
R: Yes, exactly. This is a symbolic. The problem is that the Americans do not want Iran to have access to this technology.
D: Which in some sense is understandable: whenever you have this capability you can build nuclear weapons.
R: Of course. If they have the capability of doing it, they may opt to have the bomb. Now, that is all true, but the question raises is: why is Iranian bomb is frightful and not the others? Why not Pakistan, or India, or Israel, and the others, who are not members of the NPT [Trattato di Non Proliferazione, ndr] and have nuclear weapons?
D: They have no inspections at all, because they are out of the NPT.
R: They have no inspections at all, they are free to have, and nobody is talking. Why is the case of Iran getting so important? My impression is that I think the Americans have taken this bargaining position with Iran to put pressure on Iran and the nuclear issue is not so important, in fact. Because even if Iran manufacture nuclear weapons, it’s no to use it, nobody takes nuclear weapons to use it. This is a defence mean. Deterrence. This is just for Iran just to have a position that nobody could attack Iran, that is not so dangerous. I think the Americans are using the nuclear issue to put pressure on the regime, if it was not the atomic [issue], they would have invented something else, as they have done in Iraq. Exactly in Iraq they have invented Saddam Hussein did this, then they said he was with Al Qaeda, the same, the invent something to put pressure on a country they don’t like. Pakistan, for example, is not a democratic country, not even a country governed properly. They have nuclear weapons, and nobody is concerned. Nobody is concerned.
D: However, proliferation is a big problem. You know, one of the problems it could be: if Iran acquires the bomb, then Saudi Arabia and the others want to acquire it. So there could be a proliferation problem in the Middle East, which is a troubled area. This is a genuine, a real problem.
R: No, I don’t think so. […]
D: However, there is also another side of this complicated issue, that is: if the regime acquires the capability, and then acquire the weapons, because when you have the capability you can have weapons, provided that you want them. If the regime acquire the capability, then it will become more assertive and will oppress more and more the Iranian people.
R: I see what you mean, I don’t know. I think that probably sometimes the pressure of the regimes put on the people is not because they are very strong, it’s because they are wick, when you are wick you go for this kind of actions. If the regime feels sure that the regime cannot be attacked by outside, and they have a sense of security, my impression is that it will become more open with people inside the country, because they feel more safe. Now, if the regime is not a very powerful regime, of course they have to be afraid of the people, if they have demonstrations they have to kill them, they have to go for censorship and so on. But if they are strong and powerful, they are not frightened of that. My impression is that if Iran gets that, that stance of being powerful in the regime and being sure they would not be attacked militarily from outside, they would have another kind of behaviour with the people of Iran.
D: Think so?
R: Because you don’t get the nuclear weapons to use it against your people.
D: Yes, however, the regime goes unchallenged.
R: The regime goes unchallenged, that gives a sense of stability ad power, that probably they would come out with the people than now. Because now they are threatened from outside. When you are threatened from outside, you had to be careful, they have problems with the Kurds, they have problems with minorities, and so on […]
D: What about Ahmadinejad attacks on Israel? Is a very bad rhetoric…
R: I think this is the rhetoric he uses not for me, not for the Iranian people, he’s using it for Arabs, and I have seen the Arabs in the Muslim countries: they love Ahmadinejad, because he’s talking like that, it’s amazing. I don’t know why he’s doing it, what he wants to do with that, but the matter is that that kind of rhetoric is going in the direction of the feelings of the population of Arab countries, because in most Arab countries, they think that governments they are in connections with the Americans, they don’t like their governments, there’s no one single democracy in Arab countries, it doesn’t exist. They are frustrated: they are frustrated against the Americans, the way the Americans behave in the Middle East, they are frustrated with Israel, of course. When someone comes out with this kind of things, of course they love it. It’s not the fault of Ahmadinejad, although I don’t like it, it’s the fault of the Americans, who created the atmosphere for him to say this kind of things. Look in the Middle East, from the Mediterranean into the Sindh river in Pakistan you don’t find a single place which is not in trouble. The Americans they have put the all region in such a mess, in such a, mess, with Lebanon, with Syria, with Palestine, with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on, in such a mess that Ahmadinejad find a way out to talk to the people and the people are sensitive to that. Ahmadinejad is not, he doesn’t bother if you like him or not, he’s talking to those people. And I think from what I have seen, I travelled a lot, people from the Third World countries they think Ahmadinejad is a hero.
D: Basically, Ahmadinejad is playing the card of the Third World leader.
R: Exactly […]
D: What about the Israel, do you think Israel will allow Iran to master this technology, because this is the crucial thing. Do you think Israel will finally attack the Iranian nuclear facilities?
R: You know, it’s very difficult to know what Israel would do, because Israel of course can do certain things, but they are under the umbrella of the Americans at the same time, that means they are not free to do whatever they want. If the Americans realise it is possible to attack Iran militarily right now, they would not let Israel to do that, because if Israel does it, the Americans have to go with Israel certainly. Now, I do not think Israel is talking right now, but I do not Israel can attack Iran militarily, But I tell you something, I would say that even if they attack Iran, that would not destroy Iranian programme, you see, this Iranian programme is widespread into the country, this is a very big country with mountains and so on, they can spread it here and there, Israel cannot everyday go and attack, the can maybe attack Natanz, but when they have the technology of making centrifuges, they do it somewhere else, they may attack Arak, they can do it somewhere else, they can destroy equipments, but they cannot destroy the minds of the Iranians.
D: Especially the knowledge.
R: The knowledge. Then they know it is of not use to attack the installations of Iran, they know they would never do it.
D: So which card are they going to play?
R: Nothing, talking, like Western countries, they talk and talk.
D: Just rising the pressure.
R: Putting the pressure talking, talking. It has going on for years and it will going on for years. I think Iran is in a position that no one can attack Iran, especially with the problems the Americans they have in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. No, I am pretty sure there will be not military attack to Iran and even if they do it, they would be blamed by the international community first, nobody would support them. And also no results. Iranian would do it somewhere else. You know a country when you have the will of doing something and you know what you are doing, you do it. As the French have done it.
D: So you don’t see any serious threat to this programme, neither the Americans nor the Israelis are into the position of doing anything serious about it.
R: No, I don’t see any danger, any possibility of putting the Iranian programme in danger, unless one day the Iranian authorities, there is not agreement. That is a point which remains to be seen. I am not quite sure that the authorities of Iran are all, they have the same way of looking at the programme, some of them they think differently from the others and so on, the only thing that may put the all programme in danger or would change the nature of the programme is the disagreement between authorities.[…]
Dr Strangelove 