In this exclusive interview, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad admits that the Holocaust was real, explains why his views on homosexuality have "evolved", and expresses his love for a particular 90s sitcom.
Director of Communications, American Iranian Council
November 9, 2013
After three days of serious, high-level talks in Geneva, the P5+1 announced that a deal has yet to be reached on Iran’s nuclear program. Catherine Ashton, the European Union foreign policy chief, said that they would meet again on November 20th at the senior diplomat level, rather than the foreign minister level.
Secretary of State John Kerry tried to stay upbeat, telling journalists, “We came to Geneva to narrow the differences, and I can tell you without any reservations, we made significant progress. It takes time to build confidence between countries that have really been at odds with each other for a long time now,” he said.
Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister in charge of the nuclear negotiations struck a similar tone, saying, “It was natural when we started dealing with the details there could be differences of views. But we are working together and hopeful we will be able to reach agreement when we meet again”
I moderated the panel discussion on US-Iran relations, broadcast by C-SPAN. Panelists included:
Dr. Patrick Clawson- Director of Research, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Dr. Andrew Parasiliti- CEO and President, Al-Monitor.com
Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi- President, American Iranian Council & Rutgers University Prof.
Amb. William Miller- Former US Ambassador to Ukraine
Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi and I answer the question "Can Rouhani and Obama Make Peace?" in the latest issue of Foreign Policy Research Centre's journal. Hint: Yes they can, but it will be very difficult.
While Israeli leaders frequently assert that “all options are on the table” regarding a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, a unilateral strike is unlikely to materialize based on Israel’s strategic choice between pre-emption and acceptance laid out in this paper. A utility function assessing the costs and benefits of both choices demonstrates that acceptance of the Iranian nuclear program is clearly the better option than attempting to destroy it. This is due to four reasons: (1) a pre-emptive attack is unlikely to be successful, (2) Iran is very likely to retaliate after such an attack, (3) Iran possesses a significant non-nuclear arsenal for retaliation, and (4) the costs of a nuclear Iran, while significant, are not threatening enough to make a strike the better option.Click here to read the full paper
The post election demonstrations in Iran saw a host of new communications technologies present new challenges and opportunities in Iranian society. I explore this topic in this video.
I conducted an interview with New York Times Columnist Roger Cohen on US-Iran relations.