Professor Mohammad Marandi, University of Tehran, Iran HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk, with me, Zeinab Badawi.

Amidst his pronouncement on foreign policy, Donald Trump has ratcheted

up the rhetoric on Iran, calling the nuclear agreement with Tehran the

worst deal ever negotiated. He has expanded US sanctions on Iran after

it tested a missile in January. My guest is Iranian academic Mohammad

Marandi, from Tehran, who supports the leadership in Iran. What is the

Iranians are posture the response to criticism from Trump over its

missile testing and Izzy ran fuelling terror and conflicts in the

Middle East? Mohammad Marandi,

welcome to HARDtalk. What does the Iranian leadership

think of President Trump? Thank you for having me. I think that they are

still watching with great interest. At the moment the Iranians have not

made many comments about what is going on in the United States. In

many ways they feel that Trump perhaps is not so bad for Iran, in

the sense that he is not doing a good job so far with regards to the

international community, he has problems with the EU, the head of

the European Council has called him a threat to the EU, with the Mexican

president, the Australian Prime Minister, he has problems with China

and the list goes on. So he is not a person the Iranians believe will

have an easy time building some sort of coalition against Iran, but at

the same time because of the deep divisions at home in the United

States many in Iran believe that it will be difficult for him to cause a

great deal of trouble in the region, but it is still too early to say and

we do not know him well. It's not too early to say that he has

increased sanctions on Iran after you've tested a missile in January,

in breach of a United Nations resolution. That surely marks a

deterioration in relations between you? Well, the missile test was not

in breach of the UN resolution. It was a conventional missile and it

was a test and that has nothing to do with either the joint

comprehensive plan of action, which is the agreement between Iran and

the nuclear programme, and it has nothing to do with the resolution

that was passed... Sorry, can I interrupted, because that's not what

the American ambassador to the United Nations said. She said that

Iran was believed to have tested a ballistic missile that is more than

enough to be able to deliver a nuclear weapons and she added that

was something the world should be alarmed about. Well, off cause

that's what the Americans would say. But it's a conventional missile. The

test is a routine test. All countries that have missile

programmes test their missiles every now and then. It was nothing

exceptional, but the Americans were looking for an excuse. After all,

the reason why Iran has developed a missile defence programme is because

of the constant threat that the US has been making over the decades, or

options on the table is something we have seen from Obama, from Bush and

from Clinton before him. It is obvious that the Iranians would

develop defence capabilities and the reason why the United States has

never attacked Iran is because it has powerful capabilities. What I

would like to add that Obama too has violated the agreement before Trump,

the new sanctions. After the signing of the agreement the United States

expanded the sanctions regime. He passed this restriction laws, Mr

Obama, he signed the law... We are talking about Trump, if you don't

mind. Let's stick with... What saying is what Trump has done is not

new. The fact is, what is new is there is concern that it marks a

step upwards. Mark Fitzpatrick, the former US State Department official,

extremely intimately involved with this issue and process behind the

nuclear deal, it was signed in 2015 Whitby six world powers, he said in

the middle of feathery, I think it is clear the nuclear deal is in

jeopardy. Iran will be testing more missiles and so forth and within a

year the deal will be under very severe pressure. Could that deal

unravel? No, if it unravels it has to do with the US. I think the

gentleman is trying to point his finger at the Iranians, where in

fact it is the United States that is escalating the situation. According

to the IAA, Iran has abided by its side of the agreement and has fully

compliant with its side of the bargain. Whereas the United States

hasn't. In fact, according to the agreement, the United States is not

supposed to prohibit banks and other financial institutions from working

with Iran. Yet the united dates continues to do so even until today.

That is in violation of the agreement. Not all the sanctions

were lifted at the result of the 2015 agreement, as you know, so they

still pertain in some respects. Looking at it in a different way,

President Trump has of course criticised the nuclear deal with

Iran, but he has also said that in the Middle East you need to focus on

so-called Islamic State fighters in Syria. That effectively puts the

Americans on the same side as you, because you're fighting, you say,

Islamic State fighters on the side of President Bashar al-Assad in

Syria. To actually you are in the same camp. That remains to be seen.

The United States has a history of supporting countries that supported

Isis. We know from WikiLeaks that the United States new from the

Clinton e-mails that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were finding Isis in 2014.

We know from the defence intelligence agent E off 2012 that

the United States back then you that the dominant force in Syria were the

extremists and Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar were supporting them.

According to General Flynn, who did an interview back then, the United

States took a wilful decision to support these countries. So the US

has been supporting these extremists indirectly and has also allowed to

extensive oil trade with over 10,000 tankers with Isis... Sorry to

interrupt you. The Turks have completely and vehemently denied

that that is the case and of course the Saudis have also said they may

have backed anti- aside forces in the early days of the civil war, but

in no way did they wilfully go about trying to create what we now called

Daesh or Islamic State. -- anti-Assad. I basically referring to

defence intelligence agency documents, which is the most

important pentagon in -- military intelligence Organisation and I am

making reference to Hillary Clinton's e-mails. So this is not

coming from the Iran. The tankers are something that the Russians took

photos of before they began bombing them. The Americans never bombed

them until the Russians began to do that. I would also like to point out

that an Iranian reporter, or at least an American Lebanese reporter

working for press TV, was murdered on the Turkish border when she

reported that Turkey was using aid trucks, linked to the UN, to send in

weapons and people into Syria. Turkey threatened to and she was

murdered the next day. Of course you are very opposed to the Turkish

government, because of course it's a sunny macro one. That is the whole

point of Iran. -- Sunni. Wherever you have a Sunni power, be it Turkey

or Saudi Arabia, you will take the other side. Another example, Yemen.

In 2014 the Shia, Houthis, you backing them and the Saudi-led

coalition backing of course the forces of the internationally

recognised government, we have this civil war where the Iranians are

arming the Houthi rebels with weapons, ammunition and training

them. So you are fuelling conflict too. Well, I think that's an

extraordinary, dangerous accusation. The government in Afghanistan is a

Sunni government. The majority of the country is Sunni. Afghanistan

has good relations with Iran but poor relations with Pakistan. In

Iraq, when Isis was about to take Irbil, Kurdish - Iraqi territory,

the Kurds there are predominantly Sunni. It was Iran that saved them

from Isis and no one else. In Syria, the minority Christians, along with

the Sufis and Sunnis, were being attacked by Isis. So I find it

extraordinary that anyone could make such an accusation. I do not believe

this groups represent Sunnis Islam. You were criticising the Turks and I

was just giving you the counterpoint. The Turkish from --

Foreign Minister says Iraq and Syria is trying to create a Shia... I did

ask you about Yemen. That's not true! I was giving you documents

that are American documents. Photos that were shown by the Russian

government. But in the case of Yemen, what happened was that the

sole candidate was imposed on the country in an election. He was

supposed to be the transitional president for two years. After two

years he refused to set aside -- Stepaside. Ultimately opposition

groups went to the capital and ask the Houthis not to take the capital.

This is well documented. But they felt they had to take the capital.

He resigned and fled the city. Ultimately he fled the country.

After two years of slaughter, where the Saudis bombed villages, towns,

hospitals, funerals, schools, weddings... This is collateral

damage. I will ask you my question again. But on thing, yes of course

there have been terrible civilian deaths and they have been criticised

internationally fire and wide. But they don't target civilians, they

are targeting the Houthi rebels who sometimes are in civilian areas.

Could you just answer this point, that whatever the background to

this, and you mentioned the current president of an internationally

recognised president, but the fact is Iran is supporting the Houthi

rebels. Why are you doing that? You are prolonging a terrible conflict

in this country. The Iranians are supporting the people who are being

massacred and who have been under siege and the United States and

Western countries, including the British government, has been giving

the Sunnis weapons and cluster bombs the slaughter innocent civilians and

the target have nothing to do with military targets. The siege is

preventing food from getting in. The Americans have created starvation

alongside the Saudis. Almost 20 million people. In Ethiopia once

upon a time when people were dying because of the drought, in the world

there was noise being made. Here they are intentionally making people

starve. Western governments. But you are also complicit. The Iranians are

also party to this conflict. The main port in Yemen, it which is in

the hands of the Houthi rebels, where we are not seeing enough aid

going through and you are right 21 or 25 million people in Yemen, the

total copulation is 25 million, are in dire need of food aid and there's

now a famine alert that is being sounded. But you are also involved

in this conflict, so you must share some of this blame.

Of course not. The country is surrounded. These people are being

massacred and they use aromas and excuse in order to justify this

massacre. History will show what Obama and Western governments have

done in Yemen. These are crimes against humanity and will never be

forgiven. They are surrounded by the Saudis. They are surrounded by the

Americans. How can the Iranians... You know that weapons are being

smuggled. I will tell you what the Ambassador to the United Nations of

Yemen said. He said Houthi me troubles have launched Lustig

missiles in an industry that matter. -- he said Houthi rebels. --

ballistic missile. He says the kind of missiles used were many fractured

in a run. And that is according to a United Nations committee of experts

on Yemen. A UN committee of experts. CHEERING Really? Yes. -- really? Are

you talking about the same United Nations that puts Saudi Arabia on a

blacklist and removed it in four days. Budgie Byrne was forced to

admit his shame. When you say that run cannot get equipment... --

Ban-Ki Moon. This person is not presented live off the Iranians it

will. He works in the Saudis. The reason they have failed to take the

capital of Yemen is not because of some sectoral group. It is because

they have failed against the will of the Yemeni people. And the many

people are being sacrificed and murdered because Western countries

are on the side of the Saudis, because of their money, because of

their alliance with the Saudi regime. The Saudis are, by the way,

just like in Syria... I entered your question! That gentleman has... It

is not that gentleman. A committee said that these missiles are being

used in Yemen. I said that there are up to the sources, Western diplomat

saying this. I don't know where the missiles come from, but I can say

that whatever weapons being used by the Yemeni army against the Saudis

is incomparable to the weapons that the Saudis have been using with the

help of your government, with the help of the United States, and with

the help of the French government. And B are crimes against humanity.

Forcing people into hunger is unjustifiable. Unjustifiable! Nobody

is... And the mainstream media sizes criminals! We are talking about it

right now. The fact is you are backing one side in a terrible civil

war where the people are suffering in the Manny beat you have

described, and I am putting it to you that your country, you support

the leadership, and they are party to this conflict. -- manner. They

are therefore complicit. You have talked a lot about Saudi Arabia. It

is very apparent that there is this animosity between a run and Saudi

Arabia to the extent that now we see Washington... No it is between

Washington and the United States -- arrive in the United States. The

United States is now trying to... The United so Bates has supported.

The United States is now trying to attract key allies, it stays, Egypt,

Jordan, who has a peace treaty with Jordan. Surely you must be some kind

of isolation now in your region. -- fear. Of course not. These family

oil rich dictatorships have always been on the side of the United

States. They have always been an ally of the apartheid regime of

Israel. The fact on the ground is, though, contrary to what saying, the

people in Yemen have been able to push back the Saudi onslaught

because they do not accept Saudi and Germany. The people in a run have

been supporting the victims, whether it is in Gaza, it Yemen... The

destruction in Gaza are also suspect is their fault. -- Saudi oil

hegemony. They then invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. What the Americans are

doing this region is a repetition of what they did in the 1980s in

Afghanistan, but on a greater scale. We have that message. That you think

that this is not fuelling conflicts, you are not fuelling conflict. It

wasn't for a run, there would be black flags in Damascus today. And

if Syria had fallen, Iraq was on the verge of falling. A run stopped Al

Qaeda or ISIL from taking it. It was a run that prevented this. -- Iran.

Contrary to the Western narrative, a figure reported to have been to

Syria know that the people of Syria do not prefer the so-called

moderates that the UN vice president said did not exist. They do not like

those so-called moderates over the three government. At a run spends

about $1 billion a year supporting the Shah al-Assad in Syria. You

spend so bit like $800 million supporting has Bhilai and other

non-, and various other interventions. Wouldn't that money

be better spent on developing a run? You have 30% unemployment. -- Iran.

You should look your own people and deliver to their needs. I don't have

much money Iran spends on Syria all other non-, but if Iran had not

supported Syria and the people 11 on, we would not have a Syria today,

and we would not have a 11 on. And will probably not have an Iraq. But

what about your own people? Will then how people would have to be

fighting Isis inside Iran. If these countries had fallen, we would have

two fight Isis inside a run. So it is not only our responsibility to

resist the irresponsible behaviour of Western countries by funding

extremists and allowing them to grow for the sake of the people of Syria

and Iraq. -- inside Iran. But also for the sake of the Iranians people.

If we had not prevented the spread of this disease, then we right now

today would not have security, either. How well with this plague is

the background of the presidential elections due this may in

-- this May in Iran. What is your view on this? I don't know. I don't

know what is go to happen in the election. I don't think it is going

to have any major change with regards to the original policy in

Iran or in regard to Iran's ongoing choices. Whoever is the next

president in Iran will abide by the agreement. Many people in Iran think

it is not a good deal and many figures a good deal. Many people

begin disarming between. But it is something that the Iranians agree

to. But what is interesting is whether or not present Rye Hunt is

re-elected, which I think will depend on the economy more than

anything else, at least we have elections in Iraq. At least we do

not know who is going to be elected. Your good allies in the region, we

never well who going to be in charge in the coming months or years. This

in other digital regimes. -- President Hassan Rouhani. But you

have had the same leader, the supreme leader... You have seen

Ayatollah Khamenei re-elected. He is now in his mid to late 70s. That

does not sound very democratic, does it? The constraints on a

democratically elected president. The leader, he is elected by a

council which is itself elected. And that council can remove the leader

whenever... That council is elected by the people. That is democratic.

How long have you been in power? You have had to supreme leader is... The

state of democracy in the rest of the world, like the United States,

is not done well. I think now is not the time to start attacking a run.

No, I was saying that since the revolution in 1979, you have had

only two leaders. And that is not look particularly Democrat. The

final word is yours. That is fine. The council that Alexa leader can

remove him. If they think he's a good job, he remains. -- elected

leader. Thank you for joining us on HARDtalk.