CHARLIE ROSE: They(Russians) have often tried to be creative about it(Missile defence Sheild) by saying put it here, put it there, do this with it, do that with it.
HENRY KISSINGER: They don`t have to tell us exactly where it is, but
we could deploy it in a manner that is transparent, and in which -- there
was at the last meeting of President Bush and when Putin was still
president in Sochi in -- I guess it was in April -- there was a phrase in
the final communique that indicated that the Russians might be open --
would be open to some discussion along that line.
Then there is on the table a proposal that the Russians made two years ago of perhaps having a joint missile defense facing south in southern
Russia. Now, this has not gone as far as it might because of the technical
differences in this instance. I have been an advocate of it because the
political impact on Iran of a joint missile defense system could certainly
not be ignored.
CHARLIE ROSE: So what would they do? The Iranians?
HENRY KISSINGER: Well...
CHARLIE ROSE: Less likely to build -- have nuclear capabilities?
HENRY KISSINGER: They are now building a nuclear capability. And
they are...
CHARLIE ROSE: But they are not there yet, as far as we know.
HENRY KISSINGER: No, but they are building it.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
HENRY KISSINGER: And one of the big challenges before the new
administration is whether it is possible to come either to a limitation of
this Iranian program, or perhaps even a comprehensive negotiation with Iran
to take care of -- to balance a -- to turn Iran from a cause into a nation.
I mean, if you look back at the historic -- at the relationship...
CHARLIE ROSE: It is a cause now and you want to make it a nation...
HENRY KISSINGER: Right. If you look at the historic or at the
postwar relationship between Iran and the United States, one of the
arguments that is made is that a succession of American administration were
excessively friendly to the shah of Iran.
Now, let`s drop the word excessively, and let`s say that these
administrations, including the one in which I served, were cooperative,
cooperative with the shah of Iran, not because of any personal affection,
but because they thought that a strong Iran pursuing its national interests
was also in the national interests of the United States. So therefore,
there is no reason why that cannot happen again.
CHARLIE ROSE: Without the shah, there can still be an Iran that
believes...
HENRY KISSINGER: An Iran that is...
CHARLIE ROSE: ... that can be strong and in the national interest of
the United States.
HENRY KISSINGER: Correct. And that is at least a negotiation...
CHARLIE ROSE: Even if it has nuclear weapons?
HENRY KISSINGER: No. No, because that -- because if Iran develops
nuclear -- goes ahead with developing nuclear weapons, that will so
unbalance the equation in the region, and it also will have another
important aspect, and it is this. For, what, five years, at least, the
permanent members of the Security Council plus Japan plus Germany, have
stated that a nuclear program -- military program for Iran is unacceptable.
All their leaders have said it on every occasion.
CHARLIE ROSE: You know why -- they always would say that, because it
doesn`t make sense -- it`s not a good negotiating ploy to say it is
acceptable. That`s why they say it`s not acceptable.
HENRY KISSINGER: But if you keep declaring something is unacceptable and then you wind up accepting it...
CHARLIE ROSE: Yes?
HENRY KISSINGER: ... it undermines the credibility, really, of the
international system that is dependent on this.
So I think that a nuclear military capability in Iran would be
considered severely threatening by many countries in the region that would
then develop nuclear weapons of their own. And...
CHARLIE ROSE: That`s clearly the consequences. But what, short of
some kind of military confrontation, can stop Iran from developing a
nuclear weapon? What short of...
HENRY KISSINGER: The new administration will have to analyze
carefully whether it is possible to get a combination of pressures and
incentives to let Iran at least postpone going beyond the point they have
already reached. And I think that the new administration is really coming
into office at a strange period, in this sense -- it looks like a period of
horrendous crisis all over the world. And we ourselves are in a severe
crisis financially. But at the end of it, our relative position in the
world is actually stronger than it has been, in the sense that -- that
Russia, China, India, all have strong reasons to contribute to a quiet
international environment, because of the preoccupation they must have with
their domestic affairs. As we...
