"The U.S. Doesn't Give a Damn"

Iran's Foreign Minister offers a spirited defense

The day before he was appointed Iran's new Foreign Minister last week, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh (pronounced Goht-zah-deh) was being interviewed by TIME Middle East Bureau Chief Bruce van Voorst when he received a telephone call that normally would have gone to the Foreign Ministry. It was the Iranian charge d'affaires in Washington asking if he should attend the prospective U.N. Security Council meeting. "You will not attend, [Acting Foreign Minister] Banisadr will not attend, Iran will not be represented unless they postpone the session," Ghotbzadeh said brusquely, then added: "They can do what the hell they want."

The new Foreign Minister is a tall (6 ft.), well-built bachelor of 43, who likes designer clothes and expensive European shoes. In idiosyncratic but fluent English, he gave Van Voorst a spirited and sometimes contradictory defense of Iran's widely criticized actions.

Q. How do we get out of this situation?

A. (Long pause.) Well (pause), Ghotbzadeh there is a Shah. Once upon a time, there was a Shah who was supported, nourished by good ol' America. That country trained these torturers, that country brought him to power.

Q. Did torturers have to be trained?

A. By the Americans, by the Israelis. That's part of the "civilization" we got from the U.S. And Israel. And you armed him to the extent that the guy was capable of killing thousands of people.

Then after the revolution, the U.S. promised that we'd let bygones be bygones, we're going to create new relations, and we're not going to intervene. And all of a sudden we detected agitation at various places. And everywhere, as it turned out, we saw the fingers of the Americans.

Q. In what?

A. In Baluchistan America was engaged. In Kurdistan America was engaged. In economic warfare America was engaged.

Q. Do you have any evidence of this?

A. Well, to an acceptable degree, we'll prove this. Anyway, now all of a sudden we saw this guy who was much hated, and who we knew was the lackey of Americans, suddenly in the U.S. for "medical" treatment. The guy is reportedly dying of cancer, yet he receives Kissinger and talks to him for 1 1/2 hours. Then our government politely demands that if that's the case, well, for our public opinion, be nice enough and allow Iranian physicians to go check. That request was refused by the U.S. Government. Then we realize that the U.S. Government doesn't give a damn about public opinion in our country and by accepting the Shah, deliberately and openly tries to insult our people, our revolution and our ideals. That was intolerable. Then these students felt they had been tremendously insulted and doublecrossed. They acted by themselves. They took the embassy.

Q. But no other government could condone an action like that.

A. The students have done something that was in the heart of every Iranian--to strike back at the insult they had received.

Q. It has been suggested that the students occupying the embassy acted on their own, without any knowledge of the Revolutionary Council. Who are they? Do you now know?

A. Yes, we know them now.

Q. Which political groups do they represent? They're not all university students.

A. Yes, they are all university students. They're not of any political party.

Q. Who planned the attack?

A. We don't know.

Q. Not you?

A. (Laughs.) No.

Q. Now we have a dangerous confrontation.

A. We are not going to commit suicide for fear of death. We are not going to commit suicide to lose our dignity, just because the American carriers are over there. Let them be there. Let them attack, and what else?

Q. You have no fear of a confrontation? A. None whatsoever.

Q. You personally are considered to be something of a hardliner. Are you concerned that there is no dialogue with the U.S.?

A. Well, we're not talking to each other because every door that we opened was shut by the U.S. We have set forth procedures of how the Shah should be returned to Iran. And when we make our proposals, the next thing we hear is a decision, "We aren't going to buy your oil." The next thing, "We are going to freeze Iranian assets."

Q. But weren't you threatening the lives of the hostages at that point?

A. From the beginning it has been absolutely clear that the lives of the hostages are not in danger.

Q. And you're saying that so long as the U.S. does not intervene militarily, the hostages will not be killed?

A. No, they won't. Q. They are safe? A. They are safe.

Q. You have control over the students? Can you guarantee that?

A. They are not criminals.

Q. Doesn't Iran's refusal to send a Foreign Minister to the U.N. debate accentuate your isolation?

A. We had asked for a debate earlier, and had been turned down. And all of a sudden there was a telegram from the Secretary-General asking us to participate --please come in 24 hours, and the U.S. has agreed on it. Well, that was for us rather a surprise. We believe that the decision to go ahead with a Security Council debate now means that the Americans have set it up.

Q. So you don't think you'll get a fair hearing?

A. Exactly.

Q. What can be done to negotiate a settlement?

A. We have set forth certain conditions which we believe are extremely reasonable. We think that the U.S. should agree that this guy [the Shah] should be tried as a criminal. And accept an international team of our choice to interrogate the Shah and investigate the case. And thirdly the wealth of the Shah and his family, which has been taken from Iran and invested in the U.S.. be returned to our people.

Q. When would the hostages be released?

A. As soon as these things are accepted, then immediately we go to action. Then we'll discuss the whole thing--everything can be discussed.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.