While attending the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York, Iran\'s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi discussed with Kaveh Afrasiabi the latest developments regarding Iran\'s nuclear program, relations with Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. The following is the full text of the interview taken from Asia Times on Line. Kaveh Afrasiabi: Your Excellency, the other day you had a meeting with Lady Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief. Can you elaborate? Ali Akbar Salehi: This was our second meeting. Of course, we have had a couple of telephone contacts as well in the eight months since I assumed the responsibility of the Foreign Ministry. Most of our conversation centered on the nuclear issue and the mutual desire of both sides for further \'5 plus 1\' talks. [Also known as the \'Iran Six\', these talks involve the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council - the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom - plus Germany.] Lady Ashton said that she would reply to the letter of Mr [Saeed] Jalili [Iran\'s chief nuclear negotiator] shortly - since Ashton had previously sent a letter to Mr Jalili, to which he replied. [The letter calls for the resumption of talks between the two sides.] From our vantage point, there is no problem. We are continuing our nuclear activities and implementing our obligations within the NPT [nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] framework. We have repeatedly said that we are sensitive with respect to our NPT rights and we abide by our obligations. I reiterated that Iran does not wish to see the NPT harmed in any way so that nuclear weapons would proliferate, while emphasizing that there is an imbalance in two NPT ramparts on non-proliferation and disarmament; nuclear weapon states are more concerned about the former rather than the latter. I said that our nuclear activities are peaceful and your concerns are about our intentions, and yet, there is no provision in international conventions regarding intentions. Still, if we concur that there is a mutual confidence deficit, then we are prepared to undertake the necessary efforts to restore mutual confidence, and if there is a specific concern it should be addressed in talks, so that it gets resolved on both sides since we have our own concerns about the other side. We should look for creative solutions, instead of setting positi hat lead nowhere. We must look for innovative proposals. Russia has come forward with a \'step-by-step\' proposal and we have welcomed it, accepted the spirit of this initiative and praised it. The specific details require specific discussions with experts, though. [The so-called \'Lavrov plan\', named after Sergei Lavrov, Russia\'s foreign minister, was submitted to Tehran in July and calls on Iran to expand its cooperation with the IAEA, envisaging a scenario in which for every proactive Iranian step to resolve any outstanding issues with the agency, the international community would grant Iran limited concessions, such as freezing some sanctions.] Lady Ashton said that she was aware of the Russian proposal and her recommendation was that Iran and Russia collaborate on this matter. The Russians on the other hand said that they had coordinated with some countries of the \'5 plus 1\', but needed time for more discussions. This was the sum of my conversation with Lady Ashton; it was on the whole positive. Since our initial contact in Geneva, positive steps have been taken on the basis of improved understanding. For the first time, our officials of the Iranian Atomic Organization allowed the deputy director of the IAEA to inspect the [Arak] heavy water plant, as well as the research center for advanced centrifuges, which was unprecedented. No country permits inspection of its research centers on advanced equipment, yet this happened as a gesture of our goodwill and transparency. KA: Iran recently invited Yukiya Amano, the head of the IAEA, to visit Iran and inspect its nuclear facilities, but he set some preconditions for the trip. What is the status of this invitation? AAS: An invitation was sent by [Fereydoun] Abbasi, the head of Iran\'s Atomic Organization to Mr Amano, but an invitation cannot be met with preconditions, and if Mr Amano is inclined to visit Iran, the invitation still stands. Iran as a responsible and active member of the IAEA has the expectation that the head of agency, like previous director-generals, will visit member states, especially those countries involved in peaceful nuclear activities. Our recommendation is that Mr Amano accept this invitation, but of course it is up to him. KA: In his trip to the United Nations, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad stated that Iran was willing to suspend its 20% uranium enrichment activities if Iran was provided with the nuclear fuel for its research reactor in Tehran from the outside. Does this mean that the long-standing idea of a nuclear fuel swap is again on the table? AAS: Look, when the issue of a fuel swap was raised nearly three years ago, it began with our request for IAEA assistance to supply fuel for the Tehran reactor, just like 25 years ago when we asked Argentina through the IAEA. This time, the Americans and Russians presented a joint paper according to which they were prepared to give us the fuel, but under certain conditions. Well, we were initially surprised a little bit, because supplying fuel is a commercial issue transpiring through legal and customary channels. Why should it be subject to a whole set of pre-conditions? This matter continued until the Tehran declaration [in 2010], which was made on the basis of a letter by [US President Barack] Obama to Brazil\'s president and the Turkish prime minister, urging them to encourage Iran to accept the fuel swap, ie, to give us 110 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium and in exchange we give 1,200 kilos of 3.5% enriched uranium and then when both sides have guaranteed the fuel swap, then we can retrieve the 1,200 kilos. Well, later on, [Brazilian] president [Luiz Inacio da Silva] Lula published that letter. I recall, before coming to Iran, Lula was in Moscow and had a press conference. According to him, President [Dmitry] Medvedev had told him that he had a 30% chance of success. They succeeded to their own shocking surprise, and we declared that we were prepared to put 1,200 kilos of enriched uranium in Turkey for safekeeping until the 120 kilos was delivered to us. But subsequently, the US opposed it. One must ask the Americans why. Today, the situation is so that we are again ready to consider the fuel swap, in accordance with what the president has stated. However, time is moving forward and this proposal is losing its value because we, ourselves, are producing the nuclear fuel and have the capability to even supply other countries. Initially, they did not believe it and doubted that we would ever be able to manufacture 20% [enriched] uranium. Yet, following a presidential order, our technicians quickly pursued this. They still could not believe us and accused us of bluffing, until the IAEA report confirmed this reality. Then they said we could not produce a nuclear [fuel] plate, yet, around a year and half ago, we presented to them a model fuel plate that was not uranium but made of copper. Hopefully, within a few months, we will be producing the fuel plate with uranium. When this happens, the fuel swap loses its value. Right now, we do not aim to convert all our uranium to 20%. We produce that to the extent needed by our research reactor to produce radioisotopes. The president has declared that if they supply it to us, we will stop. KA: You mentioned the Tehran declaration and Brazil\'s and Turkey\'s role that was based on prior US consent. In light of the rapid developments since then, such as Iran\'s expressed unhappiness with some of Turkey\'s behavior in the region, is this declaration still viable as far as Iran is concerned? Is Turkey still trusted as a nuclear intermediary? AAS: I wish to answer from two vantage points, one personal and the other Iran\'s foreign policy. Personally, my opinion is that Iran and Turkey complement each other and as two neighbors with long-standing relations they should by necessity make constant efforts to get closer to each other as much as possible from all directions. This is my personal view. From the vantage point of our foreign policy, we have stated that our foreign policy priority is the immunization of our borders and establishment of optimal relations with our neighbors. That means if there is any issue standing - with some countries there is the issue of water, shared oil and gas fields - we do not leave it hanging and try to resolve it. For example, the issues of land and water borders with Iraq, pertaining to the 1975 accord, are moving ahead steadily and we are in the final stages, meaning that the 1975 accord is finally being materialized. We have some 15 [land and water] neighbors and if we were to prioritize them, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have a special place. Turkey is a powerful country and inheritor of the Ottoman Empire. It has stood [up] to the West in the name of Islam, and it has now emerged as a regional power. We essentially regard Turkey as a priority issue in our foreign policy, as well as Saudi Arabia, which is the custodian of Mecca and an important economic power, a member of G-20 [Group of 20]. Saudi Arabia plays a significant role in the world of Islam and is influential in the region. As a result, our relations with Saudi Arabia are important, just as our relations with Turkey are. We do not look at Turkey as competition. Turkey\'s progress and prosperity is our progress and prosperity. Its security is our security. In reality, the prosperity of all neighbors is interconnected. In other words, it is not like if Turkey moves ahead we move backward. It is most certainly not the case. It is our understanding and political belief that we benefit from our neighbors\' evolution in terms of economic, security, social and cultural dimensions, and their problems may impact Iran, just as Iran is host to more than 3 million refugees from surrounding countries. I hasten to add that while we view Turkey as a friend and cooperation partner, it is natural that our views on international issues do not always correspond one hundred percent. We definitely wish to enhance cooperation and reduce obstacles. This policy has responded and its reflection can be seen on the economic dimension. Our economic relations may soon reach US$15 billion a year, a noticeable figure - last year it was $10 billion. If we proceed like this, this figure will jump to $30 billion in the next several years. When economic relations and interdependence reach such levels, then politicians must take note and follow the economic trend. Political issues cannot block the expansion of people\'s contacts and the bilateral relations between the two countries. Hence, we believe that the role played by Turkey in the Tehran declaration was very significant, because perhaps for the first time it showed that a major international issue can be resolved by the intervention of developing nations. I personally believe that is the reason why the US opposed it and retreated from its initial support. Had this succeeded, it would have set a turning point in global and international calculations, and my hunch as I said, is that the Americans and some other countries that for decades have acted as the custodian of the global order do not desire the resolution of international issues by countries of the developing world and want to manage such issues by themselves. KA: To what extent could the troubles in Syria have an adverse influence on Turkey-Iran relations? AAS: Clearly, the Syrian issues will not influence bilateral relations between Iran and Turkey. These relations are more important than to allow international issues to impact them. Of course, we have repeatedly said that we consider Turkey and Syria as members of a family and that if a member of family has an issue, then the other members must help to resolve it. We do not consider ourselves separate from each other. Our relations with Syria are strategic. Our relations with Turkey are also strategic, and we are having ongoing communication with one another. KA: Some Iranian military leaders have denounced Turkey\'s decision to embrace a North Atlantic Treaty Organization radar, viewed by some experts as antithetical toward Iran\'s ational security. What is your assessment of this issue? AAS: We have clearly relayed our objections to our Turkish brothers. We still have not received words from official Turkish sources regarding this matter and we are still not in possession of any information that would indicate Turkey has made this decision one hundred percent. We hope that this remains at the level of media and preliminary discussions. A few years ago in the Czech Republic, too, there was supposed to be a similar development, but after a lot of ups and downs nothing happened. With respect to Turkey, there has not yet been any official statement and, as I said, this has been mainly a media issue. Of course, we have said, through the media, that this has no justification, especially in the current circumstances as it would send the wrong signal, and in our discussions with our Turkish brothers we have expressed our viewpoint. KA: Has the Turkish side shown sensitivity to Iran\'s expressed concerns? AAS: Well, this has turned into a subject of heated debate inside Turkey, among political parties and groups. I refer you to the arguments among Turkish parties, with some saying that this decision is not on a par with the interests of Muslim nations, that on the contrary is contrary to the interests of Muslim countries. I hasten to add that I have advised my Turkish counterparts to steer clear of any hasty diplomacy in favor of prudent patient diplomacy. KA: Turning to Iran\'s relations with the new government in Egypt, are you optimistic about the restoration of diplomatic relations and, furthermore, what process does this objective entail? AAS: Of course, I am optimistic and if Egypt announces today that it is willing to establish full diplomatic ties, then I am willing to send a diplomat to Cairo immediately. We understand Egypt\'s situation. Egypt is a big country with thousands of years of history, which has always been and continues to be a center of Islamic thought. We have always had close relations with Egypt, save the past couple of decades when as a result of Camp David [the 1978 peace accords with Israel] these relations suffered. We support Egypt\'s progress and dignity. Right now, the people of Egypt share our view on Camp David - that it was not framed in the best interest of Egypt, and that Israel and the West have never sought Egypt\'s prosperity. Case in point, the Camp David accords do not provide for full Egyptian sovereignty over the Sinai Desert, and in some respects Egypt cannot implement its national sovereignty there. KA: Finally, what are Iran\'s main foreign policy priorities today? AAS: We have a plethora of important priorities. First, we are to some extent an exceptional country because so few countries have so many neighbors. Fortunately, we have the least number of problems with our 15 neighbors. Our first priority is to have good neighborly relations with all and to resolve any problems that might arise, eg, water, borders, or joint energy fields. Our second priority is the world of Islam, meaning strengthening our relations with the Muslim countries of the world, on economic, commercial, cultural, etc, fronts.  Our third priority is to remove the obstacles in the path of expanding relations with the European Union. We believe there is no reason to have cold relations with Europe. We have deep and old relations with Europe. A bulk of our factories and technical and professional centers have come from the West in the past. We have a good deal of commonalities, and differences on some issues. We should concentrate on our commonalities and try to resolve our differences. Unfortunately, the Europeans\' outlook is wrong, they focus on the differences and this approach makes the resolution of problems more difficult. In my meeting with several European foreign ministers, I told them that they should change their approach and then they will see tangible results in their Iran policy. Finally, our relations with Asian countries are improving daily, with India, China, South Asia, etc - which is natural. These countries are making economic and technological progress, allowing them to potentially enhance the areas for expansion of relations, and by necessity in consideration of the present circumstances, we have expanded our relations with them.