AMANPOUR: What a change of atmosphere. This time last year, you were here, John Kerry was here -- Javad and John -- it was a much different atmosphere. This year there's a huge amount of tension now between Iran and the United States. How do you react to that?
ZARIF: Well, I think we live in a transitional era in international politics, and that's the nature of transition.
AMANPOUR: When the United States says that they put Iran 'on notice,' and as you heard President Trump saying that actually Iran has been very lucky -- Obama administration was very kind to you. What's your answer to that?
ZARIF: Well, first of all everybody over the past thirty-eight years has tested Iran. And they all know that Iran is hardly moved by threats. We do not respond well to threats. We respond very well to respect -- mutual respect -- and mutual interest. I believe President Obama and his administration tried every other option. They were the first who tried the crippling sanctions. They used international machinery, including the Security Council, to impose sanctions on Iran. We believe they were not justified, but they did impose sanctions. Economic hardship was a part of that sanction scenario. But look at the net result. The net result is, when they started the sanctions we had less than two hundred centrifuges spinning. When they came to the negotiating table we had twenty thousand centrifuges spinning. So the reason President Obama and Secretary Kerry came to the negotiating table, was that sanctions had not worked.
AMANPOUR: So when you hear President Trump saying 'this is the worst deal ever,' that we're going to do this, that or the other -- rip it up, renegotiate it, move the goalposts, add more pressures on Iran, for other behavior not just the nuclear parameters -- regional, hegemony, terrorism -- what do you say about that? Do you think it will happen?
ZARIF: First of all, I believe this was the best deal that was possible for all concerned -- not just for Iran, but for the United States too. I'm sure they would have tried, and they did try, to get a different deal. But this was what was possible. We had other preferences too. So we had to come to an agreement on a middle ground. And I believe a deal is a good deal when nobody is totally happy with it. So it has elements that would address the concerns of everybody. And I believe that makes it a sustainable deal. It's not a bilateral deal between Iran and the United States. On other issues, we did not -- we agreed not to deal with other issues. We agreed to focus on the nuclear issue, because the nuclear issue was first of all complicated enough, it had kept the two sides and many others in the international arena busy and seriously concerned for almost a decade, or even more. So we had to deal with that particular issue. We had said publicly, the Leader had said publicly, that if we see the United States respecting its side of bargain -- which unfortunately wasn't the case fully -- that we would engage in other areas. So we started with the nuclear deal, we kept our focus very clearly on that particular problem, which was of concern to the international community.
AMANPOUR: So again, what do you think sitting in Tehran, do you believe the Trump Administration will try somehow to change the deal? What have you heard from your interlocutors -- you say it's not a bilateral deal, so what have you heard from European ministers who've spoken to the Trump administration? What have you heard from Russia? Do they plan to keep the deal or do you feel it's going to be divide and rip it up? Divide and conquer?
ZARIF: I believe everybody, including experts in the United States, know that this is the best deal that was possible. Particularly in Europe -- Europe played an important role in getting to the deal, and we've heard every representative of European countries -- UK, France, Germany, European Union, others -- making the same statement that this deal is not open for renegotiation. We've heard Russia and China making the same statement. And I believe there is an international consensus that this was a good deal, is a good deal, and probably there can't be a better deal. And it's not possible to renegotiate a deal that took us more than two years to negotiate, and before the negotiations started, took us ten years of grandstanding, of threats and sanctions and all sorts of other means of coercion. It was a triumph of diplomacy over coercion, because coercion doesn't work anymore. We have passed the era of hegemonic tendencies. Both globally and regionally. So we need to find ways of getting to possible middle ground where everybody can live with an outcome.
AMANPOUR: So let me get to some of that hegemony and regional projection of power. As you very well know, certainly the US administration under President Trump, certainly certain Arab allies of the United States -- Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, certainly Israel, and many other countries -- are very worried about the projection of Iranian power. You recently gave a very impassioned speech about this ballistic missile test, in which you said it was defensive. But people are watching Syria, and they are seeing that without Iran, this murderous regime would not still be in power. And they are wondering, where was the defensive nature of your intervention on behalf of Bashar Assad in Syria?
ZARIF: Well, I think if they want to look at regional influence, they need to look at the wrong choices that they have made.
AMANPOUR: But specifically, I need to ask about this -- because I am not asking about them, I am asking about Iran -- why come in on the side of the Middle East Milosevic?
ZARIF: It's your impression, but my point --
AMANPOUR: No, Mr. Foreign Minister. There are five-hundred thousand people dead. There are twelve million refugees. here is torture, there is mass hanging. It's not my impression; those are the facts.
ZARIF: No, those are not the facts. Because, you had a group in Syria that was armed and equipped and financed by outside forces. Mistakes were made in the beginning. But the worst mistake of all was to arm a group of terrorists who are not only a threat to Syria, but a threat globally. Mistakes were made in Syria, as in the past mistakes have been made -- the same people who armed Daesh, armed the terrorist groups, were the same people who armed Saddam Hussein; were the same people who created and armed Al Qaeda. We should not continue to repeat history, and then blame people who were on the right side. Do not forget that this is a pattern of behavior that has existed for over thirty-eight years. That a group of countries, which the United States calls allies, plus the United States itself -- and here I am referring to President Trump himself during his campaign saying that Daesh is a creation -- ISIS -- is a creation of the United States government. What is a problem is wrong choices that have been made throughout history, in supporting Saddam Hussein -- for eight years, the United States, the rest of the world, and its Arab allies, supported Saddam Hussein. Look where he took them. They supported ISIS, they created ISIS, they armed ISIS, without their [inaudible] --
AMANPOUR: They were actually supporting the moderates, but let's get to that in a second --
ZARIF: No, no, they say they were supporting the moderates. But the fighting force on the ground in Syria and in Iraq are two very clear organizations: Daesh and Al Nusra.
AMANPOUR: But sir, you know --
ZARIF: Both of them are recognized by the Security Council -- not by me or any outside power -- but by the United Nations Security Council, in which the US is a permanent member, as terrorist organizations. These are the fighting forces on the ground. We need to deal with that. But let me --
AMANPOUR: But this is very important, actually, because it was a mostly popular uprising in 2011, which then -- there were moderates at the beginning, and without Iran's intervention in 2012, Bashar Assad would not have regained the territory that he did. You defend very passionately the way the world sat by and watched Saddam Hussein gas Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, with no accountability. And yet, you're supporting Bashar Assad, who has been gassing his own people -- with chemical weapons, with chlorine gas and barrel bombs. It's really hard to understand why you would take that position.
ZARIF: No, we never support the use of chemical weapons, because we were victims of chemical weapons --
AMANPOUR: Right, but they are using it and you're supporting them.
ZARIF: Hold on. We made a very clear stand against the use of chemical weapons. We were instrumental in getting the international agreement on the removal of chemical weapons from Syria. Unfortunately, that international agreement lacks a very serious element, and that is to remove chemical weapons from the stockpiles of ISIS and Al Nusra, who have now been confirmed, even by the United States, as having used chemical weapons against Syrians. So we are dealing with a very difficult situation. Unfortunately, we have found ourselves in a situation where the choice was to allow Daesh and Nusra to gain -- instead of being organizations, to be a state, or to be two states. We came to the assistance -- this in Iran's policy. We don't pick and choose. We came to the assistance of the Kurds when ISIS was just about to take over Erbil. If you want, Mr Barzani is here -- you can ask him, that immediately upon his request, that Erbil was under the threat of being taken over by ISIS. Iran rushed to his assistance. Nobody else came to assist him. When Baghdad was being targeted by Daesh, we came to their, we went to their assistance. When Syrian government was being targeted by Daesh, we went to their assistance. This is a consistent policy. People are making the wrong choices in supporting terrorism, believing mistakenly that they can have terrorists and their adversaries fight each other in a specific domain. They do not understand that in a globalized world, you cannot contain threats to one particular locality. You see that now Syria has become the training ground for terrorists, for suicide bombers, who are making, creating havoc in Paris, to New York, to Los Angeles, everywhere.
AMANPOUR: Let me pick that up then. Why then has your ally and Bashar Assad's ally, Russia, failed to attack ISIS? Every intelligence report, every military report confirms that the majority of their strikes have been against the opponents of Bashar Assad and not against ISIS. Why? Why is that?