If you deal with the other side as less than a human society, then don't expect to have multiple outcomes. What I'm saying is that in Western terminology, concepts are used that would infuriate the other sides. Even the terminologies used by the United States in the liberal realist tradition-such as "carrot and stick"-are not meant for humans, but rather for donkeys. In studies of Orientalism, the Eastern part of the world is dealt with as an object rather than as serious, real human societies with longer, older civilizations with concerns and needs that have to be dealt with.

NIo: Going back to this idea of impeding dialogue, is it your view that the Security Council resolution could impede negotiations regarding Iraq?

JZ: There is no dialogue regarding Iraq. The U.S. has not done, is not interested in a serious dialogue on Iraq. The U.S. State Department and the White House have officially said: "We will engage in dialogue when it suits us and on issues that are of concern to us." That is a non-starter. And that is why there has not been a dialogue and why the dialogue that has been attempted has failed miserably.

NIo: How would Iran respond if it witnessed Iraq's neighbors becoming involved in sectarian warfare?

JZ: We believe that to define sectarian divisions in Iraq was the strategy that was followed by Zarqawi. You remember that last year he made it official that his strategy in Iraq was to define the sectarian divide and create a serious antagonism between communities inside Iraq. In the past the various Iraqi communities lived together and had intermarriages, they didn't have a history of sectarian clashes. Zarqawi wanted to define these sectarian divisions.

I think these scare tactics are extremely dangerous, and that is why Iran believes in a democratic Iraq and not a sectarian Iraq and we will not do anything to exacerbate the sectarian divide.

NIo: What is your perception of the significance of the most recent local elections in Iran?

JZ: Well, elections in societies where the populous has the possibility of participation in national life usually go through cycles. And these cycles are very clear in other democratic societies and the same cycles are in force in Iraq. You see that if you compare various elections within Iran. You see that the people who voted have gone through these cycles expressing their dissatisfaction with certain policies and then moving to replace them with another group. I think this is only natural. You should not give it more significance than it deserves.

But it shows that the population has opted for a plurality of various elected bodies in Iran. It did not believe that a single vision should be dominant in various elected bodies. And that is why in all these elected bodies, there is a plurality and I think that is necessary to achieve to provide checks and balances that have been foreseen in the constitution.