we only see the quest for freedom, nobody but tyrants and thugs. do not let them define what is disrespectful sovereignty, but is interference. ladies and gentlemen, a movement was born on the 12th of june in

your calendar. it is not for capitalism or socialism or any other ideologies or specific form of government. it cares little about the historical squabbles before its birth, but it is about the sanctity, even more, the sovereignty of the ballot box. it may not succeed immediately, it may have ads and flows -- and sen flows, but let me assure you, it will not die. we will not let it die. a week later, the supreme leader of the islamic republic decided to stand erect as a dam in front of this movement, sanctioning

theft of the ballot box and flagrant fraud, all in the name of islam. it was an ugly moment of disrespect for both god and man. it will not stand. the citizens of iran will not stand it. and at the end, he will not stand. rest assured the movement of 22nd o-- movement of the 22nd, already invested with the blood of my brief countryman, with support from and recorder of the globe, will not rest until it achieves unfettered democracy and human rights in iran. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you very much. we all of questions for you. we will start with the right. >> cnn. i have two questions -- can you talk of anything you have heard of what is going on outside of tehran? we have not heard a lot about the situation. obviously, media is not able to get there. also, he spoke very briefly about what the international community can do. specifically, do you think that president obama has struck the right town? is there anything else should or could be saying, or anything else the u.s. should or could be doing? thank you. >> thank you very much. but i can tell you first and foremost is that the extent of violence, unfortunately, is far more widespread than it has been

reported by the media, perhaps because of a concentration of media has been mostly focused on major cities, but having received many reports from provinces and smaller towns, there has also been a tremendous amount of repression and conflict there. what could be interesting to all of you is that even just a day, driving gear to the national press club, i received multiple calls from various parts of the country. a member of the revolutionary guards passing through an alley where a kid was riding a slogan -- writing a slogan. there is a sense of complicity, in a way. i have reports of police forces in iran, a wink to the kids come out saying "we have orders to

hit you. if we do not hate you, our superiors will hit us." i have reports were some clerics who are leaders of for friday prayers would address in civilian clothes and other in some of the civilian protests. this is getting amazingly, by the minute, a sort of the sense of people abandoning a sinking titanic. what is most important is that we are already seeing that our messages an hour appeals to the security forces not to hit their own brethren and join with them is getting more and more crowns. it is unfortunate that the siege -- basij as a whole still has to demonstrate, but many many more forces are showing their discontent. there was a specific report i received today, and i cannot name names for obvious reasons,

but one of the higher echelon members of the privilege and regards, who was specifically assigned to make sure that he is in charge of the questioning any kind of unrest, recently said in his report, his account, that after what happened last week, even he said "i can no longer morally or consciously stick to a system, and for any ideas that i thought the revolution was supposed to before, after what is happening to the people." there is an amazing reflection that is happening not just for the people, obviously, but in the regime. this is what i hear, the kind of reports i receive. you ask about what the u.s. and specifically the administration -- i was encouraged but delayed its position of -- i was encouraged by the latest position and words of president obama. the distinction between what is

considered or could be interpreted as interference in the sovereign affairs of a state, as opposed to stand for the principles of validation of human rights and democracy. we welcome that. it is effective. this is precisely what iranians at home and demand world leaders, particularly someone like president obama, who, after all -- his entire message of hope and change and affirmative action, if i could call, was a big inspiration to many, and as such, the world community has been, for the most part, in an unprecedented fashion, showing more and more solidarity. that is important, that is frightening, that is life in the streets of tehran that people finally, after 28 years, and god knows how many times i've said that, fallen so many times i deaf are a -- fallen so many times on deaf ears, but is there for the world to see.

as a final comment on this topic, i received at least in the past five days, personally, over 200 calls, at least, of various people inside iran, in respect of which movement ever present, tell on our behalf of the world "do not quiet down. keep talking, keep supporting us, a key to being there for us. we are dying here. we need to know we are not alone." >> are you the key for anything else specifically for the u.s.? -- looking for anything else specifically for the u.s.? >> i think the key element will be -- the mask of this regime coming off of what will turn out to be a police state. will it be a genocide? is it going to be a major, major crackdown? is the world community prepared to take the next step? we have to plausibly anticipate it. the question is, what will world

governments to this time? are we going to have tianamen square revisited, or will this be different? the cost of not doing this could lead us only to a much more dire -- not just for the iranian people, who will be tremendously setback in their hopes for freedom anytime soon, but the danger that this regime represents beyond iran's borders to the international community. >> channel 10 israel. his excellency, i wonder what you define what we're seeing right now. is it a revolution? what will be the aftermath? will it be a regime change, or only a change in the regime? >> as i mentioned to you in my opening statement, the 22nd and what happened shortly thereafter may have been at the beginning a dispute over election results. since then, i think that most iranians today, including the

cab of mr. mousavi and others, are realizing that this is far beyond the question of the election result. it has become a question of not only the sanctity of the ballot box, but the very fact that it is of national sovereignty, national liberty, which, until this regime, with such a supreme leader, that in such a clear matter has pretty much drawn the line in the sand, will make it almost impossible for anyone to demand anything less than moving beyond the system. it is going in that direction. the momentum is there. there is no ave or recourse left for that nation for my compatriots to find any resolution for the problem. the latest decision made by the council of guardians reiterates once again that even if they are willing to admit that there was a discrepancy, they claim is not enough to warrant even a recount. pretty much the line has been

drawn in the sand. i think that from now on the question is to offer every opportunity for anyone who is joining with the people today to get off this sinking titanic at the islamic regime is all about. we welcome that, we encoura that, but at the end, it will become a member -- a matter of on the one hand saying that we are of the people and at the same time trying to sustain the regime. yes, it is almost a revolutionary climate in terms of what people are ultimately demanding. i often don't use the word revolution because i feel that has a very negative connotation in everybody's collective memory. i'm talking about a movement of non-violent civil disobedience as a method of bringing about change, which is not something we have not seen in our recent years, but the key point is that i have seldom seen non-violent movement of changed succeed without international support. that is a very key element. that is what i would like to stress here today.

>> a daily turkish newspaper. my question, as a follow-up to the question of whether president obama had set the right town or not, i wonder if you believe that the regional countries have set the right town? as far as i know, iran's immediate neighbors, like turkey and iraq, have called mahmoud ahmadinejad to congratulate his election victory. do you think that these kinds of messages go directly to mr. ahmadinejad is a stand against the people on the streets, or an alliance to the current iranian regime? how do you interpret it? thank you. >> well, i think it is hard to interpret it anything other than standing in complete opposite of with the iranian people stand today. why they do this? ask them.

i don't think it is my place to justify or explain why it is that if the government decides to legitimize the regime. all i am telling you is that people in iran will not forget such a key moment, at the time they are risking everything they've got. if we have a long-term vision, the will become more aof an issue to think about that the media. -- more of an issue to think about than in the immediate. >> i would like to ask you about the relations between president hugo chavez and president, in a shot. they have had the privilege -- president ahmadinejad. they have had a privileged

relationship over the last two years. my second question is that if you think that iran should have nuclear energy, is in that effort to the world? -- isn't that a threat to the world? >> on the first question, the french have an expression, that people who resemble each other possible with one another. i think the writing is on the wall. [applause] i don't think any to elaborate. i -- i don't think i need to elaborate. i have a lot of venezuelans, and i think they're concerned that this help the alliance is a detriment to because of democracy and freedom. my position, as always, the nuclear issue, is very clear. before we get into the energy issue, iran, before the revolution, was a signatory to

the non-proliferation treaty, as a result of which we became 10% shareholders in a consortium tdi s a a a a a a a a a a a a å should that be completed, i believe around 1983, if i am not mistaken. the world community was not concerned about iran's civic nuclear program. most countries are demanding tough sanctions on iran were the same countries competing in nuclear technology. what has changed? it is the nature of the system. it is the trust that you cannot have to system that makes the whole difference. lack of transparency, lack of accountability is the real threat, not a nation's on right

to technology. -- sovereign right to technology. the regime, as capable as they are to twist faxed to make it into a national crime, cannot tell the people of iran that the regime is responsible for us having lost that right. , and only them. as far as the military usage of that, it would be in total violation of our own signature to the treaty. in principle, i would end by saying that there is no question, in my view, that a democratic iran and a nation committed to peace need not pursue weapons of mass destruction. i cannot envisage in my own mind, if i were there today, as an iranian, i would feel safer if everybody around us at their own set of nuclear weapons pointing at each other. that is not a safe environment.

under any circumstance. i do not buy that argument. but don't forget, last and not least, that most of the regime of's rhetoric in the last few years -- the regime's rhetoric and the last few years, and perhaps longer before that, has always been mostly aimed for not domestic consumption, but for external consumption, particularly towards the arabs in the region. that often has deflected attention from the problem with in iran itself, which until now has left many, including the media, confused as to whether it is a real sentiment of people. today you will hear more and more, because of your presence there, what i knew all along -- but the iranian people really think. when you have people struggling to make ends meet, when you have a factory worker who has not been paid a salary over at least

half a year, and his entire salaries may be the equivalent of $2,000 or $3,000 a year, and the regime gives this kind of money, twice, five, 10 times that amount, to some hezbollah family in lebanon or some hamas member in palestine while he is starting, those priorities are not in the interest of their own people. people know that. people are celebrating making yellowcake? how about celebrating keeping us from starving? if you trust the iranian people, and we should in that decision, i have no doubt that first and foremost we have a sense of respect for ourselves, and our signature must mean something. we have signed the treaty. if we violate the treaty, how could we possibly think that if tomorrow we want to become a member of the world trade organization, if you violate this signature, not committed to it, why should you trust us on anything resign after that will

ever be respected by ourselves? that is my position on the subject. thank you. >> i would like to refer to a former question concerning the future of iran. when you look at people who have an important role like mr. mousavi, mr. rafsanjani, mr. kasai me, they are all part of the regime. but this movement go far beyond -- does this movement go far beyond? how do you envision the future of iran? will it be an overthrow of hypocrisy -- will it be an overthrow of the theocracy? but will do you envision for yourself and the family? -- what role do you envision yourself and the family? >> as a partially explain earlier, the situation has grown just -- has grown beyond just the result of an election and a candidate. most iranians are quite aware of

the fact that having always been limited to prescreened candidates of the regime's choice as to who they get to vote for, to begin with, they were stuck in a position of having to choose between a lesser of two evils, or multiple evils, whenever it is. it presents an opportunity for such prescreened candidates to join with the masses, and it would be difficult for us not to anticipate for caller: calleat t we would be faced with an impasse. you cannot at the same time hold allegiance to the regime and claim that you are with the people. a decision will have to be made pretty soon. the legitimacy of such candidates is the direct result

of whether or not they actually take the side of the streets and peel away from a regime, or forever lose their legitimacy, the very same way that the supreme leader has completely lost it now. we will see how this develops. i always said to all of you, and i repeated yet again today, that my sole objective is to help my compatriots preach freedom -- help my compatriots reach freedom. let's have democracy in iran, let's have the freedom to vote and choose freely. i would like to be in my country one day and come behind a podium and talk to my people and every other candidate, for whatever reason, i would like to talk to their people, and let the people decide. right now, all i am try to do is to help liberate our country sooner rather than later. we don't have hundreds and thousands of other nedas of our

country die, when they could avoid having to continue dying and being repressed. that is my objective my objective is to see a day that the iranians can go to the polls and elected the government of their choice. we demand, i demand, that parliamentary system of democracy, secular in the sense that there is a clear separation between religion and government, cuts to tissue -- a constitution based on the international declaration of human rights, and having talked to a whole host of political groups in iran, from left to the right, marty stuart republicans come marxists, landed since -- leninists,

socialists, we differ in the ultimate form the government could take. but we all agree that the only solution for your right to come out of the soul is to adopt a democratic -- for iran to come out of this whole is to elect a democratic parliamentary system. it is about freedom and democracy and human rights. i stand ready to serve them in that capacity, and i've always said that the day my fellow compatriots will finally go to the polls to decide the fate of arad through a referendum, -- the fate of iran through a referendum, to me, that day the mission will be accomplished. right now, this is a premature subject to debate about what we will end up tomorrow in iran. the point is what we're trying to do today to liberate our country, and that is what i'm doing right now. [applause]

>> thank you very much. you have given a couple of examples, but what would you -- when would you be able to say, what would be the sign or the person who would make this sea change, the change of heart within the establishment that would signal to you that there is something going on within the religious establishment toward more democratic? >> i am at maintaining, among other things, close contact with highly placed elements within the system, on the civilian side as well as the military intelligence all of it -- military intelligence level of it. we are tirelessly examining every possible scenario of their own exit strategy. we're not reinventing the wheel here. let me explain the scenario where security forces of any

state or system that has been repressive, and we saw this in the case of the soviet union, the case of czechoslovakia, we saw that in many other examples, in the case of serbia -- seldom do we see a military or paramilitary or security forces taking any initiative. usually, it has been refusal to carry out orders of repression by joining with the people. i remember the images of mr. yeltsin standing on that tank in front of the duma. this was not a coincidence. it was part of an evolution of thinking and peeling away from the collapsing soviet system. we have seen, more often than not, security forces siding with the people and remaining neutral. you saw that even in the case of the 1979 revolution. although they had orders not to fire on people.

therefore, what is going to be the pivotal moment is, in my view, three factors -- the resilience and sustenance of the movement by the people, the fact that elements that want to peel away know that their backs are not to the wall, that there is another boat they can jump to, so the movements dynamics is key, the behavior, taking a position, and much more tacit support than just verbal encouragement by the international community in a direct engagement with the people and support for that, is another factor. and ultimately, how much the morale of the remaining core group desperately trying to hang on to this system and preserve it allows them to fully detached from them, dissension within the ranks itself. the caylee evaluation of that is what ultimately makes a

difference. -- the daily evaluation of that is ultimately what makes a difference. it has to start -- the good news is that it has already started. the extent of which, i cannot really tell you right now. it depends on many factors. but this is pretty much the dynamics of change. more often than not, we have seen that. this is not myanmar in isolation that can keep aung san suu kyi and people like cuher completely isolated. anecdotally, i have had reports, even as late as today, that we are seeing signs of solidarity. we already have stories up on stories of members of the security forces who, after their shift, go home and dressed in civilian clothes and rejoin people on the street.

five hours ago they were there with their clubs. this is happening under our eyes. we have to see how the dynamics carry out. but the sustenance of the movement is imperatively a vital and pivotal. >> you said you were in close contact with military intelligence. >> not just military intelligence, but various apparatus within the system. i cannot define in detail. >> you are saying that you're talking to members of military intelligence and they are currently making plans to either step down or leave the country? >> two groups -- those with the regime that are anticipating every scenario of survivability of the system with their plan -- we can guess what that will become all but massive repression to complete silence the masses, but on the other

hand, there are those contemplating the candidacy of when and how owill it be their moment to join? this is a complicated matter, and we cannot put them on the spot and expose them. some of it is coordination that we're trying to have with them. the other part is in what way they will have to implement this on their own rights. at this point, it is very under the radar, for obvious reasons. but i anticipate that at some point, there will be much clearer positions announced by those who are more visible within this very system, because today, the moment of truth has arrived in iran. iranians need to know who stands with them and who stand against them. as much as the people on the streets demand the elements