>> charlie: welcome to the broadcast. tonight, a conversation with the president of iran, mahmoud ahmadinejad. but first, an update as we look at iran's nuclear program and its missile testing with david sanger of "the new york times" and ray takei of the council on foreign relations. >> this was a large-scale election. this took democracy to new, undefined levels. it was a new model. and i'm quite surprised there are people who chant slogans of

democracy but when it comes to iran they decide to back a minority -- i mean, i thought democracy meant the rule of the majority, so how come it is that the american and british politicians decide to support the minority? i mean, don't they believe in the definition of democracy they gave us themselves? >> charlie: one could argue that -- >> one could argue that, with this revelation, on the one hand, the u.s. has gained a negotiating advantage that they have not had in three and a half years of talks. it's always been the iranians who seemed to be taking the initiative. here, now, the obama administration has not only made the iranians have to decide how it is they're going to respond to the u.s. offers but they've also got to explain why a completely peaceful program has a secret location inside a military base. >> i always think the critical actor, in terms of sanctions regime are not so much the russians but the chinese who

have significant commercial investments in iran, who are substantial consumers of iran's petroleum products and are actually investing at substantial sums, and i'm not quite sure if the chinese have agreed to sanctions regime which is onerous and certainly retards their own investment and access to iranian -- iranian oil facilities. >> charlie: an update on iran, and a conversation with iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad. next. >> charlie: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following. >> each day, a billion people won't find safe drinking water. around the world we're helping communities to access clean water. working to improve lives through conservation and education. one drop at a time. >> additional funding for "charlie rose" was also provided by these funders. >> and by bloomberg.

a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." ♪ >> charlie: tonight we devote an hour to iran as that country is back on the front page with the revelation that it had a secret nuclear facility buried in a mountain near the holy city of qom, followed by a test firing of short- and medium-range missiles over the weekend and today. as the world waits for the first direct talks between iran and the united states in 30 years set to take place in geneva this thursday, international unity seems to be building. at the g-20 summit this week, president obama, french president sarkozy and gordon brown wanted to allow inspectors

immediately. before the secret facility was exposed i had a conversation with president mahmoud ahmadinejad on thursday morning, in new york last week. we discussed many things including the disputed elections and allegations of torture and rape. we will begin that conversation immediately after this update. joining me now for that update from washington is david sanger of "the new york times." he broke the story of the decision by world leaders to expose iran's covert enrichment facility. and ray taki of the council on foreign relations, until last month an iran advisor in the obama administration. i am pleased to have both of them back on this program. david, give me the story that came to you and what it was. >> for a long time, charlie, american intelligence agencies have been looking for a secret enrichment facility, or series of enrichment facilities in iran, and the reason is simple. we all spend a lot of time looking at those videos of the

giant enrichment facility at natanz, the one revealed in 2002 by an iranian enrichment group but at that facility the international atomic inspection agencies out in a week. many intelligence officers have said to me over years if a bomb is coming out of iran it's not coming out of natanz, it's got to be coming from someplace else and for years they were looking for a construction in this mountain north of qom, and in fact last year when i was doing some interviews with intelligence officials for a book, one of them said to me, "you know, we know there is secret enrichment activity, we just don't know if it's ongoing." well, the iranians came to the conclusion sometime in the past few months that the secrecy of this site had been blown, and

last monday, just as president obama was arriving at the united nations, they sent a very cryptic, brief note to the iaea that said, "we'll be telling you more about a pilot plan" and at that point the administration kicked into gear and said, you know, "we're going to have to reveal publicly what this is if we're going to have any negotiating advantage." so they now believe that the revelation of this site is going to give them that advantage, and there is one fact about this site that i think is more important than any other. it is based inside an iranian revolutionary guard corps base. it's hard to explain how you would have a civilian nuclear program going on inside a military base. >> charlie: and the purpose of it was enrichment and they already were in the process of getting centrifuges there? >> the purpose was enrichment, and they were beginning to move in equipment, but i do not know if they have actually begun to move in the centrifuges, and we

just looked at a number of satellite photographs of what appears to be the site. there will be a number of these in "the times" tomorrow and the steel reinforcement that has gone up over the tunnel that they were building for the site is remarkable, and it shows you that the iranians were quite concerned that this thing had to be bombproof above all else -- and then, of course, it's built into the side of a mountain. >> charlie: ray, what will be the consequences of this disclosure and the coordination between the united states and britain and france and perhaps -- perhaps russia although medveddev did not appear at the press conference with the others? -- medvedev did not appear at the press conference with the others? >> i think as a result of this latest iranian, there is going to be a greater degree of international solidarty at least in the short-term, i think there is possibility the russians may be more receptive to a sanctions

regime. i always think the critical actor in terms of a sanctions regime are not so much the russians but the chinese who have significant commercial investments in iran, who are substantial consumers of iran's petroleum products and are actually investing at substantial sums, and i'm not quite sure if the chinese have agreed to sanctions regime which is onerous and certainly -- retards their own investment and access to iranian oil facilities. but nevertheless, i think coming on the heels of the june election, the crackdown, and now this particular infraction, there is a greater degree of scrutiny on iran, there is a greater degree of isolation and the administration seems to have put some sort of a coalition together. the question would be whether that coalition will prove durable or not, which would be difficult to discern at this point. >> charlie: can sanctions, in your judgment, have an impact to change either a goal about --

that iran might have about nuclear? >> it's going to be very difficult. for sanctions to succeed, first of all they have to be multilateral. multilateral means encompassing not just the europeans or even the russians and the chinese but other actors -- malaysians and indonesians and the countries that iran increasingly has banking relationships with. they have to be prolonged and protracted. sanctions aren't going to work quickly and expeditiously, so you have to have a broad coalition and you have to be able to maintain that coalition for a protracted, if not a prolonged, period of time, that's why sanctions fatigue kicks in and you begin to see evaporation of that solidarty which is why i was trying to differentiate between short-term solidarty and long-term maintenance of that particular unity. that's going to be very difficult for a country like iran to remain that isolated, so if they're going down the sanctions route, they have to do some very difficult work in terms of maintaining this

international coalition. now, i will say iranians are doing all they can to help out the united states in forging and maintaining a coalition not only in terms of their electoral irregularities, their sham stalinist trials but now this event which adds to the issue. >> charlie: one thing that was at variance to what you said is if they believe that in fact the russians will join the chinese will come along because they don't want to be isolated. >> that's the theory, that diplomatally the russians give chinese cover. however -- diplomatically the russians give chinese cover however in sudan when they felt the investments were endangered by security council deliberations, the chinese may be able to differentiate themselves from the russians but to be sure, the chinese require russian cover -- diplomatic umbrella to maintain their own position. the question is how far the russians are going to go in

terms of sanctioning the united states. are they going to embrace the united states and increasingly european policy or are they going to be somewhere in the middle with the more watered-down sanctions regime? that remains to be seen. there is a lot of excitement coming out of the meetings last week but we'll see in practice if the excitement translates into russian embrace of american priorities. >> charlie: david, what do they expect from this october 1st meeting in geneva? >> well, to say that expectations are very low would be to wildly overstate the case. one could argue that, with this revelation, on the one hand the u.s. has gained a negotiating advantage that they have not had in 3 1/2 years of talks. it's always been the iranians seem to be taking the initiative now -- the obama administration has not only made the iranians have to decide how it is they're going to respond to the u.s. offers but they've also got to

explain why a completely peaceful program has a secret location inside a military base, so i think for a while, at least, they've got the iranians off balance. that said, it's not clear to us that the iranian leadership particularly, in these conditions when they're quite divided is capable of making a decision, and certainly would not want to appear to be weak to the united states. so we don't even know, at this point, if the iranians are going to show up. let's assume they do. i expect that they will say that inspectors can come into the new qom facility but it's not merely letting the inspectors in that the u.s. or the other allies have in mind. they want to be able to interview the engineers, have sets of blueprints, look around at all the piping and the work, set up monitoring equipment. this is going to be very

difficult, i think, for the iranians to accept because the more you get to interview, the more documents you see, the more you could lead the inspectors on to other sites, if there are other sites and, of course, that's the intent, so you could argue that this revelation, while it will set the iranians on the defensive may also keep us from making much progress. >> charlie: is there consensus as to what iran's objectives are? >> i think that the iranians at this point -- to many people who i interview -- say want to have a nuclear capability, but whether they want to have a nuclear weapon is not clear. >> charlie: exactly. >> so in other words, they may be able to assemble the fuel, the talent, and, of course, the missiles together and not combine them all so that they could stay withible the confines

of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty without actually having a weapon, but it would be clear to the world that they could put a weapon together very quickly. now, there are other countries in this position, charlie, as we've discussed before -- we have no doubt that japan could make a weapon fairly quickly but we don't sit around and worry about it. there are many other nations that fit that description. iran may simply be assembling everything and stopping short of the strategic decision to go ahead with a weapon. >> charlie: ray, give me your best assessment of what's going on inside -- you will see some of that in the interview that i did with president ahmadinejad in just a moment which we talked about the aftermath of the election and why they felt necessary to have trials and imprison people and allegations of torture and death -- but how serious is the split and what is the -- and how do you expect the regime to deal with it? and has it strengthened them

because of -- or weakened them? >> well, it's a weakened regime, there is really no question about it, the regime at this point has disenchanted a vast majority of the citizenry by the fraudulent election and engaging in such vote nullification. that's a long-term problem, in the sense that the fact that the population of the country -- the citizenry of the country has lost confidence in the state and the ability of the state to respond to its collective will -- >> charlie: let me just interrupt you. before this election, did the ahmadinejad administration have support of the people? obviously, there was a discontent because the election results show it. >> yes. president ahmadinejad could claim, in 2005 at least in the second round that he won legitimately, he won 63% of the vote so he could make a claim that unlike any other middle eastern leader he was genuinely elected. he cannot make that claim today because of the contested nature of the election.

>> charlie: did he lose the election? or are the numbers not as we perceive them? >> in the 2009 election, the regime released the results that he got 62% of the vote almost immediately after the election was ended -- election day. leads yo to believe that they didn't even count the ballots. he got 62% of the vote in almost every district -- in almost every principality. the numbers just didn't change. it's the most strangest statistical deviation one has seen. by all accounts, it's hard to believe that 85% of the iranians would go to the ballot and mr. ahmadinejad would get that kind of plurality, so he most certainly didn't get that vote. probably lost the election. but nevertheless, they engaged in this massive fraud. in the long-term, they do have a problem with the population that is urban, well educated and restive. in the short term, the problem the regime faces is a very serious fragmentation within the elite, a fragmentation that in

my opinion is unbreachable. many members of the regime have separated themselves from the state, and you begin to see the government engage in wholesale ideological purges which further narrows the base of govern -- those they actually govern so on the one hand the social base narrows because of the disenchantment, categories of elites that have come together in the past has narrowed so it's a much more narrowly based regime. however, president ahmadinejad has endless level of confidence and it's hard to see if he perceives himself as the facts suggest. >> charlie: has it strengthened or weakened the relationship with the ayatollah? >> that relationship has remained strong. >> charlie: therefore, they're in the same boat? >> they're in the same boat. ayatollah khamenei has decided to get on the tiger's back. he can no longer present himself as someone who presides over the

state in a neutral manner as someone who takes into account all the factions and the constituencies of the islamic republic. he made a choice and now he's in with ahmadinejad, they're together, and where they go from here they're going to have to go together. >> charlie: what do you make, david, of the request to give them enriched uranium -- 20%, i think it was -- in order to use for medical purposes at a facility in tehran? >> you know, it's a -- a rather clever request, because they put the west in the position of seeming to deny iran the use of uranium for a medical, and thus humanitarian, purpose. but i don't think there is going to be any conditions in which you will see any of the western

countries give iran uranium of any kind. what i find particularly interesting about this is that during one of president ahmadinejad's earlier visits, i think one of his first visits to the u.n. where he had a dinner one evening that i think, charlie, you and i were both at, you may recall that he ended that dinner by offering to sell uranium to the united states at half price after he got it all enriched, so this is a game they played back and forth for a while. >> charlie: israel. does this strengthen the argument they may be making within the councils of the u.s. relationship that, "see, we told you so, you're going to have to do something"? "we'll give you -- our tolerance is only until the end of this year"? ray? >> i think most israelis -- the israeli government, certainly, would prefer that diplomacy and economic sanctions take care of this issue -- that somehow

accumulated international pressure will lead iran to acquiesce and conform to the security council resolutions. i have absolutely no idea whether israelis are serious or not about militarily dealing with this issue if diplomacy fails and economic sanctions don't produce results. i just don't know enough about their anatomy and about their decision-making to make that guess. i suspect they themselves don't even know what -- >> charlie: so do i. >> but at this point -- at this point, like everybody else in the international community they're hoping, somehow, diplomacy, economic pressure, international isolation, resolves this issue. now, if it doesn't, then israelis as well as everybody else will have to make hard decisions about what they're going to do with the program operating outside the confines of the u.n. security council resolution that's an illegal program at this point. >> one more point on the israeli development, when president obama made the announcement on friday i thought it was quite

interesting that he and his aides said that the discovery of the qom site had set back the iranian program, and when i asked over the weekend of some senior officials, "do you believe this is the primary clandestine site?" they all said yes, they do, so that argument is part of the bigger case they're trying to make that they've slowed the iranians down and the israelis should give them more time before considering a military option. the other way to look at that is that if you believe as the israelis do that there are other sites out there, and some american officials believe this is possible as well, then they may say, you know, they hid this one so well for so many years, even though the u.s. was following it on satellite and so forth, that they need to be dealt with before they could build up other covert sites. >> charlie: secretary gates i think has said that the most you could assume from any attack on

their facilities was a delay of two to three years. am i right about that, ray? >> that's absolutely right. that was certainly when the israelis came last year and asked for the bunker-busting weapons and for the overflight right over iraq, and for refueling capability, to be able to strike the sites, and president bush turned them down, the estimate inside the white house at that time was that at most, they would get a few years, maybe even just six or eight months of delay in the system and that it wasn't worth it, and you certainly heard secretary gates repeat that this weekend. >> charlie: ray, is this an accurate argument that so far the iranians have been winning this game because while they have played back and forth with whatever negotiating group there was including the iaea, all it has done has played into their hands? >> you could make a case that up until this point iranians have been successful in one particular objective, namely

advancing the nuclear program, and advancing it with some degree of punishment, but the punishment has proven enduring, partly as a result of the increase in oil prices and so forth. increasingly, i think iranians are beginning to find themselves in a slightly different situation. there is a greater degree of international pressure. there is no american administration as was the bush administration which gets liob's share of the blame by the europeans -- lion's share of the blame by the administration. there was a significant share of engagement by the obama administration which the iranians rejected so the problem is no longer the united states. the problem, increasingly, is becoming iran. then, two events took place that reinforced the american case. the elections. which was a cataclysmic event and exposed the iranian regime for all its brutal reality then came the realization of the clandestine facility after the government was saying all the

facilities were safe guarded and transformed to the international obli these facts is beginning to change the landscape. iranians may be successful in the near future in terms of advancing the program, but increasingly there is going to be a cost. now, you can make the case that they're willing to absorb that cost no matter how inordinate it will be but nevertheless they're in a slightly different position now. they have lost their leverage. the context has changed. america is no longer the problem. iran is beginning to be seen as a country outside the bounds of international law, engaging in activities, rejecting sincere offers of diplomacy. that's not an enviable position to be in. >> charlie: last point, because i talked to president ahmadinejad about this -- do you think therefore they will be willing to -- because of the circumstances, are they less likely to prosecute all of the people that were involved in the political aftermath of the

election? >> i think there is a slight division within the regime on this particular issue. i think ahmadinejad and many of his followers will like to go ahead and have a complete purge of the political system, and that means not just those who are apprehended but go ahead and arrest even former president khatamei and candidate musabi. i think supreme leader is hesitant about moving to that stage of persecution because of the potential domestic backlash so that's why you see not necessarily the persecution of totality of the regime's opponents but a select few, and that select few list is beginning to expand because there are still some divisions within the regime on how to proceed. >> charlie: i look forward to seeing you here in new york. david, fantastic reporting and congratulations and thank you for sharing it with us this evening. >> thank you, charlie. >> charlie: if you want to know more about nuclear kinds of things, david's book is called "the inheritance" which is a

remarkable read. back in a moment. our conversation on thursday of last week before any of this broke with mahmoud ahmadinejad -- the president of iran. stay with us. ♪ ♪ >> charlie: mr. president, thank you very much for this third opportunity to talk with you. tell me in your words what happened in the election in iran and why it resulted in so many people in the streets. so many people arrested. so much talk about arrests, torture, death in prisons, including children of highly respected iranians.

and are you simply going to leave it to the judiciary as to what happens now about people on trial? tell me your story of the election. and aftermath. >> you know that in iran, elections are real elections. really completely popular ones. >> charlie: in contrast to? >> well, no, i mean, the entire election is not controlled by the people -- you know very well what i am saying here. there are places where -- i mean, elections are simply a show in the end of the day but in iran this is just not possible. you can't carry a show at that

level. when the iranian revolution happened, iran established a real republic. over a period of 30 years, we've had 30 national elections of various sorts. our election system is a popular-based system, a hundred percent of it is. those who enforce -- those with who carry out the elections are actually from the people. those trusted by people in localities, in towns, in villages, people select these people. and so they help carry out the elections and it is done with the supervision of the people.

there are actually grassroots groups that come together and carry out and supervise the elections within a framework defined by t law, and then people go to the polls. now, in the past election, and this time, something new happened which did not have anything to do with our electoral system. it really had more to do with claims made by a few politicians. i want to take you back to 1384 iranian calendar year the last election. if you bear with me, i'll just tell you what i am trying to get to. in 1384 iranian calendar year which was four years ago, the elections took place. and people elected me. back then, the government in

place was behind the person running against me with full force. even the ministers in the previous government went to different parts of the country to lead election campaigns. for him. and this is really not common and it's not really looked at very well in the iran culturally in our political culture. the officials of the interior ministry took a position against me on numerous occasions in that past election. and they were theones in charge of holding t electi/ns. now, two of the candidates said, until the very end of the first tenure of my office that they were basically electoral frauds

that were carried out at that time but it was interesting, they were the ones who carried out the election. their own friends and their own followers and supporters were the ones who carried out the election. but because they didn't like the results, they basically said the elections were fraudulent. all these politicians all managed to come to office in the past in the issue of our revolution to the same election process that was on the ground when i was elected. they became president. they became heads of state. they became parliament speakers. they thought -- they were really believing that people should just simply elect them, and if people could not elect them there is probably something wrong with the system. now, all the polls that were carried out before the elections

showed the same results. maybe a margin of 1% here up or down. there were 10's of polls carried out, and they all showed that ahmadinejad will win. but they couldn't accept it. i mean, they had organized forces working against -- >> charlie: people in the streets who didn't accept it. grand ayatollah matazeri didn't accept it. there was criticism from rafsanjani. so it wasn't just a few politicians. it was a range of people. >> just because it's a thousand politicians, it doesn't matter. what matters is that what they say, they have to be right. >> charlie: sons and daughters.

>> that's why, you see, it doesn't matter. when there is -- environment is -- when they start architecting a situation, take control, it doesn't matter. what they do cannot determine what's right or wrong. there is a law and there is a truth and that defines what is right. now, a few people may not like it or accept it. i ask you, what exactly is the purpose of elections? >> charlie: for the people to choose their leaders. >> that's it. >> charlie: please understand my question. >> i got 25 million votes. >> charlie: serious questions were raised about that election in iran in your country. so much so that the supreme

leader raised questions himself and asked for investigations. supreme leader. in the end he confirmed you, but there were serious questions. you can't just brush this off. there were serious questions about human-rights violations of people. i'm asking you to speak to that. was there? do you condemn it? and is it time now to be f/rthcoming about some of those questions? >> bear with me. >> charlie: i have all day. >> i don't have all day. well, mr. montavi stood against khamenei. >> charlie: many thought he would be the successor.

>> true, but it was imam himself who put him inside -- i mean, he stands opposed to the system. he is considered as an opposition in iran. from our viewpoint, what he says does not have any legal credibility. but there is a law that definis things in our country, and if we take the law out, there is nothing left. when you say why the judicial system cannot or will take charge of these affairs, the question is -- i mean, if not the judiciary, then who? which body is supposed to carry through with these issues? we did condemn what happened. >> charlie: you condemned what? >> every conflict and clash there was. some of our fellow citizens were

killed. about 30 people. most of them, actually, were supporters of the government. ordinary people. who were in their stores, in their cars, who were shopping, who were on their way to a party. these were people who supported the government, either mr. ruval amin, who lost his own son is one of my friends. >> charlie: i know. >> we're friends. however. this is a prestaged program, and it was encouraged by some people. and an effort was made to put a positive spin on an illegal act,

and some british politicians as well as some american politicians and some media were also trying to turn an illegal act into a legal act, and that was not right. the purpose of elections soto make sure no one goes on the streets. >> charlie: the purpose of an election is to make sure no one goes on the streets? >> yes. because the result of election is meant to demonstrate that the rule of the majority is what carries through. now, without elections, people will have to go on the streets and fight with one another to decide who wins and whoever wins on the street fight will then take over the country buthat's exactly why we have elections. in order to channel the process through a popular vote to decide who should lead a country, and the person who wins a majority

will lead the country -- i mean, in the end, in any election, there is always a majority and a group that is in the minority. now, the group in the minority can't simply question why they're in the minority and decide to go on the streets and break windows and set things on fire, set garbage cans on fire -- what kind of methodology is that? it's kind of -- i would say despicable. i have to tell you at this point in time that there are some politicians in iran that think that they own iran because -- >> charlie: are you referring to mr. rafsanjani? >> it doesn't matter. >> charlie: specifically tell me what you think of mr. rafsanjani. because he's a powerful iranian with a long history and for 20 years he's been making the friday speech and he was not allowed to make the speech this year, so help us understand what's going on.

>> do you see a problem with what you said? just because someone has a 20- or 30-year record, do they need to be the leader at all times? everybody's term comes to an end at some point. i mean, if everybody stayed in place, what are the young people supposed to do? >> charlie: there is nothing inevitable about having mr. rafsanjani make that speech? >> i mean, nobody can stop mr. rafsanjani from doing what he does. he can make his own decisions and make up his own mind about his position. i do have criticism of his position. i do believe that my viewpoint is different from his but at the same time, no one can stop him. he can decide what he wants to do. >> charlie: what's important is to hear from you, because these important events have taken place.

and i appreciate that opportunity. what effect did all this have on you? did it make you more powerful? did it make you aware that you had to reach out? did it make you angry about mr. mousavi or mr. karroubi? you're the president of iran elected, and governments have recognized you. so how do you feel about all this? >> well, i was hoping that these things would not happen. i would have liked to see everyone work hand in hand with me to build our country. i do have my complaints of them. i really do. i mean, people vote. and if people don't vote me into

office, i shouldn't get angry about it. why should i? >> charlie: is that what happened? they got angry because they didn't get the vote? >> it's nothing but that. because the elections were free. everyone said everything they wanted to say -- i mean, we had free debates before the election. and in fact, the campaign was 10 times stronger than mine. but people voted me into office -- i mean, it was people that said, "you cannot punish people for the decisions they make." >> charlie: today in iran, are you more powerful because of what happened at the election and after the election and because of the response of ayatollah khameini?

do you have a new relationship with the revolutionary guard? how do you see your future and your ability and your power in iran? >> i'm a normal, regular person in iran. i was a teacher at a university and i'm a government -- i'm sorry, yes, an engineer. people -- individuals don't matter as such. what matters is that our nation -- the powerful -- and it is a powerful one -- the iranian nation has proven that it can digest large events. and support of the leadership was not a support given to an individual, it was a support given to the law. he said it is the law that must

run every affair in the country. that must rule the country. and for the first time, the leader uses his prerogative to extend the time frame normally given post-elections for electoral complaints. the guardian council announced several times that any other party that may have documentation or evidence proving that the election may have been distorted should hand those over to the guardian council. and the other side said, "no, the electoral process itself was fine, but the environment in the country was just not right." >> charlie: are you saying that there is no deep divide in iran today? no deep divide between reform, the forces of reform and the forces of president ahmadinejad and his allies?

as a result of that election, is there a schism in your country? >> i would like to make two points, here. first of all, the iranian nation is a unified nation. it's a fact. i mean, for 30 years we've had elections. and people have voted, and then they accept the results of the vote. even right now as we speak, over 90% of the people believe that the results of the elections were legal and correct and they're going on with their daily lives. now, there are groups that are influenced by political -- you know, processes that are under way, and they're not really directing their criticism at me. nor at the election process. they're saying that we're using the election as an excuse.

that's what they say themselves. now, these may be people who really may not like the way some things are done in our country. i mean, we don't really reprimand them. anyone can have their own viewpoint at the end of the day viewpoint at the end of the day should be legal. anyone #an come and be able to place their name on the list of candidates running for an electionanif people vote them into office they can carry out their own policies and sort of give it their own touch, but they can't say that i'm a minority that wants to replace a majority. it just can't be done. it just can't be done. to make here is that elections in iran were on a large scale this past election and it was 100% free.

the candidates actually challenged enery single foundation of the islamic republic itself -- some of them said we even seek to change the system. you can find a high level of basic cooperation and collaboration at this r%cent election -- mean, do you know anywhere in the world where voter turnout, for example, was voter turnout, for example, was not really. i mean, these are really exceptions to the case. >> charlie: there is no question about the fact that -- >> i mean, this was a large-scale election. this was -- took democracy to new, undefined levels. there was a new model.

and i'm quite surprised there are people who chant slogans of democracy but when it comes to iran they decide to back a minority. i thought democracy meant ,he rule of the majority. how come it is that the american and british politicians decide to support the minority? don't they believe in the definition of democracy they gave us themselves? i mean, the majority are sitting right before you right now. >> charlie: indeed, but -- but you keep -- you reference -- i'm a little bit over time here. cugive me four or five more minutes? can you give me five more minutes? yes? that's a yes, i think, for all of you who might want to stop. >> this is because i personally like mr. charlie rose. >> charlie: thank you. with respect to the election, even the ayatollah -- nobody said that there was no british or american influence, that that

was not true. is that correct? >> no, that's not what he said. >> what did he say? >> let me tell you something else. it might help. yesterday i had an interview with a lady right here. she showed me a picture. she said, "do you know this person? this is a girl who lost@ her lie in the demonstrations, in the clashes that took place in tehran on the streets. i said, "yes, i know her." miss nadal sultan, a girl who was regrettably killed. now, i want to say two things about this and then you will be able to drive your own -- drive your own results of the election in iran as a result of what i'm about to say. we saw a film in which this lady was walking from a main street,

moving, and there is a camera showing you, and she walks into side stre%ts that had nothing to do /ith the demonstrationsment there were no dem/nstrations. there was nothing going on, on that street. all of a sudden, she falls down and blood pours out of her body, and then she's killed. so th% camera was following her for a very long time, actually. the same film clip that was shown all over the world. it made me very sad to see that one of our citizens was killed. but then the question was that the camera that was following this lady was unable to take the shot -- basically show who the killer was. because she was hit at close

shot. very close shot. with small gun. if that camera was able to show who the killer was, why didn't they provide the ime to us so that we could basically find the killer? with respect to a second point i want to make about this. a similar thing happened in venezuela in a coup that was carried out against mr. chavez. there was a young girl who was moving from a main street into a side street, and mr. @chavez is accused of the murder. now, at the time those leading the coup were being supported by the u.s. government at the time if you remember. that complicated the election -- post-election process in our

country and in our election process, there were some complications but in the end of the day people did and they're still there -- they're still right there behind us, stronger than before, more united than before, and i will guarantee you that. and they're even more aware than before. i live with the people. >> charlie: with respect, are you suggesting that she became a rallying cry during the demonstration, yes? her death became a symbol, yes? of this young woman. >> i do agree that she became a symbol, and it's very sad that she was -- >> charlie: k)lled. >> killed. she was a fellow citizen. a fellow compatriot. it makes me very sad. i tell you how the scenario is designed -- >> charlie: i'm trying to

understand. what's your point about her death? it's tragic? >> i say we're trying to find the killer. we want to say it's a scenario that was predesigned. >> charlie: predesigned? you think it was a predesigned so that she would be killed so they would have it on tape, yes? >> definitely, d%finitely so we have no doubt about it. it was a very complicated, predesigned, basically, scenario. and i have asked the judiciary personally to carry this case on a sort of special-need basis and really find out. get to the bottom of it and find out what happened. why should one of our fellow citizens be shot on the street the way she was? >> charlie: you should be concerned about the young people in your country. were there any -- have you investigated that, those

accusations that came out of torture and rape and death in prison? >> these were basically accusations made by mr. mr. karroubi, told him to offer the documents and evidence so they could follow-through. mr. karroubi said "i got angry when they asked me for evidence, and i don't have any documents." you see, in iran, we don't kid around with people -- with no one. no matter how senior or just how ordinary -- a regular person anyone might be. if anyone violates the law, whether inside the prisons or outside, it is the responsibility of our judicial

system to take care of the case based on the principles of our legal system. now, if an officer -- basically, a dereliction of duty or an officer violates the law, that's a separate question and that needs to be dealt with and by the judicial system very carefully. but in the large scheme of things, our law, our culture, our religion believes -- tell us we really have to get to the bottom of all of these cases and god willing, we will. >> charlie: thank you very much. may i also -- i know that you have been asked about this on part of "the washington post" and "newsweek" azi al-bahari, the "newsweek" journalist, a lot of us in this context are concerned about him and his release. >> i hope all prisoners are released. but i think that someone should

also be concerned about the iranian nation. >> charlie: you're concerned about the iranian naon. i have many questions. i do not want to abuse my time. you have invited me to come to iran. >> definitely. pleas% do come. coordinate with mr. -- you can come, go to hamadan, esfahan. >> charlie: what do you hope i see? >> whatever you see will be good things. everything there is lovely. iranian nation is one of the best. one of the best. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> charlie: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following. >> 60% of all waste can be recycled. beverage cans and bottles are among the most recycled in the world. and we're also working toward more efficient beverage containers, one drop at a time. >> charlie: additional funding for "charlie rose" was also provided by these funders. >> and by bloomberg.

a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned