‘Iran Has a Very Clear Choice’

David Miliband, currently the British foreign secretary and a possible future leader of the Labour Party, sat down last week with NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth to defend the release of the Libyan terrorist convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, and to discuss Britain's role in Afghanistan and the upcoming talks with Iran. Excerpts:

Did you oppose the decision?
It wasn't for us to interfere. We did not oppose it.

My daughter had a friend who was killed on that plane. I know you had a deal with the United States that he was supposed to stay in jail. Why did you go back on the deal?
We did not go back on any "deal." The passions around the appalling terrorist murders on Pan Am 103 are deeply felt in America and in Britain, and rightly so. That is something that unites us. We are also absolutely clear that the independence of the Scottish judiciary in respect to this decision is something that is separate from those wider considerations.

What did you think of General McChrystal's recent Afghan report?
The McChrystal report says the situation is serious, and we agree with him. He says we need a combined security/economic/political approach, and we agree with him. He says that we need to put the Afghans in the lead of security and of political reconciliation, and we agree with him. He says that it is essential that the Afghan government governs in a clean and not corrupt way because that is vital to retain the confidence of the Afghans as well as the inter-national community, and he is right. What we face is a big task of implementing the strategy.

Are you thinking of lessening your commitment to Afghanistan?
No, we are not. We are absolutely clear that it is essential for our own security that we are there.

Do you wonder why the Obama administration does not say to the American people that what it is really trying to do is not to reform Afghanistan but to control its borders with Pakistan?
It is a 2,600-kilometer border. What we want is [for] the country to be able to defend itself. You are not going to build a 2,600-kilometer electric fence.

Do you have a vision for a Middle East peace settlement?
The vision is what we call a 23-state solution—22 states of the Arab League, including Palestine, and Israel, in which a Palestinian state is developed according to 1967 borders plus or minus land swaps, with a fair settlement of refugees. And in our view Jerusalem is the capital of both countries. In return, Israel gets the recognition that it craves and it deserves from the Arab world.

It seems that the moderate Arab governments' real concern is Iran's nuclear program.
The Arabs' greatest hope is a Palestinian state, and their greatest fear is Iran. But that has to be part of a settlement which resolves the Palestinian issue.

So what would you do about Iran and its nuclear program?
You have to oppose it diplomatically through the sanctions that we have put through, and we have to make sure it is absolutely clear that Iran has a very clear choice—either it complies with international norms of civilized behavior or it faces the opprobrium and the action of the international community. Iran wants to portray itself as a victim. But it is not a victim. It is the author of its own misfortune.

Britain and France are to the right of the United States on this, aren't they?
We and the French are absolutely united on this. We are absolutely clear together that Iran needs to show in the meeting on Oct. 1 that it will take concrete steps to remedy the defaults that they are in with the United Nations and with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Are there cracks in the regime?
The passion of the preelection debate, the humanity of the post-election voices, showed the real Iran, which is a cultured, civilized, educated society full of millions of people who are interested in a decent future for themselves in an Islamic republic which is a normal part of the international community.