Sick argues that for the most part the Democrats are almost as hostile to Iran as the Republicans, and then runs through the history of the relationship between the two countries, from the hostage crisis until today: “Actually now there has been a kind of very Cold War going on between Iran and the United States for 25 years, but once Iran was our ally”.

Thomas L. Friedman wrote in The New York Times that the United States’ natural ally is Iran, not Saudi Arabia. Do you agree?

Iran was the ally of the United States until the 1979 Revolution, and if you actually look at basic interests, where the fundamental interests lie, the United States and Iran have a great deal in common, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, as well as in other places. But history split them apart, and for 25 years Iranians have been shouting ‘Death to America!’ at every rally or every meeting held. That does not lead to good relations. On the US side, Iran has been understood as a radical, fanatic power that would take American hostages for years. It has created a situation that makes it extremely difficult for the two parties to talk to each other.

But Iran was a U.S. ally in Afghanistan, in 2001.

Yes, that’s right.

So what went wrong?

Well, that is a very good question because we did collaborate in Afghanistan successfully, and immediately after that, within weeks of that being over, President Bush decided to identify Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil. The Iranians were dismayed, they just did not know what to think about this, because they thought they had made a real gesture towards the United States and it was actually going well. All of a sudden they found a radical response, and we never really recovered from that. Iran also made an offer to deal with the United States in 2003, but we did not even answer the mail. Iran has missed opportunities as well. At this stage, I do not find any ground for more optimism in terms of Iran and the US talking to each other.

Recently some Iranian representatives have been arrested in Iraq by the US. Can we say that the US and Iran are fighting a war in Iraq?

Well, the Iraqis have said very clearly that they do not want the United States and Iran to fight a war in their country. And I think war is too strong a word. There certainly is a conflict, and I think the United States, by arresting people who were actually guests of the Iraqi government, have very much escalated that. This is something that I worry about because Iran does have the ability to retaliate, both in Iraq and elsewhere, and that would actually make the US situation far worse than it is today. And the US is behaving as if Iran had no ability to respond. I worry that if Iran does respond to this kind of provocation at some point, we will see that as another provocation and then we will escalate, and I can see a real possibility here of a war starting almost by accident. I really do worry about that, and I see Iraq as a sort of trigger point for a war.

So you do agree with the Baker report.

I do and I think it is really a terrible mistake for the US to waste the opportunity of using some of Baker’s suggestions, which I found very sensible. They were bipartisan and made a lot of sense. I think it was a mistake for us to pass them up.

But can the new composition of the American Congress change the attitude of the US administration?

The people in the Congress, the Democrats that have come in, are as opposed to Iran as the administration is. Senator Hagel, who happens to be a Republican actually, has been talking in favour of opening up discussions with Iran for a long time, so there are a few voices in the Congress saying this. But for the most part the Democrats are almost as hostile as the Republicans.

Is an attack on specific nuclear targets still possible?

Personally, I do not think so. If you listen to the Secretary of Defence, the National Security advisor and the President, they say “We are not planning a war”. I believe them. My worry is that if you continue raising the level of rhetoric and bring more military forces into play, this can trigger a response you did not really expect at some point. You are not planning an attack, but you have your forces there to respond very quickly, and it may be very hard to explain why you did not respond if something goes wrong. That is my major concern.

Are Bush and Ahmadinejad two “lame ducks”?

They are, and it is truly fascinating in a way because Bush has two years to go and is obviously leading this opposition to Iran. Ahmadinejad has two to three years, depending on how things go, before he comes up for reelection, and his support right now is very limited. That does not prove that he will lose the next election, but it does mean that it is going to be very difficult for him. So it is conceivable that as long as these two are in power, it is very difficult to see any real progress being made. I regret that very much but it is simply a fact of life.

Thirty years after the hostage crisis, would you expect Iran and the US to be in conflict once again?

Actually now there has been a kind of very Cold War going on between Iran and the United States for 25 years, so I would be surprised if there was an end to the Cold War at this point. It has become a rule for the United States and I think it will go on for a long time.