You have said that "if we leave Iraq prematurely, then we are going to empower Iran". Isn't that what has happened after the US invasion of Iraq? When Iran's worst enemy was removed the winner was Iran.
"Well, the Iraqi people's worst enemy was removed with Saddam Hussein. I think we first have to keep that in mind. Secondly, a great enemy of the region was removed with Saddam Hussein, because he had indeed gone to war against Iran, but he also invaded Kuwait and he had repeatedly refused to deal with resolution after resolution. It was very important to deal with the regime of Saddam Hussein. Now, Iran will only be empowered if Iraq does not emerge as a strong and unified Iraqi state that plays its natural role of being a multi religious state with a shia majority government. But Iraqi shia are not Iranian. They are Iraqi nationalists. The Iraqis have no intention of having Iran have influence in Iraq's affairs. In fact, I think you can say the opposite, that Iraq will be a block against Iranian influence in the region."
So you are presently optimistic?
"I am. I think it's a hard road and they have a long way to go and I'll be the first to say that it's been much harder than I would have thought, but the Iraqis are beginning to build a decent society. They're beginning to build functioning institutions of government and they have security forces that are fighting on behalf of all Iraqis, to expel terrorists and criminals in various parts of the country. They've passed important reconciliation laws like their amnesty law, their justice accountability laws. They're looking to their second set of elections sometime before the end of the year. The security situation has improved. So yes, this is a country that has a great deal going for them and if it can manage its differences by politics rather than by violence then it's going to be a very good thing for the Middle East."
What's the most important thing Prime Minister Maliki can do?
"The most important thing he can do is to continue demonstrate that the Iraqi government is going to be government for all Iraqis - for Sunni, for shia, for Kurds, for Turcoman, for the Christian minorities. This is going to be hard because Saddam Hussein didn't leave much room for people to reconcile by peaceful means. It's also important that he delivers and that the Iraqis have their recourses. What they need is the capacity to execute their budgets so that they can deliver electricity to their people and that they can rebuild agriculture."
And then when everything is okay, will you get out of Iraq or how long do you plan to stay militarily?
"Well, we are there at the invitation of the Iraqis. We are there to help them protect themselves against enemies like al-Qaida, to help them train their forces to help them provide population security, although they're already doing that more and more themselves."
How do you comment on the recent reports that there are plans to launch an air strike against the Revolutionary guards in August?
"I don't know where these reports come from. We hear of reports all the time that bare no relationship to reality. The President has been clear that he believes that the diplomatic course that we are on, is likely to produce the result that we want. There have to be reasonable people in Iran who don't want to endure the isolation that Iran is now experiencing. Obviously the President will keep all options open and we want the Americans President to do that. These reports are simply not true."
What is your reaction to some of the expressions in the ongoing Presidential campaign, like Hillary Clinton's about obliterating Iran?
"I don't want to comment on anything that anyone has said specifically in the campaign, but the US has made it clear that it will defend its interests and it will defend the interests of its allies. The Iranians need to understand that. We will confront Iran in Iraq when they engage in equipping militias that are endangering our soldiers. We will confront them in Iraq when we see that they are trying to acquire technologies that can lead to nuclear weapons. We will confront them through the two-track approach that we're using - the UN council's sanctions as well as offering them a different path. And we will make it harder for them to fish in troubled waters by strengthening the Lebanese government and their young democracy. We will try and bring about a Palestinian State because the Palestinians deserve a state, but also because it gives a sense of hope to decent people rather than terrorists"
But you don't want to talk directly to your Iranian counterpart who is here in Stockholm?
"I have told the Iranians that when they do the one thing that the entire international community is demanding that they do, that is suspend their uranium enrichment process, we can meet any time, any place, anywhere and talk about anything. So, the question is really, why does Teheran not want to talk to us?"
So you don't think they would accept an invitation to talk with you?
"Well, I've issued and invitation repeatedly, but I don't think they should be allowed to use talks and negotiations to cover and to stall as they continue to perfect the technologies that could lead to nuclear weapons. Therefore the suspension is important. The US doesn't have any permanent enemies. We're ready to talk, but the Iranians need to what the last three UN Security Council resolutions have required of them."
A few years ago, you said that democracy was the piece that was missing in American foreign policy in the Middle east" and that you wanted to turn the freedom agenda". It looked quite optimistic in Egypt, Lebanon and even in Palestine where there were going to be elections. But now it looks like all the mainstream and moderate forces are going down. It's more a question of power balance than democracy from the US administration right now.
"No, not at all. First of all you can't judge the forward march of democracy in three or four-year segments. If you did that then there are a number of countries that wouldn't have made the hurdle after four to five years that are well-established and stable democracies right now. You can even question if the US four to five years after our terrific constitution came into being - with my relatives as three fifths of a man - would have made the hurdle? Let's take Lebanon as an example. Was there a greater chance for democracy when Syrian forces occupied Lebanon for 30 years? I don't think so. And yes, there is a back and forward between Hezbollah and the March 14 forces, but it is a democratic process in which people are looking to the elections that will happen next year. And frankly I think Hezbollah has suffered great harm by taking up arms against its own people."
Do you still believe in a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine before the end of the year?
"I think there is a prospect that they can do it. It won't be easy, but they have a functioning peace process for the first time since the launching of the second intifada by Arafat in 2001. They're negotiating seriously, I've been with them. These are decent people that are trying to come to a solution."
One year after the terror attack 9/11, you said that now al-Qaida is on the run and Afghanistan is no longer a base for operations". And then the US turned its attention to Iraq, now the situation in Afghanistan is getting much worse.
"No, the US didn't turn its attention away from Afghanistan to Iraq. The US can do two things at once. The Afghan situation is complicated by the fact that this is a very poor country that has been in civil war for 25 years. It's not going to be resolved immediately and yes the Taliban regrouped and came back somewhat stronger. But ever since the enhancement of the security presence of Nato, the Afghan forces have gotten stronger and the Taliban has had great difficulties. They make progress in the only cowardly way that they know, by attacking innocent people with suicide bombing."
Many Swedes are concerned by US interrogation techniques, and frankly the torture that is used in the war against terror. What can you tell them? Do you support these methods?
"Let me first say that the US has been and continues to be the strongest proponent and defender of human rights at home and abroad and nothing has changed that. We have been in a different kind of war where intelligence and information is essential. It is an obligation of the American President to use any means that is legal to try and get information to stop attacks. When we began this war on terror, the President was determined and made it very clear that any American, whatever agency they worked for, would operate under American law and under international treaty obligation and that he would not condone torture. I just want to remind people again that when you're dealing with terrorism and hardened killers; they have one purpose, which is to kill innocent people. There is a responsibility to protect the innocent people."
Now you have little more than half a year left in the administration. Have you thought about what to do after january 2009?
"I don't have much time to think about it. But, when I do, I know very clearly that I belong west of the Mississippi which means I will return to California, most likely to Stanford. And I want some time to reflect on what has been in extraordinary eight years in american history. And I'd like to write a book and I like to teach and lecture again and then we will see from there. But there is no doubt in my mind where I belong geographically."