Write a summary based on this article:

Before sparks began flying between me and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, he began my interview with an unusual olive branch: “I would like to, with your permission, greet all of your readers as well as Web viewers and wish all of them the success and blessings of the Almighty.”

 Mr. Ahmadinejad is a complex, even bizarre, figure. A firebrand with a penchant for making explosive public statements, he is small in person, subdued and very soft-spoken. Even when I pushed him hard on human rights abuses and nuclear deceptions, he responded in even tones while claiming that Iran is manifestly more democratic than the United States.

 Another olive branch came hours after our conversation with the release of the two American hikers who had been imprisoned unjustly for two years in Iran. Mr. Ahmadinejad didn’t even attempt to suggest that they were spies, but he bristled at my questions about them. He claimed that they had entered Iran illegally and would have merited punishment in any country.

 This was Mr. Ahmadinejad’s only print interview on his visit to the United Nations General Assembly, and he made a significant effort to be friendly and conciliatory. Most important, he repeated an offer made in a Washington Post interview this month to stop all nuclear enrichment if the West would supply nuclear fuel enriched to a 20 percent level. He insisted that Iran will happily give up its enrichment processing if it can get this enriched uranium for “cancer treatment medication.”

 “If they were willing to sell us the 20 percent enriched uranium, we would have preferred to buy it,” he said. “It would have been far less expensive. It’s as though you wish to purchase a vehicle for yourself. No one is willing to sell it to you, then you must set up your own production line to produce your own vehicle.”

 This sounds very much like an incipient deal that Mr. Ahmadinejad initially welcomed two years ago but was later scotched by the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The chief of Iran’s nuclear program, Fereydoon Abbasi, seemed to reiterate recently that any such deal was dead.

 But when I raised those points, Mr. Ahmadinejad insisted that there had never been any daylight between himself and the supreme leader on the nuclear issue and that Mr. Abbasi was not opposed today. When I asked skeptically if Mr. Ahmadinejad spoke for the full Iranian leadership, there was a flash of resentment at the question. He insisted that he did, indeed, have full authority.

 Is this a real offer to stop all enrichment? I don’t know, but it’s worth it for the West to pursue it — without easing sanctions in the meantime. One question is how the West could verify an end to enrichment. I asked Mr. Ahmadinejad about that and noted Iran’s history of deceptions.

 “We have done nothing wrong,” he said, denying sharply that his country had hidden anything.

 Mr. Ahmadinejad called for Syria, his ally, to stop its violent crackdown on protesters, cautioning that “with clashes and confrontations problems will not be solved. They will be multiplied.”

 Oh? What’s the difference with Mr. Ahmadinejad’s own harsh crackdown on dissidents?

 “In Iran, things were quite different,” he insisted, a bit testy. Many of the dead in Iran were members of security forces, he claimed, suggesting that protesters were not deliberately targeted.

 I asked Mr. Ahmadinejad what he thought when he saw the famous photos of a young woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, lying on the ground and bleeding to death after she had been shot in the chest.

 A hint of sadness crossed Mr. Ahmadinejad’s face. I thought, for a moment, that he was going to apologize. Instead, he constructed his own reality: He suggested that she had been murdered by his opponents, working with the BBC, as part of a bizarre snuff film.

 “We do search for those who are truly guilty of murdering this young lady,” he said.

 Our interview became more confrontational, and we tussled over Iran’s repression of the Bahai faith and other human rights issues. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s minders were signaling that the interview was ending, but he seemed to enjoy the give-and-take and ignored them.

 Mr. Ahmadinejad also indulged in a bit of triumphalism. He acknowledged that the West’s “crippling” sanctions against Iran had “worked well.” But he added: “Does Iran face more problems or the United States of America?” He referred to the “collapse” of the American financial system and suggested that Iran’s economy is in better shape.

 He added that the West will be driven by its weakness to “seek a rapprochement with Iran.”

 Then the interview was over, and Mr. Ahmadinejad zoomed back from bombast to conciliation. He beamed and told me: “We truly like and love the people of the United States.” ||||| The following is a transcript of my conversation with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. The interview was conducted in New York City on September 20, 2011, and served as the basis for this column.

 Nicholas Kristof: Mr. President, welcome to New York. Thank you very much for taking the time. If I can start by asking about the American hikers. You said on Sept. 13 that they’d be free in a couple of days. What happened and when will they be handed over?

 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: In the name of God the most gracious the most merciful I would like to, with your permission, greet all of your readers as well as web viewers and wish all of them the success and blessings of the almighty. As you are well aware the American citizens trespassed our borders illegally, according to which we undertook proper prosecution through the proper channels in the judiciary. There have been efforts to free them. And I do believe that all governments do have quite deep punishments for illegal trespassing of their sovereign borders. And we have undertaken efforts to, God willing, free them as soon as possible and it will happen, God willing.

 N.K.: But what went wrong? You said on Sept. 13 that they would be freed within a couple of days and that did not happen. In a sense, are you not speaking for the complete Iranian government? Are there other forces trying to block them?

 M.A.: No there have been no issues to speak of. I said on Sept. 13 that they would be freed in a matter of a few days and it turns into a few days, which we’re still going through those few days. But I was quoted as saying “a couple of days.” It’s a legal process that we must go through.

 N.K.: So would you expect that in the next week they would be released?

 M.A.: Right within that time frame. In a matter of a few days they will be freed.

 N.K.: On another aspect of Iranian/US relations, you have raised the possibility that if the United States were willing to provide low enriched uranium, 20 percent grade, that Iran would stop enriching to that level. Is that offer still on the table? Mr. Abbasi-Davani, the head of the Iranian nuclear program, was quoted as saying that that was no longer a possibility.

 M.A.: Who did you hear that from sir?

 N.K.: Mr. Abbasi-Davani was quoted as saying that before you spoke—before your interview with The Washington Post. What he said was that Iran will no longer negotiate a fuel swap and a halt to our production of fuel and that the United States is not a safe country with which we can negotiate a fuel swap or any other issue.

 M.A.: Yes this is a historic takeaway for us. Many times there have been conversations and agreements, and results were not seen. Tangible results. That alone perhaps is a reason why Doctor Abbasi would be disappointed. We did, I’m sure you do recall, help such talks, but that was turned into a political chance for the western powers. If they give us the 20% enriched uranium this very week, we will cease the domestic enrichment of uranium of up to 20 percent this very week. We only want the 20% enrichment for our domestic consumption. If they give it to us according to international law, according to IAEA laws, without preconditions, we will cease domestic enrichment. This is not something we wish to produce and sell on the open market. 20% enriched uranium, as you know, is not useful for much of anything other than the production of cancer treatment medication. It is not useful for a power plant.

 N.K.: One concern that the West would have over that proposal is the question of verification. The facility outside Qom was in effect kept secret until it was discovered and there are concerns that Iran is enriching in locations we don’t know about. How do you address that and would you be willing to accompany this proposal with robust verification measures?

 M.A.: According to the charter of the IAEA we can undertake such activities but must let the agency know 6 months before the start of enrichment. In the facilities around the holy city of Qom we let the agency know 18 months prior to the start of the enrichment, so in reality what laws have we broken? Unfortunately political pressures exerted onto the IAEA have derailed its core mission. According to the law, again, we were obliged to let them know 6 months ahead of the start of enrichment, but we let them know 18 months ahead of time. So we have done nothing wrong. But, under pressures of the United States government and other governments, they succumb to these political pressures. If they would move according to the laws, we would have no issues, we would have no challenges. All of our facilities have been transparent, continue to be transparent, all of them are open to the IAEA inspectors and have also IAEA cameras installed in them for continuous monitoring.

 N.K.: So I just want to make sure I understand the outline of that deal. If western countries provided 20 percent enriched fuel for the Tehran reactor, then Iran would stop all further enrichment. Is that correct?

 M.A.: Yes, yes, we’ve said this before. We’ve said this many times. This is nothing new.

 N.K.: Once before when this question of moving fuel outside Iran came up, there seemed to be disagreement between you and other figures in the country. Is it clear that you and your supreme leader absolutely agree on this? That you were speaking for the entire country on this question?

 M.A.: When were there differing positions? When did we speak with anything other than a united voice? There were no differences of opinion. Again, if they give us 20 percent enriched uranium, according to IAEA norms, they must give us the fuel and receive proper compensation for it. Anything outside of this framework is illegal. Again the 20 percent enriched uranium other than to be used in the reactor which produces cancer treatment medication is not useful for anything else. It cannot be used for the production of energy and it must be stored in a very sensitive and expensive facility. It has no other use. Twenty percent enriched uranium must be either used for medical purposes for which we set up a reactor and there is only…we have only been able to produce 10 kilograms. If they were willing to sell us the 20 percent enriched uranium we would have preferred to buy it. It would have been far less expensive. It’s as though you wish to purchase a vehicle for yourself. No one is willing to sell it to you, then you must set up your own production line to produce your own vehicle. Which way is more comfortable and less expensive for you? We were forced to set up a factory for a very small quantity. And this is not the type of merchandise or good that we can take to the open market and sell and make a profit on. For each reactor we must make a custom order.

 N.K.: And would there be any circumstances in which Iran would transfer nuclear materials or nuclear technology to another country?

 M.A.: We have even accepted this. Even though it was a precondition and illegal at its foundation. We were willing to exchange, swap the fuel, in Brazil or Turkey, but the United States government…well what can I say? It is the United States government.

 N.K.: There’s been a lot written about Stuxnet. A lot written in this country about Stuxnet. Can you tell us how much it did impede the centrifuges in Iran and to the extent that there was a problem, has that now at this point been largely resolved?

 M.A.: It did not really damage at any level. These types of things do not damage Iran. We have software specialists and program specialists that are very experienced. No one can really disable Iran with an Internet virus.

 N.K.: In 2003 there was discussion of a Grand Bargain between Iran and the U.S. resolving so many of these issues. At that time Iran seemed quite open to such a deal. Is a Grand Bargain still viable in your mind between Iran and the United States today?

 M.A.: We always keep an open mind. We have always been open. We voluntarily shut down our facilities for 2.5 years and we voluntarily executed all of the requirements and implemented. But unfortunately instead of an easing of foundation-less accusations there was an increase in these accusations. So we decided to go back to the letter of the law. No more, no less. Of course we are ready for cooperation. We have always been ready and willing to cooperate and start a dialogue. Let’s have a dialogue. Let’s have mutual enrichment, multilateral enrichment. But unfortunately it’s the United States government. They tend to act unilaterally and force parties to do things and unfortunately we do not react too well to forceful situations but if we go back to the spirit and the letter of the laws and fairness and justice for all we will overcome most of the challenges. An entity that has 5,000-7,000 nuclear weapons in her arsenal…is that entity in a position to tell others not to obtain nuclear weapons? Is this fair? But that’s not even our intention. We wish to use it for peaceful purposes. They tell us you cannot even do that. Whereas they have used it before for war. This is unfair, this is unjust, this is not going to yield results. Those days are gone, those thoughts, those behaviors, can no longer solve the world’s issues. The behavior must change. A behavior modification must be brought about. By accusing Iran, America will not be able to fix her financial and economic problems. American politicians are always hard at work in order to create an external enemy or external evil in order to alleviate problems at home. But allow me to ask you: Is Iran really responsible for the health care challenges, financial challenges, housing and mortgage challenges in the U.S.? High rate of unemployment? Decreasing the quality of education? Is really the Iranian enrichment responsible for all of these domestic challenges? So if we resolve the Iranian uranium enrichment challenges all of these problems in Iran will go away? So the only impediment to democracy and stability and security around the world is Iran? If we did not have enrichment in Iran there would be no problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? These are propaganda campaigns and they’re used to it. They’ve always been like this. They make a lot of noise. They should think of behavior modification and all problems shall be solved.

 N.K.: In terms of behavior, or in terms of opportunities for a dialogue between Iran and the United States, do you see any difference between President Obama and his administration and that of George W. Bush?

 M.A.: Well we were quite hopeful to see some tangible differences. We were looking forward to seeing such differences. Mr. Obama promised change at every level. Deep changes. Many have been left disappointed. We are hopeful that it will take place. Dialogue has certain conditions. It has certain natural frameworks of justice, of mutual respect, of pure intent, and of friendship, and partnership. We cannot hold a stick over someone’s head and force them into dialogue. This is not the spirit of dialogue and cooperation or negotiation. Officially Mr. Obama said that we wish to handicap Iran through embargoes. Trade embargoes. These were not presidential words. Even though the people of Iran are a great people, Iran is a great nation. And as she has, she will continue to live without the United States She can continue to live without the United States. But for a nation like the United States of America, it is not presidential for its chief to speak in such terms. He could have said “I wish to open a dialogue with Iran under a mutually respectful conditions.” We have no problems. We have said it since a long time ago. Under proper, respectful, just fair conditions, we will sit down and open a dialogue. And I repeat the same, it’s true today. It wasn’t us that had problems with the United States of America. There was a unilateral cessation of diplomatic relations started by the United States of America. It wasn’t us. Have we ever tried to come to the United States to carry out a coup d’état? Have we ever occupied countries bordering the United States militarily? Have we ever threatened military action against the United States? We never have. The various governments of the United Sates throughout time have occupied lands bordering our nation, endangering our security, putting us under sanctions, meddling in our internal affairs, showing animosity. Why? What have the Iranian people done to you? What has the Iranian government done to you? Nothing. We had a revolution to free ourselves. And we did. Prior to our freedom, in result of the revolution, a violent dictatorship that was supported by the United States was against the people of Iran. But from the day in which people in Iran gained control of their destiny, following the revolution, we have been brushed aside. Why? Today, the government of the United States says “I stand for democracy.” Why is it that you’re against a democratic country like the Islamic Republic of Iran? There is no advantage in this for them. Being friends with Iran is to their benefit. But friendship has a specific framework. You cannot hold a weapon onto somebody’s face forcing them into your version of friendship. That will not work. They say “we will pressure Iran into a dialogue or negotiations.” How? This is not friendly. And it will never yield results. Iran is a great nation. It has a rich history going back thousands of years. A great people. They will not surrender so easily.

 N.K.: Mr. President, I agree with you that Iran is a great nation. Many of us would agree that the United States has made terrible mistakes in the past in Iran. But those of us who have argued for dialogue, for some kind of a Grand Bargain frankly feel undermined by your government. It is harder to argue for that kind of dialogue at a time when there seems to be a pattern of nuclear deception, when there has been repression of political dissidents, when our American hikers have been imprisoned for what we perceive as unjust reasons for far too long. So it seems to us that a considerable amount of the responsibility also rests on the shoulders of your government.

 M.A.: I am not saying that everyone doesn’t bear a certain responsibility but I ask you: If a hiker runs through a red light, because he or she is a hiker, the police will forgive them and not issue a citation? If a hiker breaks the laws because he or she is a hiker, then the law will forgive? There have been in every country illegal trespass of the borders of a sovereign nation is a crime. Does the United States government allow Iranian citizens to trespass her borders and enter illegally by boat through a body of water…will they allow such a thing? If they trespass and infiltrate the United States or enter illegally, then we can say, well perhaps they were just engaging in a boat race and they did not intend to do so. Would this be acceptable to the U.S.? No! These talks of democracy and human rights, this is something on the world’s scale. No one is in a position to impose their standards or versions on anyone else. If there is an agreement to be reached, we must sit at the table of conversation and reach a mutually beneficial path. Who says that democracy is stronger in the United States then it is in Iran? Who has said that? Really in the United States people are sovereign? Really are the people willing to spend their hard-earned dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than being spent on themselves? Are they willing to lose their sons and daughters in foreign lands for unclear purposes rather than receive those funds for education and health care? When they’re unhappy it shows that they are not in control of their destiny. They do not get the right to choose. So when the will of the people does not prevail, it shows that they do not directly participate. So it’s the political parties that are in control here.

 M.A.: Vis a vis democracy, there must be a formula, a model that must be reached that can be duplicated across the globe. As far as the voice of the people, Iran is much farther ahead compared to the United States. I was a teacher; I was chosen. I was elected by the people and I was not a member of any party. Now—I ask you, in the United States a presidential candidate that does not belong to one of the two main parties—can he or she be elected? No! Can you fit 300 plus million people in two parties, Republican and Democrat? No. But the official members of both parties probably do not surpass half a million. But as far as democracy there must be an informed dialogue. No one can enforce their will—their version of democracy on anyone else—with force, with weapons. And no one can reach that same goal by accusations, by empty accusations. The same goes for human rights. We must all sit and try to reach a mutually beneficial goal. Acceptable goals, ethical goals. The United States government is always seeking to impose her formula, her will, on everyone else. It will not work. Even if NATO comes into the scene alongside the U.S., they will not succeed. Do you think in Afghanistan human rights are being practiced? Security is no longer an issue? Everyone is happy in Afghanistan today? Is there stability? No! Is it the same in Iraq? Absolutely not! So the behavior—the path they’ve chosen—was wrong and is wrong. Everyone, all of the world, together, in unison, must sit and reach these conclusions. No one can see themselves only as the speaker for the whole—of humanity. There are only 300 plus million people in the United States, and many subject matter experts and philosophers and scientists in the rest of the world as well, everyone must help in giving shape to a formula that’s acceptable to everyone. Only in that case will there no longer be unfounded accusations. We are ready to actively participate. We don’t say the word “complete” and have no challenges or issues. we’ve never said that. Nor do we believe that. but we’re not the only ones who have issues. The United States has many more compared to us. So does Europe. Everyone does. Show me one place that has completely and has a spotless record of observing human rights and democracy. In the United States over 30,000 people a year are murdered. Each day 30 people across the United States are killed by police. These numbers have meanings. I’m not trying to accuse or convict the police across the United States but it shows that there is a fundamental underlying issue. We must identify that issue. Accusing everyone without solid foundations and proof will not solve anyone’s issues.

 N.K.: Speaking of countries that are not spotless, tell me about Syria and what President Assad should do in terms of the uprising in his country.

 M.A.: Syria is just like any other country. We have said that they must sit at the table of dialogue with mutual understanding and respect and resolve their issues. Fairness, freedom and respect is the right of all people. With clashes and confrontations problems will not be solved. They will be multiplied. Differences will be multiplied and magnified. And certainly foreigners must not intervene. Intervention of foreigners will only make the problem that much bigger, and will never solve it.

 N.K.: But Mr. President, in Syria, as you say, clashes and confrontation made the problem worse but isn’t that also true of Iran, after your re-election, there were between 100 and 200 people killed, rival politicians are in prison. Aren’t you failing to accept the same advice that you were giving to President Assad?

 M.A.: In Iran things were quite different, and are quite different. In total there were 33 lives lost. More than 2/3 of those killed belonged to the security forces and innocent bystanders. Less than 1/3 were those who clashed with the security/police forces. So they were a very very small minority.

 N.K.: So when you saw the photo of Neda Soltan, what did you think?

 M.A.: It was incredibly sad, due to many reasons. First we have proof that that scene was staged, and she was killed later, at a later point. This footage was shown for the first time by BBC. Our security officers and officials had no information of such a thing. but if BBC makes the complete footage from beginning to end available to us, we will analyze it, we will research it because we do search for those who are truly guilty of murdering this young lady. And also, a scene fairly close to this—almost a photocopy I would say—was repeated previously in a South American country—in a Latin American country. this is not a new scene. And they previously tell those who are due to participate, they tell them that “you will be participating in making a short footage, a short movie, a short clip.” After their participation is finished they take them to some place and they kill them. If BBC is willing to broadcast this film, this footage in its entirety, any viewer would be able to distinguish whether it is as we say or it is as they maintain.

 N.K.: Mr. President, it’s true that many of the criticisms of your government come from the United States, but it’s not entirely from the West. Just a few days ago, Desmond Tutu from South Africa and President Ramos-Horta of East Timor, both Nobel Peace Prize winners, called on you to allow the education of the Bahai and to stop what they regarded as the persecution of the Bahai. Can you address that? And also the perception that Iran has serious human rights problems of its own?

 M.A.: If you want to politicize the issue of human rights it will never be resolved. It is not a political achievement; it is a human achievement. Do you even know the group that you name? Do you know their makeup? Are they a religious group? A truly faithful group? Or a political group? Or an intelligence security group? Let’s make sure they are all named? Let’s make sure they all come forward. Let’s see their true makeup. In the United States is everyone free to do as they wish? There are no laws to respect? If anyone breaks the law will they not be put in front of the judiciary? In Iran there are laws. There are judges. There is an independent judiciary who is not under my control. The judge hails from the government. But the government cannot say or maintain or expect to exert influence on the judge and the judiciary. They adhere to the letter of the law. Because we adhere to the law we do not intervene in the judiciary’s affairs. Perhaps we can reach the conclusion that at some point in time a certain judge has reached the wrong conclusion or passed the wrong verdict. Does this never happen in the United States of America? Does this never happen anywhere else? Yes, we’re all human beings and human beings make mistakes. But can anyone say that in the United States judges do not vote politically? Out of political inclination? Yes, here the government can exert pressure on judges. But in Iran, there is no such possibility because the judiciary is completely independent from the rest of the government. And as far as the two Americans are concerned, we requested that of the judiciary. We requested that they be set free. We requested their forgiveness or a reduction in their penalty but they’re free not to accept my request. I cannot command them to do so.

 N.K.: Mr. President, at the time of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, people were widely upset by the Shah’s regime. They wanted a more Islamic regime. But these days, so many young Iranians know nothing about life before. It seems to me that they are upset by economic difficulties, by corruption, by what seems to me to be fundamentally hypocrisy. What they perceive as hypocrisy. Do you worry that young Iranians who have seen no other government, that in a sense, you’re losing them? That you’re losing their loyalty?

 M.A.: Have you seen Iran sir?

 N.K.: Yes.

 M.A.: How many times?

 N.K.: Twice but once really. I had a wonderful time.

 M.A.: This Thursday I traveled to one of the provinces. I walked through the streets for many hours in the middle of my people. Most of them were made up of the youth. What you say is not really tangible; it’s not a reality. Iran is a nation. They may have differences of opinion, they may have criticisms between one another, based on different opinions, but they all love their country, they all work hard for their country. I think the picture, the framework that you have in your mind based on that, one can reach the wrong conclusion. Perhaps a group may not like me. They’re free to feel that way. They have every right to feel that way. I cannot make everyone like me, or back me, or support me. We respect all of them. And we serve all of them. Now after we implemented the cessation of the social welfare programs, which encompassed every segment of the population, there were those who were for it and there were those who were against this policy. So what you’re talking about exists everywhere. Is every American happy of life in the United States. as it is today? No. If you allow them to come and speak their mind, what would they? They would speak against the United States congress, they would speak against their state governments, their local governments, their judiciaries, and so on. So judgments must be toned down and based in reality.

 N.K.: As you look ahead to another 20 years, say, from now, what kind of a country do you foresee? Do you foresee it becoming closer to the West? Do you think that divide is going to diminish? Do you see it becoming more linked to middle eastern countries? Less linked? What about young people? Just tell me a little about your vision of Iran in 20 years.

 M.A.: So are you suggesting that we get closer to the west?

 N.K.: I would love that.

 M.A.: Why?

 N.K.: Because I think it would support global peace and development if Iran and the West had more of a dialogue, had more interchange, and were closer to each other.

 M.A.: What you say sounds really good and I do agree with you. World peace is only achieved through participation of all parties involved. Everyone must have a share and help. But when it comes to national interests challenges are much more numerous in the west. Does Iran face more problems or Europe? Does Iran face more problems or the United States of America? I believe that in the next 20 years God willing that Iran will be a very advanced country, with great achievements and great scientific achievements. And because they will feel that they have to protect their own interests the west will also seek a rapprochement with Iran. allow me to remind you of this: the United States and her allies have put Iran under sanctions. And they have named it “crippling sanctions.” And they did their best. I will testify to this. I will attest to the fact that they did their best. So let no one believe that the sanctions did not work well. They worked well. But is today the Iranian economy facing a deeper crisis or is the United States economy facing a deeper crisis. Where are the crises? The United States government that was the principal enactor of the sanctions against Iran is suffering the depth of the economic collapse that you see her. so it clearly shows that we must change our lens, we must change our mindset, the situation is not always as we wish it to be. we must also accept it with its reality. Perhaps I can sit and draw a picture of the United States as I want it to be but seldom does reality make itself according to my portrayal. Only at a time when my portrayal is an accurate portrayal will it fit in the same mold and the same thing goes for Iran. Perhaps in our mind we have a certain picture that we would like to draw, it will not necessarily be true. Iran is a great nation. It’s been living her life, serving its people, but you see the world has changed. The dynamics and international relations have changed. Everyone wants legitimacy. Everyone—rights must be respected—we must all join hands. And no one is boss. Let’s remember: no one is master and no is a slave. We truly like and love the people of the United States like people from any other country. We love all people. And we do wish security, success and stability for every person, throughout the world. We believe that success and stability and security will only be achieved through mutually respectful and sincere collaboration which we’ve always been ready for. I wish you success as well sir.

 N.K.: Thank you very much for your time.

 M.A.: You asked very good questions. Thank you very much. We have a lot of freedoms in Iran. I do not believe that you can gain this easy of an access and speak so easily, so at ease, with the president of the United States but you can do that with the Iranian president. This is one of the one of the differences between our two countries.

 END. |||||

– In his only print interview during a visit to the UN, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared “complex, even bizarre,” writes Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. The “firebrand” in public was “subdued and very soft-spoken” in person, offering repeated “olive branches” to his interviewer: "We truly like and love the people of the United States," he noted. But after opening with a blessing for all Kristof’s readers, he grew testy over some of the journalist’s questions. Ahmadinejad renewed an offer to end Iranian nuclear enrichment if the West provided the country with fuel already 20% enriched. The material would be used for “cancer treatment medication,” he said. Meanwhile, the Iranian president appeared frustrated by questions over the American hikers held in Iran; while he didn’t call them spies, he said any country would have punished them. As for the mid-protest killing of Neda Agha-Soltan, Ahmadinejad “constructed his own reality,” Kristof writes. “He suggested that she had been murdered by his opponents, working with the BBC, as part of a bizarre snuff film.” Click through for the full article, or an interview transcript.


Summarize this article:

UPDATE: The actor, most recently seen in "Zero Dark Thirty" and "The Incredible Burt Wonderstone," died of a possible heart attack.

 James Gandolfini, who made his mark on television history as the troubled crime boss on HBO’s smash drama The Sopranos, has died, according to HBO. He was 51.

 PHOTOS: James Gandolfini's Life and Career in Pictures

 Gandolfini died Wednesday of an apparent heart attack in Rome. He was on vacation and set to participate Saturday in an event at the 59th Taormina Film Festival in Sicily with actress Marisa Tomei and Italian director Gabriele Muccino (The Pursuit of Happyness).

 The stocky Gandolfini played New Jersey mafia kingpin Tony Soprano for six seasons from 1999-2007, winning three Emmys for best actor in a drama in consecutive years (out of six nominations total). The show was a linchpin of the premium cable network, luring millions of subscribers.

 He recently had been working on the HBO seven-part “limited event” series Criminal Justice, an adaptation of Peter Moffat's 2008 BBC crime entry. The network at first passed on the drama, but in the wake of strong interest from rivals, decided to move forward in May. Gandolfini plays Jack Stone, a downtrodden jailhouse attorney who frequents police stations for clients.

 PHOTOS: James Gandolfini: 15 Iconic Movie and TV Roles

 "We're all in shock and feeling immeasurable sadness at the loss of a beloved member of our family," HBO said in a statement. "He was special man, a great talent, but more importantly a gentle and loving person who treated everyone no matter their title or position with equal respect. He touched so many of us over the years with his humor, his warmth and his humility."

 Gandolfini's most recent theatrical appearance was in the May 7 release Violet & Daisy, in which he played a guy who wants to be killed by two teenage hitwomen (Alexis Bledel and Saoirse Ronan).

 He has completed a role in Nicole Holofcener's next film, Enough Said, which Fox Searchlight plans to release in 2014. The movie stars Julia Louis-Dreyfus as a divorced woman who strikes up a friendship with another woman, played by Catherine Keener, who helps her restore her self-confidence. Louis-Dreyfus' character then falls in love with a man, played by Gandolfini, who turns out to be her new friend's ex-husband.

 "I'm heartbroken," the director said. "He was a lovely man, and I was honored to know him."

 Gandolfini also has a role in Animal Rescue, an upcoming crime drama also starring Tom Hardy and Noomi Rapace that is set for release in 2014.

 His film résume also includes such films as The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001), the remake of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009), Welcome to the Rileys (2010), Killing Them Softly (2012), Not Fade Away (2012), Zero Dark Thirty (2012) and this year’s The Incredible Burt Wonderstone.

 PHOTOS: 40 Years of HBO

 Before The Sopranos, Gandolfini often appeared as a heavy. He played a hit man in True Romance (1993) and stood out in such films as Get Shorty (1995), Mr. Wonderful (1993), Terminal Velocity (1994), Crimson Tide (1995), Night Falls on Manhattan (1996), She’s So Lovely (1997) and The Mighty (1998).

 An Italian-American, Gandolfini was born on Sept. 18, 1961, in Westwood, N.J. His father was a bricklayer and later the head custodian at Paramus (N.J.) Catholic High School, and his mother served lunches at the school. Italian was spoken in their home.

 Gandolfini graduated from Park Ridge High School in 1979 and earned a bachelor's degree in communication studies at Rutgers University, where he worked as a bouncer at an on-campus pub. He was a visible supporter of the school for years.

 New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez tweeted that Gandolfini was “a proud NJ native and Rutgers alum; an actor for the ages.”

 The Sopranos, created by David Chase, debuted on Jan. 10, 1999, and ran for 86 episodes, garnering 21 Emmy Awards and five Golden Globes along the way. It is considered one of the masterpieces of American popular culture and one of the most financially successful series in TV history. At its ratings peak in season four, the series attracted more than 18 million viewers and later aired in syndication on A&E.

 PHOTOS: Hollywood's Notable Deaths of 2013

 Gandolfini was invited to audition for the part of Tony Soprano after casting director Susan Fitzgerald saw him play a brutal woman-beating mob enforcer in True Romance. His womanizing, hard-drinking, vengeful character in The Sopranos often had to balance family life with the mob; in early seasons, he was hounded by his overbearing mother and suffered from panic attacks that sometimes caused him to lose consciousness. At times, Tony showed a gentle side.

 In a statement, Chase called Gandolfini “a genius. Anyone who saw him even in the smallest of his performances knows that.

 “He is one of the greatest actors of this or any time,” Chase continued. “A great deal of that genius resided in those sad eyes. I remember telling him many times, ‘You don’t get it. You’re like Mozart.’ There would be silence at the other end of the phone. … He wasn’t easy sometimes. But he was my partner, he was my brother in ways I can’t explain and never will be able to explain.”

 Said former HBO Entertainment head Chris Albrecht, who greenlighted the series: “Jimmy was the spiritual core of our Sopranos family, and I am stunned at this devastating loss. He was a great talent, but an even better man.”

 Gandolfini returned to HBO later in 2007 as the executive producer of the documentary special, Alive Day Memories: Home From Iraq, a production from his company Attaboy Films. He produced another documentary for the network, Wartorn: 1861-2010, about the invisible wounds of war.

 Gandolfini later executive produced the HBO telefilm Hemingway & Gellhorn (2012), starring Clive Owen and Nicole Kidman.

 On the stage, he earned a Tony Award nomination for best actor for his role in 2009’s God of Carnage opposite Jeff Daniels, Hope Davis and Marcia Gay Harden and earlier appeared on Broadway in On the Waterfront with David Morse.

 He spoke about The Sopranos coming to an end in a 2007 interview.

 “It’s been a great opportunity, but I don’t have much trepidation about it ending,” he told Vanity Fair. “I think it’s more than time. Part of the fun of acting is the research, finding out about other people. As much as I’ve explored this guy, I don’t know what else to really do with him. I’ve been in one place for 10 years. That’s enough. It’s time for me to do other things.”

 The actor remembered going to a boxing match at New York's Madison Square Garden with some of the cast. “I walked in, there was a stampede,” he says. “The whole crowd started chanting Toneee! Toneee! My manager was in from L.A., and he was like, ‘Holy f—!’' I said to him, ‘You better be nice to me or I'll ask these guys to kill you.’”

 Survivors include his wife of four years, former model Deborah Lin, who gave birth to the couple’s daughter, Liliana, in October. He also has a teenage son, Michael, from a previous marriage to Marcy Wudarski, and two sisters, Leta Gandolfini and Johanna Antonacci. ||||| BREAKING… Refresh for latest: Actor James Gandolfini died suddenly after a suspected heart attack while on holiday in Rome to attend the Taormina Film Festival in Sicily. He was 51. (UPDATE: The autopsy confirmed that Gandolfini indeed died of a heart attack.) Gandolfini will be forever known for his portrayal of mob boss Tony Soprano on the seminal HBO series The Sopranos, which eventually won him 3 Emmy Awards and a $1,000,000-an-episode paycheck. Overweight, balding, rough around the edges with a thick New Jersey accent, Gandolfini was the opposite of a marquee leading man, destined to be a character actor. Yet he proved through his masterful acting that he could make Tony Soprano sexy and smart, towering and powerful. Chris Albrecht who greenlighted the crime family saga at HBO in 1999 and approved Gandolfini in the role, just emailed Deadline: “Absolutely stunned. I got the word from Lorraine Bracco and just got off with Brad Grey who had just heard from David Chase. We had all become a family. This is a tremendous loss.” (Grey was the executive producer and Chase the creator of The Sopranos.) And Gandolfini’s managers confirmed the actor’s death. “It is with immense sorrow that we report our client James Gandolfini passed away today while on holiday in Rome, Italy,’ said Mark Armstrong and Nancy Sanders. ”Our hearts are shattered and we will miss him deeply. He and his family were part of our family for many years and we are all grieving.”

 David Chase, the show’s creator, issued this statement today: “He was a genius. Anyone who saw him even in the smallest of his performances knows that. He is one of the greatest actors of this or any time. A great deal of that genius resided in those sad eyes. I remember telling him many times, ‘You don’t get it. You’re like Mozart.’ There would be silence at the other end of the phone. For [wife] Deborah and [children] Michael and Lilliana, this is crushing. And it’s bad for the rest of the world. He wasn’t easy sometimes. But he was my partner, he was my brother in ways I can’t explain and never will be able to explain.” Gandolfini reunited with Chase for The Sopranos creator’s feature film debut Not Fade Away, a 2012 drama in set in 1960s New Jersey in which the actor co-starred as the father of a teenage rock ‘n’ roll band lead singer. Fans anticipated a Sopranos movie from the pair, possibly a prequel about the Sopranos’ grandparents first coming to America from Italy and starring Gandolfini.

 Brad Grey, The Sopranos‘ executive producer who’s now chief at Paramount, told Deadline: “Jimmy was one of the most talented, authentic and vulnerable actors of our time. He was unorthodox and truly special in so many ways. He had the sex appeal of Steve McQueen or Brando in his prime as well as the comedic genius of Jackie Gleason. I’m proud to have been his friend and grateful for the extraordinary years I was lucky enough to work with him. My heart and support goes out to his wonderful and loving family.” Added longtime Sopranos executive producer Terence Winter, creator/exec producer of Boardwalk Empire, “I’m truly crushed at the passing of my friend Jim Gandolfini. He was a gifted, fearless actor, respectful of everyone he met, and extraordinarily generous in every possible way.”

 “I am shocked and devastated by Jim’s passing,” Gandolfini’s TV wife on The Sopranos, Edie Falco, said. “He was a man of tremendous depth and sensitivity, with a kindness and generosity beyond words. I consider myself very lucky to have spent 10 years as his close colleague. My heart goes out to his family. As those of us in his pretend one hold on to the memories of our intense and beautiful time together. The love between Tony and Carmela was one of the greatest I’ve ever known.”

 Said Gandolfini’s therapist on The Sopranos, Lorraine Bracco: “We lost a giant today. I am utterly heartbroken.” His on-screen sister, Aida Turturro: “I’ve not only lost a great friend, but a true brother, on screen and off. James was the most generous actor to work with, but more so, a man with a heart of gold.”

 Gandolfini’s fellow mobster on The Sopranos, Tony Sirico who played “Paulie”, had this to say: “Jim was one of my best friends in life, he was there whenever I needed him. Not only did he help me with my career, but also in life, god bless him. He and I were always helping the troops, we even went to combat zones to visit the Marines. He will be missed.”

 HBO just told Deadline that it will put a card honoring Gandolfini after the episode currently airing on HBO Signature reading, ”HBO mourns the loss of James Gandolfini, a beloved member of the HBO family.” The pay channel also released this statement: ”We’re all in shock and feeling immeasurable sadness at the loss of a beloved member of our family. He was special man, a great talent, but more importantly a gentle and loving person who treated everyone no matter their title or position with equal respect. He touched so many of us over the years with his humor, his warmth and his humility. Our hearts go out to his wife and children during this terrible time. He will be deeply missed by all of us.”

 Gandolfini was set to topline a new limited series for HBO, Criminal Justice, one of several projects he had in the works. Oscar winner Steve Zaillian is director/executive producer on the project and told Deadline: ”I worked with Jim before The Sopranos and after it, and throughout these many years he has always been the same man. A real man, like they don’t make anymore. Honest, humble, loyal, complicated, as grateful for his success as he was unaffected by it, as respectful as he was respected, as generous as he was gifted. He was big, but even bigger-hearted. I’m so saddened to lose my friend, and sadder still for his family.”

 Related: UNFINISHED BUSINESS: The Projects James Gandolfini Left Behind

 Gandolfini’s portrayal of Tony Soprano was one of TV’s largest-looming TV anti-heroes — the schlub we loved, the cruel monster we hated, the anxiety-ridden husband and father we wanted to hug in midlife crisis when he bemoaned, “I’m afraid I’m going to lose my family. Like I lost the ducks.” In the most maddening series finale in recent history – an episode chock full of references to mortality (life, death, a William Butler Yeats reference to the apocalypse, a bathroom reference to a “Godfather” bloodbath) — his was the show’s last image, seen just as the words “Don’t stop” were being sung on the jukebox. It generated such extreme reaction that the series’ fans crashed HBO’s website for a time that night trying to register their outrage that it ended with a black screen, leaving them not knowing whether Tony Soprano had been whacked. (Related: THAAAT’S What We Were All Waiting For?) Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof referred to The Sopranos‘ infamous ending in his tribute to Gandolfini. “You created an icon. And you cut to black way too abruptly,” he wrote on Twitter. In large part to Gandolfini’s charisma (“Jimmy was the spiritual core of our Sopranos family,” Chris Albright, who is now CEO of Starz, noted today), that Season 5 of The Sopranos in 2004 remains the most watched series in HBO history with 14.4 million viewers on average.

 Gandolfini’s breakthrough screen role came with his portrayal of Virgil, the philosophizing and woman-beating hit man, in Tony Scott’s True Romance. Though his list of credits including dozens of movies were dominated by his signature pay TV role, he parlayed his success in middle age into a broad Hollywood career in front of and behind the action in film, television and on stage. He remained in business with HBO and in 2006 signed a development deal with its film distribution company Picturehouse. In 2007, he produced the documentary Alive Day Memories: Home from Iraq, in which he interviewed 10 injured Iraq War veterans. He returned to the stage in 2009, appearing in Broadway’s God Of Carnage with Marcia Gay Harden, Hope Davis and Jeff Daniels. In 2010, Gandolfini produced another documentary, Wartorn: 1861-2010, in which posttraumatic stress disorder and its impact on U.S. soldiers and families was analyzed. More recently, he starred in the HBO film Cinema Verite and executive produced Hemingway & Gellhorn for the pay channel. After appearing on the big screen again in The Taking of Pelham 123 reboot and In the Loop, Gandolfini was in the recent features The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and Zero Dark Thirty.

 Born in 1961 in Westwood, New Jersey, Gandolfini’s official bio says the Rutgers graduate spent years as a Manhattan bouncer and nightclub manager. He discovered his lifelong profession in the late 1980s when a friend took him to a Meisner technique acting class. He and made his Broadway debut in the 1992 revival of A Streetcar Named Desire with Alec Baldwin and Jessica Lange. His New York stage credits also included On the Waterfront, One Day Wonder with the Actor’s Studio, and Tarantulas Dancing at the Samuel Beckett Theatre. On film he was cast in small but pivotal roles as Geena Davis’ plumber boyfriend in Angie, a loyal Navy lieutenant in Crimson Tide, the enforcer/stuntman in Get Shorty. After he played the mobster in True Romance, it wasn’t long before his he made a living at it in The Sopranos. During the show’s 6-year run, he also won three straight Screen Actors Guild Award besides Emmys for lead drama actor. |||||

– Sad and surprising news from Italy, where Sopranos' star James Gandolfini died of an apparent heart attack today at age 51, reports TMZ. (Other reports say a stroke.) The actor who brought Tony Soprano to life on HBO for six seasons was in Sicily for a film festival, says the Hollywood Reporter. He won three Emmys as best actor in the role, but he also had a busy film career before and after the show. It ranges from 1993's True Romance (where he drew notice as a hitman) to more recent films such as Zero Dark Thirty. "Overweight, balding, with a thick New York accent, Gandolfini was the opposite of a marquee leading man and yet he proved through his masterful acting that he could make Tony Soprano sexy and smart," writes Nellie Andreeva at Deadline. HBO confirmed the death of the Jersey native in a statement: “He was special man, a great talent, but more importantly a gentle and loving person who treated everyone no matter their title or position with equal respect.”


News article:

Snapchat's parent company could go public as early as Wednesday. Illustration: Carl Court/Getty Images

 With Snap, Snapchat’s parent company, expected to go public as early as Wednesday, March 1, investors are preparing for the hottest IPO in years. The company is aiming to price shares between $14 and $16, which would give the company a total market value of $20 billion. For comparison, Twitter is worth about $11 billion, and Facebook, nearly $400 billion.

 The lead-up to the Snap IPO has been a bit rocky. Investors appeared initially skeptical of the company after its prospectus -- an SEC form that companies must file before going public -- revealed some concerning numbers about the business.

 Snap’s IPO Pricing: As soon as March 1, with trading beginning the next day

 As soon as March 1, with trading beginning the next day Expected price: $14-$16 a share

 $14-$16 a share Ticker: SNAP

 For one, Snap’s user growth has started to slow considerably, coinciding with the release of Snapchat-like features on Facebook’s Instagram service. Plus, as expected, Snap revealed that it doesn’t make any money. It also said that it might never become profitable.

 But investors might be coming around right in time for the IPO. Snap, apparently, is a lot of things. To consumers, it’s a messaging company, but Snap calls itself a “camera company.” Now people are beginning to think of it as a serious media company that could draw ad dollars away from television spots.

 If Snap can bring in considerable ad revenue, the company might come to resemble Facebook in the near future. Facebook is up more than 250% since its May 2012 IPO. The fear, though, is that Snap could become the next Twitter, which has fallen out of favor with users, advertisers, and investors. The stock now trades significantly below its IPO price. ||||| Snapchat is popular among teens and twenty-somethings, but their parents, or even grandparents, are more likely to consider buying into Snap Inc.’s $3.2 billion public offering. And that’s an issue as Snap’s initial public offering approaches.

 Unlike Snapchat’s young user base — Snap says the majority of users are between 18 and 34, and users younger than 25 are the most active — many professional investors neither use nor understand the disappearing-message app. Combined with Snap’s large losses and decision not to issue voting rights to investors, the dissonance is holding back some from investing in the offering and may cause issues for the stock down the line.

 Read also: The two views of Snapchat: An app that has peaked or a platform set to blossom

 Snap SNAP, +1.54% is expected to price its offering Wednesday evening. At the top of its $14-to-$16 price range, Snap would receive an initial valuation of $18.5 billion, and this issue will certainly not keep it from selling the initial batch of shares: The offering is reportedly oversubscribed at the high end of Snap’s range, according to Reuters.

 The question is long-term demand after shares begin trading Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange. Experts say that reluctance and confusion on the part of traditional investors could weigh on the stock, and those who do buy could be more likely to drop their shares if the company has a tough quarter.

 While saying that he expects Snap to be the “most high-profile” but “controversial” IPO of the year, Rob Sanderson, managing director of MKM partners, wrote in a note Monday that it may face pressure from a lack of understanding of the app from older investors.

 “We think the use case is much less tangible to middle-aged money managers than an Uber or Airbnb,” Sanderson wrote, adding, “We expect this will be a hurdle for the stock, one that lasts a long time.”

 Paul Nolte, senior portfolio manager of Kingsview Asset Management, said he is struggling to comprehend Snap’s high valuation alongside large net losses and a low revenue-per-user ratio. Neither he nor his clients use Snapchat — “I’m old and they’re older,” he said — which makes it hard to see a user-growth case.

 “Because of that lack of understanding, the first reaction is we’ll steer clear until we see the dust settle,” Nolte said.

 Nolte, who invested in Facebook Inc. FB, -0.76% , but not Twitter Inc. TWTR, -1.25% , said he prefers to wait until the IPO lockup is complete to buy stock so he can see whether there is a long-term case or at least a path to profitability, though he has clients who are interested in investing at the time of an IPO.

 See also: How Snap stacks up against Facebook and Twitter

 David Menlow, president of SecondaryRatings.com, which rates IPOs and secondary offerings, attributes investors’ reported enthusiasm to an overall lack of tech IPOs and the buzz around the offering more than Snap’s long-term prospects. Older investors may not be leading the charge to invest, but rather are deferring to the opinions of their younger counterparts, he said.

 “The investors are just looking around to say ‘I guess it sounds good because everyone’s telling me it is,’” Menlow said.

 Snap’s roadshow presentation included a kind of tutorial, which explained how the app works. It also broke down each part of the app in its prospectus.

 Snap’s prospectus broke down each part of the Snapchat app for unfamiliar potential investors.

 Greater understanding of the app may not lead to higher opinions, though. Eric Schiffer, chief executive of private-equity firm Patriarch Organization, said he believes that if investors were to understand and use Snapchat, they would see that the company faces a large competitive threat from Facebook’s Instagram and its recently launched “Stories” offering that mimics Snapchat’s popular feature with the same name.

 “I think that if they sat down at the table and had a conversation with their kids, they’d realize how flawed the investment is,” said Schiffer, who admitted he “occasionally” uses the app.

 Don’t miss: Snap IPO boils down to a single question: Do you trust Evan Spiegel?

 Snap reported slowing growth in daily active users and cited “increased competition” since Facebook released the Instagram Stories feature.

 Snap may see trouble later on from investors who don’t quite understand the app, Menlow said, especially if Snap’s user growth slows during a quarter. If they don’t buy in to the importance of Snapchat or understand social media cycles, they may back away from the stock.

 “If they had the understanding, they would know that this is a blip in a positive long-term profile,” Menlow said.

 Opposing views: Three reasons to skip Snap IPO and Snap could be the new Facebook

 Even if investors don’t use the app, they are able to see the benefits and advertising opportunities of social media companies while still not being able to separate Snapchat out as a clear winner, said Kim Forrest, vice president at Fort Pitt Capital Group.

 “I think that shows how social media has really identified itself to investors regardless of age,” Forrest said.

 Still, Forrest said she is steering clear of the offering because it does not sound like Snap will be returning shareholder capital for a long time and it is not giving investors voting rights. ||||| As many as a quarter of new shares sold in Snap's IPO could go to long-term investors who will be required to hold the stock for a year, the company said in a regulatory filing on Monday.

 Snap is looking to raise as much as $3.2 billion this week by selling 200 million shares for between $14 and $16 each. The filing says that 50 million shares are expected to be subjected to the so-called lockup period.

 Snap's IPO is the biggest tech offering since Alibaba Group's September 2014 share sale. Allocating big blocks of shares to large mutual funds or even corporate investors is one way to ensure a large stock sale's success.

 In exchange for a guaranteed block, the big investors may agree not to dump the stock — though Snap's filing says it may waive the lockup requirement. Snap's IPO was already oversubscribed by at least $6.8 billion heading into the weekend, Business Insider reported. Snap's Monday filing says that it doesn't have any binding agreements relating to the lockup yet.

 It is expected to set a price for its shares on March 1 and begin trading on March 2. The company could raise the price for its shares — or increase the number of shares it's planning to sell — before Wednesday.

 Here's the excerpt from Snap's filing (emphasis added):

 "We expect approximately 50 million shares of our Class A common stock purchased by investors in this offering will be subject to a separate lock up agreement with us providing for a restricted period of one year following the date of this prospectus. These agreements will reduce the number of our shares available for sale in the public market during their term. We may, in our sole discretion, waive any of these lock up agreements before the restricted period expires."

 A representative for Snap declined to comment. ||||| Mark Zuckerberg says he created Facebook Inc. FB 1.17% to make the world more open and connected. Twitter Inc. TWTR 1.28% says it wants to give everyone the power to share ideas instantly.

 Snap Inc., which this week could become the biggest technology public offering in years, is the unsocial social-media company. Not only does its app feature messages that disappear, the company defiantly operates unlike most Silicon Valley outfits, where collaboration and wide-open office spaces are prized.

 When Snap Inc. goes public, Snapchat co-founders Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy will retain control of more than 90% of the company's voting rights. WSJ's Shelby Holliday looks at how Snap's rare share structure stacks up against other tech companies. Photo: Evan Agostini/Invision/AP

 Former employees say often the only way they knew co-founder and CEO Evan Spiegel was at work was by seeing his chauffeured SUV. He avoids holding companywide meetings and prefers to dispense information to individuals or small groups, they say.

 In contrast to the big, open campuses of Facebook and Alphabet Inc.’s GOOGL 0.74% Google, designed for employee collaboration, Snap doesn’t have a headquarters. Its main offices are scattered around Venice, Calif., keeping employees siloed and making communication difficult, the former employees say. The company in its IPO filing listed the lack of a headquarters as a risk factor that could hurt morale, prevent adequate oversight and cost talent.

 So far, Snapchat has won legions of teenage users, who like that what they share now won’t define them permanently—and that it keeps their parents out of their business. And it has attracted advertisers who want to reach a young audience, setting the stage for Snap’s initial public offering. The listing on the New York Stock Exchange is expected to take place this week and could value the company at as much as $22 billion, which would make it the biggest U.S. tech IPO in years.

 A Snap spokeswoman declined to comment or make Mr. Spiegel available for this article, citing the company’s quiet period ahead of the public offering.

 The question is whether this management style and focus on privacy will help the company compete with television networks and challenge the Facebook juggernaut. Mr. Spiegel’s approach at times has left staff in the dark about important initiatives, the former employees say. And it has made the company resist giving advertisers the ability to narrowly target users based on their behavior and preferences, a strategy that has enabled Facebook, Google and others to mint enormous profits.

 ‘Doesn’t talk much’

 “Evan doesn’t talk much,” says Hemant Taneja, managing director at venture-capital firm General Catalyst, an early Snap investor, saying confusion can stem from the fact that Mr. Spiegel doesn’t always feel compelled to explain his concepts to the public.

 In September, he surprised potential investors when he began publicly calling Snap “a camera company” instead of a social-media company. Some investors wondered if Snap was suddenly becoming a hardware company, but Mr. Taneja says the camera concept wasn’t new.

 Snapchat Evan Spiegel chief executive speaks onstage at the American Magazine Media Conference at Grand Hyatt New York in February last year. Photo: Larry Busacca/Getty Images

 Rapid growth and increasingly intense competition are putting Mr. Spiegel’s management style to the test. Snap’s full-time workforce tripled during last year to 1,859 as it expanded internationally.

 It is competing head-to-head with the global social-media giants, especially Facebook, whose Instagram unit already has emulated Snap’s features with some success, such as the Stories feature it rolled out over the summer. Snap in its public filing attributed part of its slowing user growth to increased competition.

 Part of the competition is about the race to hook users first. Instagram is more popular than Snap internationally, and people could be inclined to stick with Instagram if they are already using Facebook, or with Snap if they landed there first. “You aren’t going to switch if you are satisfied with what you are using,” says Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter.

 Snap is also vying with traditional television networks to woo young viewers and advertising. Young people have been drifting away from television to their smartphone screen, where hours of videos from friends can be played.

 Meanwhile, Snap must continue to generate unusual and captivating content—much of which has been meticulously managed by Mr. Spiegel, former employees and business partners say.

 The listing is expected to take place this week and could value the company at as much as $22 billion. Photo: Brendan McDermid//Reuters

 Like many tech executives, Mr. Spiegel attended Stanford University. But that is about where the comparisons end. He was more social than secretive when he arrived at college in 2008, friends recall, even though his high-profile lawyer-parents had had a rancorous and public divorce when he was in high school in Los Angeles. Far from geek, he was the life of the party, they say, and his style was more hipster than hoodie: skinny jeans, V-neck T-shirts, flip flops.

 These days, Mr. Spiegel, who is more of a product designer than a computer scientist, eschews many of the tech industry’s habits, preferring to be away from what he has described as the bubblelike culture of Silicon Valley.

 As he got to college, Facebook was taking off. In just four years since its launch in 2004, the social network had gained 58 million active users (it now has 1.9 billion monthly active users). In February 2009—during Mr. Spiegel’s freshman year—it added the Like button. From the start, Mr. Spiegel wasn’t a fan, friends recall. He would come to see it as a form of social pressure, where people create falsely perfect worlds in the quest to rack up likes.

 Mr. Spiegel said Snapchat was much more, a place for spontaneous interaction that evaporates in the same way a real conversation would. It was also about creativity and fun: Photos and video could be animated in whimsical and ridiculous ways using its functions to make selfies that vomit rainbows, sport puppy and bunny ears, and wear banana faces.

 Ukrainian tennis player Elina Svitolina used Snapchat at the French Open in Paris last May. Photo: Christopher Levy /Zuma Press

 In most cases, photos and videos that users send in messages disappear after they are viewed, and other content disappears after 24 hours, although some items can be saved.

 In the recent company video, created for its IPO, Mr. Spiegel says the ephemerality is “why people love creating Snaps. Because there isn’t pressure to feel pretty or perfect. Self-expression isn’t a contest, it’s not about how well you can express yourself, it’s about being able to communicate how you feel, and doing that in the moment.”

 Conceived for mobile

 Also key to Snap’s success, and unlike incumbents such as Facebook and Twitter: Its design and concept is mobile-only. Content is presented vertically, to fill a smartphone screen; location-based tags and filters are popular; and bite-size content is swipeable.

 As Facebook was trying to transition to mobile in 2012, Snapchat sped out of the gate, catching the bigger company by surprise. Mr. Spiegel saw the smartphone as the new movie screen. When Mr. Zuckerberg offered $3 billion to buy Snapchat in 2013, Mr. Spiegel turned him down.

 Mr. Spiegel’s talent combining a Hollywood approach to content with a keen business sense is admired by many who know him.

 Related Video Snap's initial public offering will enable the social media platform's founders and two Silicon Valley venture-capital firms to rake in a huge fortune. WSJ's Lee Hawkins explains. Photo: Zuma Press

 “For someone of his age, he operates with much more wisdom than anyone else I have seen. I find him to be a very, very clear thinker,” Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, said in an email. When faced with critical decisions on issues like funding and partnering and selling, Mr. Schmidt says, “he gets it right every time.”

 He says Mr. Spiegel, a former student of his at Stanford, is now a friend and customer. Snap has a five-year, $2 billion contract for Google to provide cloud-data storage.

 Other people note Mr. Spiegel’s timing on the dominance of mobile, getting ahead of Facebook and the recognition that social media was getting boring.

 Revenue is generated by brands placing short video advertisements and simple location-linked overlays called “geofilters,” plus more elaborate “Lenses”—Taco Bell made a Lens that turned faces into tacos being doused with hot sauce.

 More than two dozen media and entertainment outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, also provide news, sports, fashion and features. Advertisements are sold to place in the content the media companies produce.

 Snap’s revenue last year jumped more than 500% to $404.5 million. Its net loss widened to $514.6 million, and its user growth slowed somewhat, rising 48% to 158 million in the fourth quarter from the same period a year earlier.

 That revenue is a fraction of the $27.6 billion last year at Facebook, which also booked $10.2 billion in profit.

 Mr. Spiegel has been wary of advertising from the start, worrying that it would feel intrusive. As his business marketing team was crafting presentations for prospective advertisers and business partners, Mr. Spiegel didn’t want to explain the app to them, said one of the former employees. He preferred that CEOs learn it—not from a presentation but from their children. It was “difficult for a salesperson to run that one up the flagpole,” the former employee recalls. A product demonstration is now part of the meetings.

 When Snapchat’s first ads made their debut in October 2014—Facebook was already generating $12.5 billion in annual revenue by that year—Mr. Spiegel’s ambivalence was evident in a company blog post. It told users if they didn’t want to watch the ads, which were in a different section, “No Biggie.” The company wouldn’t place ads in personal communiqués because that would be “totally rude.” It wanted Snapchat advertising to be “the way ads used to be, before they got creepy and targeted.”

 In the past, he has resisted efforts to collect and share information that would enable advertisers to target the app’s individual users. Lately, he has made concessions. In January, for example, Snap signed a deal with Oracle Corp. to help marketers use data from offline purchases, such as supermarket loyalty cards, to target Snapchat users with more relevant ads.

 Ad targeting

 Snap is still far away from the more aggressive approaches of Facebook and Google, which have used precise ad targeting to make billions in profits. As a result, the giants can outspend Snap on talent and fresh content, and bankroll development of potentially expensive new products, such as hardware that taps into augmented reality, or tech that blends computer images onto a user’s real view of the world.

 Mr. Spiegel with his fiancée, model Miranda Kerr, at a White House state dinner last May. Photo: Andrew Harnik/Associated Press

 Because of Snap’s vision of ads as less intrusive than most digital advertising—more like old-fashioned television spots made for a broader audience—Snap ads must have a wider appeal, with high production values, and be spliced into the rest of the app in an interesting way. During the Super Bowl, for example, users could choose to adorn their selfies with either Falcons’ or Patriots’ football helmets or cascade gushers of colorful Gatorade over their heads.

 Snap’s requirements set a high bar for its partners. The small group of media and entertainment outlets that appear on Snapchat have tough targets to meet, according to a person familiar with the process. If Snap isn’t happy, it suggests changes to the content, and if the material doesn’t get enough traffic, the providers fear they could be booted off the app, according to a current and a former editor of content for Snapchat Discover, the section of the app where publishers post content.

 Until lately, a lot of Snap’s advertising has come directly from brands like Coca-Cola Co. and Yum Brands Inc.’s Taco Bell. It has been slow to woo Madison Avenue’s big ad agencies, which have bigger budgets and can commit to longer contracts, and to form partnerships that would enable advertisers to measure the effectiveness of their campaigns. Last summer, Snap hired Viacom ’s Jeff Lucas to help court big deals.

 As the IPO has neared, Snap has signed deals with Oracle Data Cloud, Nielsen and others to ramp up its use of metrics that will dispel some of the mystery that has enshrouded the effectiveness of advertising on the app.

 The stock-exchange listing will force more transparency about the business, including regular updates on user and engagement data. Even so, Mr. Spiegel will continue to keep a tight grip on the company after it goes public. Snap is selling to the public only shares that have no voting power. Afterward, Mr. Spiegel and co-founder and chief technologist Bobby Murphy will retain more than 90% of the voting shares.

 Write to Betsy Morris at betsy.morris@wsj.com and Georgia Wells at Georgia.Wells@wsj.com ||||| Last year, Snapchat's revenue growth increased by an astounding 589 percent, though the company is still not yet profitable. Its daily active user base rose to 158 million in the latest quarter, up from 107 million the year before, although the growth has decelerated a bit in the past couple of quarters.

 The slowing user growth could potentially be a real issue, Cramer said.

 Last summer, Facebook's Instagram launched its own Instagram stories platform, which appeared to be a knock-off of Snapchat. Cramer attributed this as the reason why Snap's daily active user base increased by just 10 percent in the first half of 2016 to the second half, compared to 33 percent in the previous six months. The other reason for deceleration was due to performance issues on Android phones.

 Another possible problem that Cramer uncovered is the immense amount of spending that Snap is doing on cloud-hosting costs. In the next five years, it expects to spend $400 million annually on Google Cloud and another $200 million annually on Amazon Web Services.

 Meanwhile, Snap only expects to hit $1 billion in ad revenue this year. This means at least 60 percent of that will be eaten up by hosting costs.

 "Nevertheless, I think the good absolutely outweighs the bad here, at least for the near- and intermediate-term future," Cramer said.

 While Snap's user growth is still impressive, it has plenty of opportunity to expand internationally. Any company with the immense amount of revenue growth must be doing something very right, Cramer said.

 Additionally, Goldman Sachs is one of the underwriters of the IPO and estimates that Snap could hit approximately $2 billion in revenue by 2018. Even better, Snap could be a great investment if it uses the billions they expect to raise in the IPO to expand new lines of business, and those businesses are successful.

 Regardless of the long term, Cramer expects Snap to be a "phenomenal trade" and its stock to soar when it comes public. Snap is also coming public about a year earlier into its cycle than Twitter did, which means investors can tap into the juicy early-stage growth.

 "If Snap spikes really hard right out of the gate, I suggest waiting for a pullback before you buy or accepting that you missed it if the stock is more than doubled at the opening," Cramer said.

 Ultimately, Snap is expected to price on Wednesday within an expected range of $17 to $18, which would put its market cap at $20 billion. Based on that IPO price, Snap would trade at 20.3 times this year's sales, which sounded expensive initially to Cramer, but compared to Facebook's 19.4 times sales when it came public, it's not exactly uncharted territory.

 "I could see it doubling pretty easily simply because big firms that got a huge slug of stock in the deal will go into the regular market to buy more, so their cost basis will be superb versus the actual closing price," Cramer said.

 Questions for Cramer?

 Call Cramer: 1-800-743-CNBC

 Want to take a deep dive into Cramer's world? Hit him up!

 Mad Money Twitter - Jim Cramer Twitter - Facebook - Instagram - Vine

 Questions, comments, suggestions for the "Mad Money" website? madcap@cnbc.com ||||| (Reuters) - Snap Inc priced its initial public offering above its target range on Wednesday, raising $3.4 billion as investors set aside concerns about its lack of profits and voting rights for a piece of the hottest tech IPO in years.

 At $17 a share, the parent of popular disappearing-messaging app Snapchat has a market valuation of roughly $24 billion, more than double the size of rival Twitter and the richest valuation in a U.S. tech IPO since Facebook in 2012.

 The company had targeted a valuation of between $19.5 billion and $22.3 billion.

 The book was more than 10 times oversubscribed and Snap could have priced the IPO at as much as $19 a share, but the company wanted to focus on securing mutual funds as long-term investors rather than hedge funds looking to quickly sell, the source said.

 The share sale was the first test of investor appetite for a social-media app that is beloved by teenagers and 20-somethings who use it to apply bunny faces and vomiting rainbows onto selfies but faces a challenge in converting “cool” into cash.

 Despite a nearly 7-fold increase in revenue, the Los Angeles-based company’s net loss jumped 38 percent last year. It faces intense competition from larger rivals such as Facebook as well as decelerating user growth.

 Snap priced 200 million shares on Wednesday night at $17, above its stated range of $14 to $16 dollars a share.

 The sale had the advantage of favorable timing. The market for technology IPOs hit the brakes in 2016, marking the slowest year for such launches since 2008, and investors are keen for fresh opportunities. The launch could encourage debuts by other so-called unicorns, tech start-ups with private valuations of $1 billion or more.

 Investors bought the shares despite them having no voting power, an unprecedented feature for an IPO despite years of rising concerns about corporate governance from fund managers looking to gain influence over executives.

 Snap is set to begin trading on Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol SNAP.

 A Banner for Snap Inc. hangs on the facade of the the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on the eve of the company's IPO in New York, U.S., March 1, 2017. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

 OVERNIGHT MILLIONAIRES

 Although Snap is going public at a much earlier stage in its development than Twitter or Facebook, the 5-year-old company is valuing itself at nearly 60 times revenue, more than double the 27 times revenue Facebook fetched when it went public in 2012.

 To justify its suggested valuation and fend off concerns about slowing user growth, Snap has emphasized how important Snapchat is to its users, how long they spend on the app and the revenue potential of the emerging trend for young people to communicate with video rather than text.

 The company has been vague on its plans to lead and monetize image-driven conversations, but has suggested investors put faith in the vision of its co-founder Evan Spiegel, whom it introduced in its investor roadshow as a “once-in-a-generation founder.”

 The 26-year-old will walk away with a roughly 17 percent stake valued at $4.05 billion

 Spiegel and co-founder Bobby Murphy will each be selling 16 million shares in the IPO that earned them $272 million apiece.

 Slideshow (7 Images)

 Dozens of other Snap investors could become overnight millionaires.

 Spiegel and Murphy will maintain tight control over Snap’s stock through a unique three-share class structure. The structure will give Spiegel and Murphy the right of 10 votes for every share. Existing investors will have one vote for each of their shares, while new investors will have no voting rights. ||||| The drone gives a glimpse into what kind of future products Snap may be considering, which would affect the company’s growth. How the company plans to grow is on the minds of investors as Snap goes public this week. Snap priced its initial public offering on Wednesday and the stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday, in what is set to be the biggest technology I.P.O. since the Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba in 2014.

 Snap set its I.P.O. pricing at $17 a share — higher than the expected range of $14 to $16 — valuing the company at $24 billion.

 Getting more visual data such as photographs and video is important to Snap because it helps bolster people’s interactions with Snapchat. Communicating on Snapchat is a highly visual process, intended to create an intense engagement among people with the app. Snap said in its public offering prospectus that the average Snapchat user opened the app more than 18 times a day, and that more than 2.5 billion messages and images were sent each day with the app.

 Evan Spiegel, Snap’s chief executive, has been vocal about his company’s ambitions around cameras. In a video for investors about Snap’s public offering this month, Mr. Spiegel said cameras augmented the way a person communicates, rather than a person’s memory.

 “We’re at the beginning of what cameras can do,” Mr. Spiegel told viewers of the video.

 When Spectacles appeared, Snap faced questions from critics about why it would enter the realm of hardware products. The product is designed to make taking videos a fun and seamless part of everyday life, which dovetails with the company’s goal of getting users to feed Snapchat a steady stream of images and videos. ||||| Snap, the company behind Snapchat, is expected to price its initial public offering today and start trading on the New York Stock Exchange tomorrow.

 Ahead of Snap’s IPO, Recode Senior Editor Kurt Wagner answered some of what are no doubt the questions you’re dying to ask.

 What does an IPO actually mean?

 IPO stands for Initial Public Offering, and it's the first time that a private company starts selling its stock on the public stock market. That means you (yes, you!) are now able to buy a piece of Snap.

 Does this mean we’re all getting rich?

 Sorry, you're probably not gonna get rich, but you never know. People invested in Facebook at $20-$30 a share. It's now worth over $100, so you can make some money.

 Someone is getting rich off this IPO. Who?

 Snapchat's co-founders are going to get very rich. Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy are both going to be worth billions of dollars by the time this whole thing is done.

 Why does Snap want to go public?

 Companies go public for a number of reasons: First, to pay back their investors that have given them money along the way to keep the business going. It's a good way for founders and executives to actually cash out some of the stock that they've earned during their time working there. It's also a way for the company to raise money from people like you who may invest. They can use that money to do things like acquisitions, international expansion and new product growth, things that Snap would love to do.

 Does Snap even make money?

 Believe it or not, Snapchat is a real business. The company brought in over $400 million in revenue last year, the vast majority of which came from advertising. So, even though the app is free, the company is still making money by putting ads alongside all the content that you're creating inside the app.

 Doesn’t Snap make money in other ways?

 Snap also makes hardware, called Spectacles. These are video-recording sunglasses that, until recently, you had to buy out of a vending machine. Snap says those sunglasses don't create meaningful revenue for the company. So while they may be cool, they're not actually benefitting the company's bottom line.

 What could possibly go wrong with Snap going public?

 When you're a publicly traded company, you have to share a lot of information and you have to do it regularly. When you're private, you can keep things like revenue or user growth to yourself, but now, as a publicly traded entity, Snap's going to have to report that number publicly to investors. That means if things aren't going well, all of us are going to know about it. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Those who remember the hype when Alibaba priced its initial public offering of stock in 2014 will get to relive that excitement Wednesday when Snap does the same. Reuters reports the owner of the Snapchat messaging app will serve up a number at the end of the trading day, with expectations of anywhere between $14 and $16 a share and a possible valuation of more than $20 billion. What the buzz is on this "eagerly awaited" IPO: Recode offers a quick-hit Q&A, including such queries as: "What could possibly go wrong with Snap going public?" Kids, teens, and young adults are the ones who use Snapchat the most, but it's the older generations who are more likely to be investors. The elder set's confusion over the vanishing messages could be a problem, per MarketWatch. All eyes would be on Snap CEO Evan Spiegel right now—if anyone could find him. The Wall Street Journal takes a closer look at the company's "elusive" (and apparently reticent) founder. "Evan doesn't talk much," shrugs an early investor. The company's plans for the future are an important piece of the IPO puzzle. Sources tell the New York Times those plans may involve a drone. Despite Snapchat's sluggish user growth and the company's hefty hosting costs, Mad Money's Jim Cramer believes the trade will be a "phenomenal" one. "I think the good absolutely outweighs the bad here," he says, per CNBC. Lock them up? Find out why a big block of investors will agree not to sell their Snap stock for at least a year at Business Insider. A Barron's Next primer ponders whether Snap will follow in the footsteps of Facebook (up 250% since its own IPO) or Twitter (not doing quite as well).


Getty Images

 The Food and Drug Administration announced on Tuesday that it will make a brand of emergency contraception known as Plan B One-Step available over the counter for women ages 15 and older, and with a prescription for younger teens. The pill is currently available over the counter to women ages 17 and older.

 "Research has shown that access to emergency contraceptive products has the potential to further decrease the rate of unintended pregnancies in the United States," said FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg in a statement. "The data reviewed by the agency demonstrated that women 15 years of age and older were able to understand how Plan B One-Step works, how to use it properly, and that it does not prevent the transmission of a sexually transmitted disease."

 The decision by the FDA only partially complies with a ruling handed down by a federal judge in early April, which instructed the FDA to lift all age restrictions on Plan B and make it available to everyone on pharmacy shelves. A panel of scientists at the FDA had recommended in 2011 that age restrictions be lifted on the morning-after pill, but Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius overruled that recommendation, arguing that there was a lack of evidence showing that those under the age of 17 would use the pill appropriately.

 By dropping the age limit to 15 instead of removing the limit entirely, the FDA has ensured that all women will still have to show an ID to the cashier in order to purchase the emergency contraception.

 Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) called the FDA's decision a "step in the right direction."

 "This decision is a step in the right direction for increased access to a product that is a safe and effective method of preventing unintended pregnancies," Murray said in a statement. "It's also a decision that moves us closer to these critical availability decisions being based on science, not politics. Plan B is an essential part of a woman's basic health care and I will continue to push for more information from FDA and HHS on the practical application of this policy while also working to ensure that access is based on science, safety, and efficacy."

 The Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit against Sebelius and the FDA that led to the judge's ruling in April, said on Tuesday that it is not satisfied with the FDA's decision.

 "The FDA is under a federal court order that makes it crystal clear that emergency contraception must be made available over the counter without restriction to women of all ages by next Monday," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the center.

 "Lowering the age restriction to 15 for over-the-counter access to Plan B One-Step may reduce delays for some young women -- but it does nothing to address the significant barriers that far too many women of all ages will still find if they arrive at the drugstore without identification or after the pharmacy gates have been closed for the night or weekend," she added.

 "These are daunting and sometimes insurmountable hoops women are forced to jump through in time-sensitive circumstances, and we will continue our battle in court to remove these arbitrary restrictions on emergency contraception for all women," Northup said.

 This story has been updated with comments from Sen. Patty Murray and the Center for Reproductive Rights. ||||| FDA NEWS RELEASE

 For Immediate Release: April 30, 2013

 Media Inquiries: Erica Jefferson, 301-796-4988, erica.jefferson@fda.hhs.gov

 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA

 FDA approves Plan B One-Step emergency contraceptive without a prescription for women 15 years of age and older

 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that it has approved an amended application submitted by Teva Women’s Health, Inc. to market Plan B One-Step (active ingredient levonorgestrel) for use without a prescription by women 15 years of age and older.

 After the FDA did not approve Teva’s application to make Plan B One-Step available over-the-counter for all females of reproductive age in December 2011, the company submitted an amended application to make the product available for women 15 years of age and older without a prescription.

 The product will now be labeled “not for sale to those under 15 years of age *proof of age required* not for sale where age cannot be verified.” Plan B One-Step will be packaged with a product code prompting a cashier to request and verify the customer’s age. A customer who cannot provide age verification will not be able to purchase the product. In addition, Teva has arranged to have a security tag placed on all product cartons to prevent theft.

 In addition, Teva will make the product available in retail outlets with an onsite pharmacy, where it generally, will be available in the family planning or female health aisles. The product will be available for sale during the retailer’s normal operating hours whether the pharmacy is open or not.

 Plan B One-Step is an emergency contraceptive intended to reduce the possibility of pregnancy following unprotected sexual intercourse – if another form of birth control (e.g., condom) was not used or failed. Plan B One-Step is a single-dose pill (1.5 mg tablet) that is most effective in decreasing the possibility of unwanted pregnancy if taken immediately or within 3 days after unprotected sexual intercourse.

 Plan B One-Step will not stop a pregnancy when a woman is already pregnant, and there is no medical evidence that the product will harm a developing fetus.

 “Research has shown that access to emergency contraceptive products has the potential to further decrease the rate of unintended pregnancies in the United States,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. “The data reviewed by the agency demonstrated that women 15 years of age and older were able to understand how Plan B One-Step works, how to use it properly, and that it does not prevent the transmission of a sexually transmitted disease.”

 The approval of Plan B One-Step for use without a prescription by women 15 years of age and older is based on an actual use study and label comprehension data submitted by Teva showing that women age 15 and older understood that the product was not for routine use and would not protect them against sexually-transmitted diseases. These data also established that Plan B One-Step could be used properly within this age group without the intervention of a health care provider.

 Because the product will not protect a woman from HIV or AIDS or other sexually-transmitted diseases, it is important that young women who are sexually active remember to see a health care provider for routine checkups. The health care provider should counsel the patient about, and if necessary test her for, sexually-transmitted diseases, discuss effective methods of routine birth control, and answer any other questions the patient may have.

 Teva has indicated that it plans to educate consumers, pharmacy staff, and health care professionals about the product’s new status. It has also indicated its willingness to conduct an audit of the age verification practices after the product is approved to ensure that the age limitation is being followed.

 On April 5, 2013, a federal judge in New York ordered the FDA to grant a 2001 citizen’s petition to the agency that sought to allow over-the-counter access to Plan B (a two dose levonorgestrel product) for women of all ages and/or make Plan B One-Step available without age or point of sale restrictions. However, Teva’s application to market Plan B One-Step for women 15 and older was pending with the agency prior to the ruling.

 The FDA’s approval of Teva’s current application for Plan B One-Step is independent of that litigation and this decision is not intended to address the judge’s ruling.

 The Department of Justice is considering next steps in the litigation. In the meantime, the FDA took independent action to approve the pending application on Plan B One-Step for use without a prescription by women 15 years of age or older.

 There are currently three emergency contraceptive drugs marketed in the United States – Plan B One-Step, Plan B, and ella. Plan B, available from generic manufacturers, uses two doses of levonorgestrel (.75 mg in each tablet), taken 12 hours apart, and requires a prescription for women under the age of 17. Ella (ulipristal) is a prescription-only product that prevents pregnancy when taken orally within 120 hours (five days) after a contraceptive failure or unprotected sexual intercourse. The approval of Teva’s application for Plan B One-Step does not affect the prescription status of these other drugs.

 Teva Women’s Health is based in North Wales, Pa.

 The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

 #

 Read our Blog: FDA Voice

 Visit the FDA on Facebook , Flickr , YouTube , and Twitter

 RSS Feed for FDA News Releases |||||

Write a summary.

– The Plan B morning-after pill is moving over the counter. The FDA announced today that the emergency contraceptive will be available without a prescription to those ages 15 and older. The pill also no longer needs to be behind pharmacy counters. Instead, it can sit on drugstore shelves just like condoms, but buyers will have to prove their age at the cash register. Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled there should be no age restrictions and gave the FDA 30 days to act. The FDA said that its latest decision was independent of the court case, and that Justice Department lawyers were still considering their response to the ruling. "Research has shown that access to emergency contraceptive products has the potential to further decrease the rate of unintended pregnancies in the United States," says FDA chief Margaret Hamburg. "The data reviewed by the agency demonstrated that women 15 years of age and older were able to understand how Plan B One-Step works, how to use it properly, and that it does not prevent the transmission of a sexually transmitted disease." Click for more.