Reducing Tensions with the Arabs

IRD: Iran-Kuwait relations have reached their worse level in the last two decades, and Kuwaiti officials accuse Iranian authorities of spying while Iranians deny this accusation, and express their sorrow for the Kuwaitis. We conducted the following interview with Ali Jannati, who is publicly known as Ayatollah Jannati’s son, but is one of the most experienced diplomats in Kuwait.

Before the revolution he was engaged in armed struggle against the Shah’s regime with Mohammad Montazeri, and later had to leave the country for Kuwait. He has been the Iranian ambassador to Kuwait during the presidencies of Hashemi, Khatami and Ahmadinejad, and while he was at work the two countries experienced calm and steady relations.

 IRD’s interview with Ali Jannati:
 

IRD: Recently, Iran has faced some trouble with the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council. They accuse Iran of intervention in Bahrain’s internal affairs, but why do you think this accusation is made against Iran?
 

AJ: The accusation of Iran’s intervention in Bahrain is surely wrong. They make it seem like Iran is behind the uprisings in Bahrain. However, Bahrain’s issues have not started recently, and they go back to 40 years ago.

Sheikh Isa bin Salman, the former Emir of Bahrain and the father of the current king, ruled the country since 1961.  While in power, he used a brutal dictatorship to rule the country. He imprisoned those who sought freedom, and many Bahraini intellectuals had to move to other countries due to the repression at home. He died in 1999 and his son Shiekh Hamad was crowned as king. Hamad ran a series of reforms and allowed the parliament to be formed again; he granted the possibility of return for some exiles, and gave license to some nongovernmental newspapers.

However, a few years into his reign, he began to follow his father’s footsteps. He restricted political activities, and these restrictions expanded from 4 years ago. The Shiites in this country, who constitute 65% of the population, feel that a Sunni minority- which is trying to change the country’s demographics- is ruling over them. They have imported Indian and Pakistani nationals so that Shiites will not be the majority any longer.

They have also arranged the electorate in a way that the Shiites can only have 18 of the 40 parliament seats.

Shiites are not content with this situation; Sunnis are also not very content either. The repressions in this country and the recent developments in Egypt and Tunisia were the triggers for the Bahrainis to protest the current situation.

IRD: So what is Iran’s role in intervening in Bahrain?
 

AJ: The only position the Islamic Republic has taken is in the media, in which it tried to support the popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

The fact that a dictator rules a country and his son inherits it after him is not acceptable in today’s world. Therefore, these people felt that they needed democracy and participation in their future; they protested having these demands in mind, and that’s why Iran is supporting them. Bahrain, like other countries, has been covered in Iran’s media, but it is a more sensitive case since it’s a neighboring country and the developments there directly influence us.  
 

IRD: So why has this issue been raised?
 

AJ: The Persian Gulf countries- especially Saudi Arabia- are nervous about and threatened by these developments. They felt that if the Bahraini kingdom collapsed it would directly influence Saudi Arabia. In other words, the eastern part of Saudi Arabia- an oil-rich area populated by Shiites- would immediately fall into a crisis which would later spread to other parts of the country.

The kingdom in Saudi Arabia lies in the hands of very old people who have been ruling the country for a very long time. Due to the danger Saudi Arabia felt by the fall of Bahrain monarchy, it convinced the PGCC to intervene in that country.

However, not all other members agreed to intervene. Qatar and Oman did not send any troops to Bahrain, and Kuwait only sent one navy frigate under Saudi pressure. Therefore, Saudi Arabia has intervened because of the fear it is feeling, and tried to drag along other members of the PGCC into Bahrain as well. The UAE, which feels some internal weaknesses, also send troops into Bahrain.
 

IRD: What is reason behind these accusations and what are these countries trying to achieve through fueling tensions?
 

AJ: These countries- which have major domestic issues and are not willing to confront them- try to blame an external force like Iran for their problems. Through accusing Iran they can also accuse their own people of becoming the tools of foreigners and put them under more pressure. They can also warn the Sunnis that Iran is trying to convert the people of the region to Shiism by overthrowing their governments.
 

IRD: How have the recent developments in the Arab world helped spread Iran’s influence and power?
 

AJ: Surely Iran’s influence has expanded during the past decade, and that is what the PGCC is afraid of. During the Iran-Iraq war they supported Saddam Hussein in order to prevent the expansion of Iran’s revolutionary ideals and influence. Years after the war this fear is still present among them, because they think that if Saddam- who was backed by the PGCC, France, England, and Germany- could not defeat Iran, therefore it must be very influential.

After the US invasion of Iraq and with the formation of a new Iraqi government, their fear heightened because this new government consisted of people who had lived in Iran and had political and emotional affinities with the country. Therefore, they feel that after the collapse of Saddam’s regime, Iran has the upper hand in Iraq and is influencing that country.

They fear Iran’s influence in Lebanon as well. In the 1970’s, Lebanese Shiites were discriminated against and they even had to mention their sect on their ID cards. The Christians had the main positions in the army and government. The Shiites were the weakest force in this country. But now they are involved in the government. Hezbollah and the Resistance are standing against Israel and some accuse Iran of influencing them, but the truth is that they have very close spiritual and ideological affinities with Iran.

Shiites in general, in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait etc., are growing under the influence of Iran, but this influence is misinterpreted as intervention.

Since 2003 they have been accusing Iran of intervention in Iraq but they have never revealed any documents showing Iran’s military intervention there. It is true that Iran has spiritual influence in the region, but this influence is different from intervention. However, they label it as intervention to be able to poison the atmosphere, or in the case of Bahrain, to justify their presence and crack down on the people.
 

IRD: What are the Arab countries doing against Iran’s influence?
 

AJ: The officials and intellectuals of these countries have always focused on two issues, even at times of peace and stability with Iran. First, they claim that Iran is a totally different country because it’s not Arab and is Persian. The other issue is the Shiite- Sunni difference. They use Sunni clergies to promote this sectarianism, like in Saudi Arabia where they use Wahhabi and Salafi elements against Iran.
 

IRD: What policies should we take against these actions?
 

AJ: We should try to reduce the tensions with our neighboring countries, because tensions will not benefit anyone in the region. In all the governments following the Islamic revolution, one common point was stressed, which was having good relations with our southern neighbors. In other words we have always followed a policy of tension reduction and confidence building. But currently, since the Arab countries are faced with internal problems, they try to heighten the tensions.

Therefore, we should move toward building an atmosphere of confidence and stability. I believe our media’s actions are not appropriately calculated. We suddenly started an “invasion” in our media against these countries, which could have been conducted with more consideration. We have to take a position according to the developments in the region, but it seems like we are viewing things in black or white and not considering any nuances.
 

IRD: Kuwait has brought up the issue of an Iranian spy network in Kuwait. Could you explain what this was about, and why was it such a bold accusation?
 

AJ: This case was first opened about 11 months ago, in April 2010. While I was in charge in Kuwait, I told the Kuwaiti authorities that this accusation was wrong and that it was made by the US embassy in Kuwait, the CIA, and the military intelligence of Kuwait.

They designed this scenario to disrupt relations between the Islamic Republic and Kuwait. At that time, Kuwaiti officials told me that they had no claim against Iran and that they were sure that Iran wouldn’t do anything to disrupt security in Kuwait. These positions were immediately announced in the media as well. During this time those who worked closely on the case, including the defendants’ lawyer, said the court officials were also mocking the security forces for accusing members of a family of being part of a spy network.

The case was dormant and the lawyers believed that their defendants would be acquitted. But now that the tensions are high in the region, they bring up this case again. This shows that the pressures of countries like Saudi Arabia are driving this case. I know that we have no such network in Kuwait to gather information, and this case was made under the pressure of some Persian Gulf countries. Raising this case now evidently shows that it is politically driven.