This Government Cannot Influence Regional Developments

Dr. Seyed Mohammad Sadr, Deputy for Arab and African Affairs in the reform government foreign ministry, believes that the current government doesn’t have the ability to influence the region, while it even provides these dictator governments the opportunity to accuse Iran of intervention in these uprisings.

IRD: How have the recent movements in Arab countries influenced our country? And how has Iran been able to use this situation to its advantage?

SMS: The movements in North African and Middle Eastern countries make me both happy and sad. I’m happy about these movements, because they indicate that these people have become politically conscious, and are seeking their civil rights. In other words, after many years, people in these countries are pursuing their freedom, sovereignty, and civil rights. This is a blessed phenomenon because people have reached a level of awareness in concluding that they should stand against despotic and tyrannical governments, and ask for their rights.

Especially since these people were forced to sacrifice their civil rights for years due to the relation of their despotic rulers with Israel. I’m very happy that these days are over, and the accusation made against Arab countries for being ignorant of civil rights is cleared and now they are after their rights and national sovereignty, while supporting the Palestinian cause as well.

However, I’m very disappointed that the Iranian government is not able to use the developments in these Arab countries to our benefit. I believe that if we witnessed the foreign policy continuity of the reform government, in which the party in power had a good international reputation and  good relations with neighboring countries, this government could have used this situation in the interest of Iran and other Muslim Arab nations to bring the current popular movements to the desired result. However, unfortunately, we lack such a government in Iran.

IRD: What would happen in the absence of such a government?

SMS: In the absence of such a government, other countries take advantage of this opportunity. For example, Turkey has played a great role in these developments. Even Saudi Arabia- which has invaded Bahrain- is now politically active in these developments. Other countries are also somehow engaged in these developments.

Unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad not only was unable to play any positive role in these events, but he has actually acted in a way that those who oppose these popular movements are able to accuse us of intervening in Bahrain. I believe that this is an opportunity that the government of Mr. Ahmadinejad granted them. If a logical and wise government were in office in Iran, even if such accusations were made they would not be believed and accepted by the world community.

IRD: Is this weakness on the side of the government or the foreign policy apparatus?

SMS: The main problem goes back to Mr. Ahmadinejad and the government. Mr. Ahmadinejad initially conducted policy in a manner that is known as a foreign policy of “adventure”, unpredictability, and controversy. This policy gradually weakened his position and the position of Iran regionally and internationally. Statements made by some unofficial authorities and the media might have been influential- especially with respect to the recent events- however, their influence did not equal that of Mr. Ahmadinejad himself and his government. In other words, the statements of unofficial authorities is not taken into account in diplomacy. However, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s controversial stance as a president creates a different reflection.

In any case, we are in a position where the government doesn’t have the ability to influence these developments in the interest of our country and the region. On the contrary, this government has provided dictator governments and those who oppose these popular movements with an opportunity to accuse Iran, pursue their goals, and continue the suppression of their people. 

IRD: Nevertheless, the government has been trying to expand relations with Arab countries in recent years. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s visits to the Emirates and Qatar and his desire to improve relations with Egypt are examples of this. Why hasn’t this desire led to the expansion of ties?

SMS: Diplomacy is a mutual affair. It’s not like one side is after establishing relations but the other side is not. When Mr. Ahmadinejad visited the Emirates, I criticized his act. He was the first governmental official who visited the Emirates before the issue of the three islands was resolved. This trip gave the wrong impression to the Emirates, indicating that he was not sensitive to the territorial integrity of Iran. Unfortunately, this trip also brought the misconception that Iran had to take such trips in order to get out of isolation, especially since these trips were insisted upon by the guest and not the hosts.

When policies are controversial and propagandist instead of being reasonable, no other result can be expected. The result of such controversial policies is that it suddenly attacks the international community, and when it receives no response, it immediately gives up and assumes a position of weakness. This is also true in the case of restoring relations with Egypt, when Mr. Ahmadinejad said that he was ready to reestablish relations with Egypt within the next 24 hours. These statements were made during Mubarak’s security regime- he paid no attention to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s proposal- and this was a huge humiliation for Iran.

His participation in the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council Summit in Qatar, and the offensive encounters he received in response to his proposals, was a strategic mistake. These behaviors indicate that there’s indeed no reasonable and prudent strategy in Iran’s foreign policy. This is why even when we behave from a position of weakness we still achieve no result.

IRD: What causes this behavior and how can it be corrected?

SMS: The current situation is the result of six years of work. The status quo was not created over night. An example of this policy could be seen when the British Navy personnel were captured by Iran when they trespassed into Iranian coastal borders, and then were suddenly released. All these cases manifest Mr. Ahmadinejad’s confusion in the foreign policy scene. However, this confusion is also observable in internal affairs- especially the economy- as well. This confusion is seen in appointing cabinet members, too. The fact that we witness strange and unpredictable events in the political climate of Iran is the manifestation of this political confusion.

So, in my view, foreign policy does not involve fighting with other countries, or surrendering to them. Some think that we should either take a harsh tone with other countries, or surrender to them; but both of these approaches are wrong. In other words, we should talk to other countries, including the US, from a firm position accompanied with logic and reason. Basically the détente policy taken during the Reform government, which raised Iran’s position, was based on the same logic.

IRD: What do you think is the main reason behind Iran’s recent disputes with Bahrain and the PGCC?

SMS: This dispute has its own reasons on both sides. The Arab governments- including Bahrain- who feel weak cannot find an excuse to suppress their people and they cannot justify the intervention of Saudi Arabia in their internal affairs; therefore they try to relate their problems to foreign elements. This is a method practiced by all dictators. All dictators attribute any movements within their domain to foreign elements, because they can’t accept the fact that their people are seeking their rights.

The other side of this issue is Mr. Ahmadinejad’s government, which has been unsuccessful in its foreign policy and has no position in regional countries, Asia, Europe, America, and the UN. Therefore, any accusation made against this isolated country is believed and accepted. However, we must ask those who accuse Iran of intervention in Bahrain’s uprisings whether these movements are only seen in Bahrain. Is Iran intervening in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, and Syria as well?

The truth is that the dictators ruling these countries cannot accept that their people are demanding their freedom and rights. It seems that the right path is to accept the reality and apply some reforms; otherwise, the dictators will achieve nothing by suppressing their people and accusing other countries of intervention.

IRD: Will these tensions continue? Could they lead to serious conflicts?

SMS: Propaganda and political warfare will continue between Iran and other Arab countries, but I don’t think that they will lead to any military conflict. Countries have always taken advantage of the mistakes made by other countries in the realm of diplomacy. These countries will continue with their propaganda against Iran. The relations between the PGCC members will become even stronger, and the erroneous issue of the three islands will be brought up again. We should be careful that popular uprisings in these countries are not sacrificed by unwise actions on both sides, and we should try to reasonably support these uprisings.

IRD: What is this proper and reasonable policy?

SMS: One of the main issues is that our position and reaction to all these uprisings, whether in Bahrain, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Egypt or Tunisia, must be consistent and without any discrimination. As officials have also indicated, our support for the Bahraini people is not because most of them are Shiites.

We should make it clear that we support all anti-dictator and democratic uprisings in all these countries. Therefore, no discrimination must be seen in our position toward the people of, for example, Bahrain and Syria.

IRD: Do you think that these movements could spread to Saudi Arabia as well?

SMS: No. Saudi Arabia is different from all other Arab countries. In Saudi Arabia people have few economic problems. What’s more, the Al-Sauds have applied changes in their policies in recent years and paid more attention to the needs of their people. They have especially paid attention to the Shiites, and allowed them to vote in local Councils. We even witnessed King Abdullah’s daughter talking about the rights of women, and the fact that they must be active in all political areas. When these statements are compared to the previous stance of Saudi Arabia over women’s issues, we realize that they are moving on the path of reform.

In addition, the demands of the Saudi people are different. The Salafis and the Saudi clergy have different demands compared to the intellectuals and the youth. Therefore, it’s not very probable that these uprisings will spread to Saudi Arabia in the short term. Another important fact is that unlike Bahrain, Shiites are the minority in Saudi Arabia. They demonstrate in support of the Bahraini Shiites, but these protests are not seen in all parts of Saudi Arabia. But it is probable that these uprisings will hasten the pace of reform in Saudi Arabia, and under the influence of these events Saudi officials will become more serious in implementing these reforms.