We Are the Major Power of the Region

 

 

 

Iran’s position in the region and its relation to visits of European and American senior statesmen to the strategic and crucial region of Middle East was the topic of our interview with Dr. Sadegh Kharrazi, Middle East expert and Iran’s former ambassador to France.

 

Our interview started with the simultaneous visit of Bush and Sarkozy and moved to parliamentary elections in Iran. However, there were issues such as US presidential election, third resolution’s draft, and Ahmadinejhad’s trip to Iraq that is going to occur at the last days of February, which we didn’t manage to cover.

 

Sadegh Kharrazi believes that Iran is a regional power but apparently its cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq has not been advantageous for the country. When we asked him about the reason, he just told us to ask it from statesmen. Etemaad’s interview with Dr. Sadegh Kharrazi, Iranian senior diplomat, started with this question:

 

Middle East is the political and strategic center of the world today. Energy economy in the region, beside geopolitical, historical, and civilizational factors is the reasons for centrality of the region.

 

As you know Middle East is the birthplace of all religions and civilizations of the world, so it has always been important. There’s nothing special about these visits, particularly when American troops are present here.

 

But Bush’s trip at the current circumstances is a sign of United States’ new moves in Middle East. Therefore this trip has multiple aspects; first, pursuing the peace process in Middle East; second, forming a bloc against a regional power called Iran, who has a high self-confidence in the region. This self-confidence is not something particular to the present government. At first, it goes back to a potential power called Iran and second, it’s the result of 30-year attempts made after the Islamic Revolution. The third aspect of Bush’s visit is pursuit of Middle East democratization process that is the cornerstone of Americans’ school of thought, announced since their presence in Iraq.

 

Of course some countries formally welcomed Mr. Bush; however, Mr. Bush’s presence and his stance faced many protests and criticisms. But anyway, we must go to the roots of this trip, compare it with Mr. Sarkozy’s visit, and analyze both.

 

Bush’s presence in the Middle East obviously shows a weakness in the political structure of United States’ foreign policy.

 

Trust in United States among Arab States has sharply decreased.

 

There are several reasons: among the nations of the region United States’ anti-Islamic and anti-Arab policies, especially steps taken in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, are highly disfavored. There are grave concerns and doubts about Bush and his administration. That’s because since America has declared war against terrorism, the region has faced more crises. It can be said that not only terrorism has spread, but also anti-American and terrorist attacks have become more complicated. These have reduced the United States’ power in the region.

 

The United States has come forward with such slogans but the real outcome has been nothing other than massacre of Muslims. Therefore, currently a major question has risen among the nations of the region. The presence of America has not only been helpful, but it has obviously reduced power of United States’ friends in the region.

 

The other point here is the geopolitical and geostrategic position of Iran in Middle East and in Shiite geopolitics, which has faced America with a kind of legitimacy crisis. This non-legitimacy is not natural to power and rule, but it concerns legitimacy of the presence and policies of the United States in the region, and Americans have no other way than forming a bloc against Islamic Republic of Iran’s policies in the region. Even in some cases Iran’s regional policies are not at odds with that of America but due to non-familiarity or misunderstanding of Iran’s status in the region, Americans are thinking of a new containment plan against Iran.

 

 

This is a crucial question. I think the countries of the region have maximum cooperation with the United States against Iran and they can’t do anything more. These countries have provided America with their military bases and intelligence system, there’s nothing more to offer. Therefore I have doubts even if Bush’s goal to form a bloc has been successful.

 

It’s just rhetoric.

 

If democracy wants to be established, its natural outcome will be fall of the entire regimes of Middle East. If democracy in its true meaning is going to be realized in the region, people’s choice of their rulers will be something different.

 

Social demands in countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Egypt are different from what the United States assumes. Surveys and the general atmosphere in the Islam and Arab world talk of something else.

 

Therefore this goal will remain a lip service after Bush’s visit and the general result of this travel will be only raising spirits and mending America’s position in the region. I see this visit only as a symbolic one.

 

That’s another issue. These payolas have always been offered in form of commerce or military-security cooperation and they’re not surprising.

 

You see, some Arab states such as Bahrain, Qatar, and UAE have provided Americans with military bases. They have remained silent because of their weakness, but in usual they too are not content with cooperation with America.

 

But however, the reality is that they have given their military bases to Americans and we believe this is an obvious threat. Each country with a [military] base which uses it for propaganda and cold war is actually running a cold war against us. But Saudi Arabia and Egypt adopted more explicit stances.

 

They don’t want their military bases to be used. In both their behind-the-scenes negotiations and overt stances they clearly stated that they didn’t want their territory to be used in attack against another country like Iran.

 

Also, they directly remarked that Iran is not a threat to Saudi Arabia. Also the Saudi officials are in contact with Iranian officials, Supreme leader, and the total Iranian political system in a high level. They know that we cannot change our policy.

 

Saudis have also responded to Americans’ exaggeration. After all, Saudi Arabia is different from all other countries. Although it is a strategic ally of the United States, it is not fully submissive. Just like the Kuwaitis.

 

To balance Bush’s visit to Kuwait, they sent their Foreign Minister to Iran. Although it was a prearranged trip, it could be postponed.

 

Kuwaiti FM’s visit to Tehran after Bush’s trip conveyed a clear message for the Americans: if you want to maintain relations with us, let us maintain our ties with Iran. Therefore, Bush’s travel could only have a propagandistic effect, not anything more.

 

I don’t think they are all prearranged and in accordance. Of course, with a conspiracy theory we can put them together and bear the threat of United States’ military attack in mind, but I think in another way.

 

The release mechanism was against the objectives of Bush’s administration. Stronger position of anti-war group in the United States nearly removed the chances of military attack on Iran since they announced that Iran’s nuclear program has been non-military since 2003.

 

Of course the report contains a lot of mistakes in terms of content and technical issues. It is not a report totally for Iran. It is full of strategic mistakes, so I don’t think these events share the same goal.

 

I see the boats’ dispute as highly suspicious. Revolutionary Guards (Sepaah) and Iranian officials have denied this encounter. Maybe suspicious moves by radical groups that are not related to Iran have been taken because they can also possess speed boats. Anyway, the whole story is suspect. Americans also acted sensibly 48 hours after the incident. They too reached the conclusion that probably extra-regional terrorist groups have gained access to speed boats.

 

Everything is possible but both sides’ vigilance is really important. I believe that Iranians acted sensibly since the first day. And the Americans became sensible after 48 hours. This incident showed that Americans do not want to engage in a battle in the region. They know really well that starting a battle with Iran is playing with fire.

 

 

Firstly because of the self-confidence I mentioned. We must appreciate this self-confidence. Also I think that the United States’ military body is not ready for such a battle.

 

And the region will not assist America in this case. Iran and the world’s circumstances don’t encourage America to do so. Iran’s political regime is different with Iraq’s regime that was a dictatorship which had fallen before the occupation, not knowing that itself.

 

Afghanistan didn’t even have a political regime. There was only a rebel group present there. So the circumstances of these two countries were different from Iran’s. Iran is the most important power of the region. It has got the biggest economy, although there are deficiencies in some fields. We are having problems with inflation but our economic capacity can not be compared with any country of the region.

 

Our technical and technological knowledge is not comparable with any country of the region. If we act more wisely we can become the biggest economic and industrial power of the region, but unfortunately, due to some incorrect policies this has not been realized yet. However, these features leave America with no choice to launch a military attack on Iran.

 

Why should Bush ever reach the conclusion to attack Iran? The nuclear dossier is being probed in IAEA. Other countries believe that we must give it time so that the problem becomes resolved. Also I think that Iran’s nuclear program is not Americans’ priority.

 

Their priorities are problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Middle East, and Afghanistan. Americans need propaganda and they have to answer their need. I answer your question with another question. Is there any basis for conflict between Iran and the United States? The answer is no.

 

Of course a cold war has always dragged on and this war is not something new. Iranians had once been an ally of the US but now they’re a regional power and have had the highest cooperation with Americans on terrorism.

 

Americans know well how Afghanistan was conquered. Did they conquer it? Never. If our military and security forces did not follow our national interests, this country could have never been occupied. When some Afghan troops approached Kabul, Americans had become apprehensive. They urged Afghans not to take control of Kabul too early.

 

Americans claimed that according to their intelligence system a heavy battle will start in Kabul but that never happened. Seizure of Kabul had frightened them. It was the same in Iraq. Could they succeed if we didn’t wish to and if we didn’t cooperate? Never.

 

Security agreements between Iran and United States have been truly appropriate up to now. But Americans always act condescendingly. They want Iran’s cooperation without any repay and unfortunately I have to tell you that Iran’s recent cooperation with the United States have been without any repayment. This is a defect of our foreign diplomacy.

 

You must ask this from those in charge. But as a foreign diplomacy expert I believe that we cooperated with Americans in Iraq without any repay.

 

Always. We had close cooperation in Afghanistan but what did they give us? Naturally, they had to offer us privileges in return for our cooperation. We must be aware so that this unpaid cooperation does not extend to other affairs in Middle East and nuclear case. There must be some vigilance among our foreign diplomacy handlers to act wisely.

 

Sarkozy faces towards the other side of Atlantic. Before this, France’s priority had been establishing ties with Middle East countries. But Sarkozy tends towards Atlantic. There has been a gap between states of the region and France and its foreign policies.

 

Also, France has had a historical and traditional presence in the Middle East, which is far more deep-rooted and powerful than America’s presence. So France started a new move to firstly, not to fall behind America in the region, keep its base, and sign contracts on construction of nuclear power plants so that it can keep the nuclear market of the region for itself. France is one of the major countries of the world in providing nuclear power plants.

 

 

Exactly. And sometimes the foreign policy of America is not exactly in one row with France or Britain’s policies. It’s competitive in some fields. This is obvious in some regions.

 

The French are building a new generation of their nuclear power plants in the region. Now we have to ask the Arabs if they ever think of having nuclear power plant four or five decades ago.

 

After the resistance of Iranian nation on their nuclear program, West, in a strange way, is trying to peacefully nuclearize the region under its own control.

 

The world today needs clean energy. There is something we do not understand and it would be fine if others made us understand this. [That is] if it wasn’t for our resistance and the price we paid, would Westerners provide nuclear power plant for UAE?

 

That would be never possible. They [UAE] looked at Iran’s experience and relying on this experience they acted better than the others. Nuclear power plant is given to them because it’s a necessity for the region.

 

We had signed contracts with them [West] and they committed to construct power plants for us, but they didn’t. [So] we followed the process ourselves and when they saw that we have found the knowledge they created a crisis for both themselves and us.

 

We do not appreciate ourselves. What is happening in the region is the result of the self-sacrifice of the Iranian nation. There for we must be assertive. If we had an active and dynamic foreign policy, then we didn’t have to go after unnecessary disputes.

 

We must assertive. Other countries are achieving nuclear technology at an expense that the Iranian nation has paid. Of course that [nuclear energy] is something favorable and the necessity of a clean life.

 

It think Sarkozy’s visit was more important.

 

Because Sarkozy follows three main goals in his travel to the region. Firstly, France is following a non-American attitude to resolve the problem in Lebanon. It believes that America is plunging Lebanon into crisis, while they [the French] know Lebanon better.

 

Second, French’s foreign policy is active and they have directly remarked that they accept a nuclear Iran that is entitled to nuclear rights. Of course they utter some political and international threats that I think it is just lip service and is aimed to balance their ties with United States and Israel.

 

Therefore, such stances shouldn’t be taken seriously. The important point here is that France is seeking the region’s lucrative economic market so it has no other way than to act regionally. The way Sarkozy treats Israel has incensed states of the region and in his recent trip Sarkozy has tried to compensate.

 

Our Supreme Leader has the key role in the country’s foreign diplomacy. He has clearly set the principles which show we must maintain our fundamental stances. Therefore nobody can manipulate the foreign policies.

 

It is not important who attempts to do this manipulation, whether the ruling party or the opposition. Foreign diplomacy is the realm of the Supreme Leader and under his authority. The other important point is consolidation of national unity. This can prevent any misfortunate event. As you can see, every time the people have played an active role, they have manifested our national might. So people’s role is a factor that counters threats.

 

People must be encouraged to play an active role, by the statesmen, political groups, and parties. Holding a fair election is one of the turning points in presence of people to consolidate national unity and counter threats. The grounds for the presence of all trends must be prepared and the government and the Guardian Council must also take a national perspective. People’s presence along with participation of all political tendencies is the perfect symbol of the influence of domestic policies on foreign policies.

 

[It can affect it] heavily. The 1997 election [of Khatami] rendered Iran’s security-military case into a political-international case. When the new government rose to power, our case was a political case, not a security one, but some events changed the course.

 

No. His stances changed attitudes towards Iran into a security look, but our case didn’t become a security case. Our enemies really took advantage of it. I don’t want to talk about the quality and cause of Holocaust, but this reality has been exaggerated.

 

The ones who launched Holocaust must be tried. Holocaust has not taken place in the Islamic world or Middle East, so why should we pay any price for it? Imperialism with its media influence is distorting the facts.

 

There’s another point I want to mention and that is, each instance of the presence of nation in the domestic stage that strengthens national unity and Islamic consolidation will considerably influence foreign diplomacy.

 

It provides handlers of foreign diplomacy with more chances to maneuver, whether the handler is a government who seeks détente and trust-building or a government that rocks the world with its slogans.

 

No. we shouldn’t only ask people to their best. The statesmen should prepare the grounds for a great election before hand.

 

An enthusiastic election needs an unbiased attitude and an attentive view. It needs a perspective under which we can find out where our national borders are. We shouldn’t accuse each other of being connected to other countries.

 

We must have a national perspective. We must have an understanding of the relation between national authority and unity with national threat and security. If we understand this relation and hold an enthusiastic election, it can definitely affect our national security, because we are all in the same boat.

 

I do not want to talk about past, I want to talk about future. If we think realistically we are all responsible. Everybody must participate, every group with any attitude. We may have conflicts with the government, but we are not against the regime. We believe in it, we believe in the constitution and the Supreme Leader. We think that some must not exclusively possess the Islamic Republic and Supreme Leader to themselves.

 

The biggest injustice that can be done to the nation and to the country is to monopolize the Leadership, Constitution, and values of the country for oneself. Has anybody been granted a monopoly here [to control the country]?

 

Let’s not forget that national unity is not a piece of writing that can be created by a paper and a pen. It requires courage and tolerance. So people’s participation strengthens national security and chances of political maneuver.

 

Yes.

 

Most apparently weakness of the political system, the government, and the body of foreign diplomacy.