Relations with Turkey Should Not be Sacrificed

 
MS: In fact, after the difference of opinion between Iran and Turkey over the Syrian crisis, it was thought that holding another meeting in Turkey might be to this country’s advantage and enhance its international credibility. Therefore, the issue of changing the venue to Baghdad or Damascus was raised by Iran. For certain reasons, this was not possible in the first round and this change was planned for the second round.

ID: But because of Turkey’s approach to Syrian issues in the past year, some consider Turkey as an enemy and believe that the form of relations between Iran and Turkey should change. What is your opinion about such a potential policy?

MS: I believe it is a mistake to sacrifice our relations with Turkey because of relations with Syria. Every country has its own specific place in foreign policy. Disagreement between Iran and Turkey over the Syrian crisis should not cause Iran-Turkey relations to be tainted. Turkey is our neighbor and a fellow Muslim country. Given that an Islamist government is currently in power in that country, we can see that Iran and Turkey have many similarities and these cultural similarities can help towards convergence in foreign policy. 

ID: Those who are opposed to Turkey’s behavior with regard to the Syrian crisis believe in all-out support for Syria. They believe that Syria is the bulwark of resistance and that the fall of Bashar Assad will lead to problems for Hezbollah and the axis of resistance. Do you agree with this? 

MS: No, this is not true. We should not limit resistance against Israel to Assad and his government. In past decades, Syria has been the Arab country that has supported the axis of resistance more than others. It should be noted, however, that Syria itself has never fired even one bullet at Israel, not in the time of Hafez Assad, nor during Bashar’s tenure. However, we should not neglect the fact that Syria has helped Hezbollah.

But this does not mean that if there is change in Syria, support for Hezbollah will stop. As I’ve said before, the right policy on Iran’s part would have been to make efforts to mediate between the Syrian government and its opponents so as to prevent a crisis and humanitarian disaster. Iran should have put pressure on Bashar Assad to create widespread and urgent reforms in Syria and to not resort to violence against the people. Unfortunately, Bashar Assad violently attacked the people’s peaceful demonstrations, and the crisis got out of control.

In any case, we must not merely support the Assad regime because of its support for resistance movements; this is a regime that treats its people in such an aggressive way. If we do support them, we will jeopardize our future in Syria and the Arab world. Because of Iran's support for Bashar Assad, our position has been questioned in the entire Arab world. This support has led to the further charge against Iran that it encourages sectarianism.

ID: You mentioned that they accuse Iran of sectarianism and Shiism. It seems that some agree with the idea of geopolitical Shiism in Iran’s foreign policy, and believe that one factor in Iran’s power is the Shiites in the region. To what extent has the idea of using Shiism politically been mentioned in Iranian foreign policy?

MS: I had not seen such a thing in the policies of Imam Khomeini, i.e., regarding Shiism in foreign policy. There is no doubt that we must support Shiites, but not as political leverage against other governments. I think the Imam’s strategy was the same. It was for this same reason that the Iranian revolution was named the Islamic Revolution, not the Shiite Revolution. This revolution also looks beyond its borders and has understood that, in addition to Iran's interests, the interests of the entire Muslim world must be considered.

ID: However, this approach may be raised against Saudi Arabia's approach to sectarianism in the region. In this case, is such a confrontation correct?

MS: The correct way to deal with this behavior by the Saudis is not reaffirming sectarianism. This means that it is not right that we deal with this issue in the same way they do. The correct way to address this is to use the common points of all Muslims in the world, and to try to work together to stand against Israel. The ones who benefit most from a sectarian approach are Israel, the US, Britain, and others who seek to divide the Muslim world. 

ID: What is the prospect for the upcoming talks in Baghdad? Are we moving towards understanding with the West?

MS: I do not have knowledge of the exact content of the negotiations, but what I do sense is that after the Istanbul meeting, both sides want to be optimistic about the negotiations and their stances and statements about the talks have been positive. We must wait and see what happens in negotiations in Baghdad.

ID: Arab countries have always opposed relations between Iran and the West. Does it seem that Arab countries are concerned that Iran and the West might reach an agreement? And do you think that the issue of the Three Islands was again mentioned after the Istanbul talks because of these concerns?

MS: It is a fact that Arab countries consider themselves as Iran’s rivals at least on the issue of foreign policy. And Israel is undoubtedly Iran’s enemy. Both, Israel and the Arabs, know that if there are normal relations between Iran and the West, Iran will be better positioned internationally.

ID: Given that Israel is sensitive to Iran's nuclear issue and that Arabs consider themselves as Iran’s rivals in the region, could these two help with serious threats against Iran?

MS: Both are active in this issue. The Jewish and Zionist lobby in America is active in this regard. The international atmosphere currently believes that Obama is not after war with Iran and it is Israel that seeks a military strike on Iran, and it is in this regard that they are trying to change Obama’s policy. Regarding the Arabs, when the Wikileaks documents were published, we saw that Saudi Arabia had suggested that the US confront Iran, and the exact phrase used was to “cut off the head of the snake”.

ID: Does it seem that Arabs have felt that Iran is in a weak position because of Western pressure, and therefore have new ambitions with regard to the Three Islands?

MS: If the question is whether there will be a military attack on the islands, I do not think that they have such a power. But the idea that their impudence is the result of the international isolation of Ahmadinejad's government seems correct. The reason why such arguments were not made during Khatami’s tenure is that the Iranian government was not isolated at that time, and the government’s international legitimacy had left the Arabs in a passive position and they did not feel that the grounds were prepared at the international level for their false claims.