Zarif; From Running for Office in US to Foreign Minister of Iran
Last week, Mohammad Javad Zarif appeared on a popular hard talk show named “Night Vision”, widely viewed on an Iranian YouTube-like service, Aparat.com. Here are the highlights of the two-hour interview.
*One of [Henry] Kissinger’s well-known viewpoints is when will Iran decide between being a state or an idea? I said: Whenever the United States makes the decision and implements it. He said: The US is an exceptional country! And I replied: Welcome, because Iran is an exceptional country, too.
*It is a long time I’ve known Mr. Hossein Fereidoun (President Hassan Rouhani’s brother). He is adept in pacifying the environment and is the President’s confidant. I hope the flare-ups against him come to an end.
*Our friends make some remarks, as if there is no afterlife.
*I am a critic of how the IRIB covers news. Why are you looking for negative stories? The whole world considers the JCPOA as Iran’s victory. Why do you want to prove it wrong? When Obama says, “If I could, I would not leave a single screw in Iran’s nuclear program, but I cannot”, why do you not emphasize Obama’s “I cannot”. So, why not exaggerate this? Why do you not hyperbolize the dignity of the nation, when Obama says he cannot.Why do you not broadcast the viewpoints of resistance leaders who believe the talks have revived their dignity? Why are you looking for somebody who has said something against it to broadcast a chosen part with an incorrect translation? I do not know why the IRIB is acting like this. One should ask why the negative parts are exaggerated.
*The episode when Mr. Kerry threw a pen at Mr. Araghchi was not that way, that the US Secretary of State intended to throw his pen at Mr. Araghchi. He was vehemently gesticulating when the pen came out of his grip and was thrown at Mr. Araghchi. Mr. Araghchi threw the pen at Mr. Kerry in reciprocation.
*I had media friends and consultants whether inside the country or abroad and after consulting them I decided to come to the balcony sometimes and deliver my message. Given the fact that the other party installed a lectern in front of Cobourg Hotel to speak, naturally it was not good for us to follow suit. As a result, I decided to use the balcony initiative and create the media wave we wanted in the course of the talks from there.
*Ahmadinejad had no interest in me and I had no respect for his policies. I was retired for six years during his tenure. They called me a traitor in the last presidential term.
*My encounter with Obama was quite by chance and we bumped into each other face-to-face. Mr. Kerry introduced him and we shook hands and greeted. Mr. Obama told me something bitter, saying he hoped the encounter would not end troubling us inside Iran. I really suffered from the words. I replied “not at all”, because I felt a diplomat should never appear weak against other parties. Although, it gradually became clear that the situation was not like what I felt it was.
*I do not usually reveal discussions brought up behind closed doors, because a diplomat’s credit is in that he can be trusted.
*The talks became a little bitter. It was almost in the final days of the final talks on the JCPOA in Vienna in June. I brought up something and one of the meeting’s attendants suggested that we would rather go home and stop. And I said go home if you wish, never threaten an Iranian. It was there, that Mr. Lavrov, a twenty-year friend of mine since we were both ambassadors to the UN, added “or a Russian”.
*I believe that Iranians anywhere in the world are our greatest asset. If it was not for their participation in the 2013 election in which they voted for Mr. Rouhani, the ground would not have been paved for the introduction of a new discourse to promote dignified international interaction. If it was not for their participation, even in the recent elections, nobody would welcome us. I am of the same belief regarding Iranians who live abroad. In their own environments, the have the ability to influence and direct public opinion. These are individuals who can act as a bridge for dialogue among civilizations.
*Nobody told me to leave Facebook or Twitter. A series of developments took place and I felt that some friends were using what I posted on Facebook in inappropriate ways. A mutual communication channel can only be used when both sides maintain mutual respect. No one offended me on my Facebook page, but some people started verbal fights with each other on Facebook. They insulted each other. I thought I should not pave the way for such encounters and asked several times. I am not used to deleting comments on my Facebook posts. I left them unedited. Some individuals, who I am sure form a minority and did this on purpose, would bring up stuff that did not match the dignity of an Iranian. My decision to leave Facebook was a personal decision and I hope I will one day overcome the decision and come back because I did like the interaction.
*During the past two years, I have spent most of my time in talks and meetings and had little chance to accompany my family. In addition, my wife impresses her listeners quite well, is a good lecturer in English, discusses very well on spiritual matters. When the talks become tough, she would tell me “when you walk in, it is as if I am part of the furniture”. However, the record-breaking intensive talks that created tensions would require a calming company.
*I had brought up the issue in a meeting and Kayhan’s editor-in-chief was there. When he was going out, he told me they would have a headline the day after that would enrage me. However, the headline was wrong, not truthful. I was moved but my waist did not start aching at that moment. Two hours later, when I was coming out of my office, I felt unable to walk.
*In the final hours of the talks, we had talks in several areas regarding things that would have to be done on the implementation day. For instance, we had to submit our long-term plan. We insisted to include some points in the plan. Some sides would probably have other opinions. It took some time. The differences inside the P5+1 took some time as well. Part of it was also personal issues. For instance, one of the foreign ministers felt a decision was made in his absence. Of course, it also happened in Geneva in the first place. He wanted to prove his influence. Many diplomats do so and I do not consider it bad because after all, you are representing a country, it is not personal, you want to prove that your country must be taken into account.
*If it was not for the enthusiasm people showed after the election of Mr. Rouhani and it was not for my wife and children’s pressure that you cannot choose indolence and idleness, say the peace I always have at home was taken away for those nights. On the one hand, Mr. Rouhani commanded me to take the responsibility when I went to the Research Center of the Expediency Council, and when I went home, instead of helping me calm down, the family also pressed me further on the other hand. If my wife did not insist and abet the children and the son-in-law and the daughter in law to put me under pressure, I would not accept this heavy burden because mistakes in most areas can at most affect a small number of individuals, but in our profession a mistake can be gigantic.
*Let history write whatever it wants, let the critics say whatever they like, we did what we thought were in the interests of the country.
*I will definitely not run for president because my current job is the only thing I know how to do. I am an expert in international relations, as you know, I am one of a handful of individuals who had studied in the major and joined the foreign ministry early after the Revolution.
*The New York Times published an article on me, quoting Lisa Anderson, the dean of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, that asked if I was thinking of running for office in the US. Legally speaking, I could have applied for a Green Card but I never did.
*I am not a mystery I am so simple.
*The United States is not a coherent entity. We are not, either, but we have the Supreme Leader who has the final say and gives our establishment coherence and consistency. We are a polyphonic society and the US is the same but without that axis of national consistency. There are plenty of bureaucratic inclinations. Bureaucracies also affect determination of policies. Say, for instance, why the CIA is trying to avoid accusations of deceit within the US bureaucracy after the catastrophe they quoted CIA that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Islamic Republic is not much liked by the dominant hegemony as it has introduced a new discourse. Some have recognized this reality and believe they have to interact with it. Some are still in the illusion they can confront this reality in a different way. The battle between these two groups is real and will go on. Some outside interests may also intervene. For instance, the Zionist regime wants Iran to be always considered as a threat so that it could implement its actually brutal policies in Palestine behind the veil of an Iranian threat. We saw that the Saudi regime seeks to maintain Iran’s threat and escalate it to be able to continue its crimes in Yemen and in Syria. The more intense these concerns become, the more they demonstrate how the Iranophobia veil has been torn apart, revealing those realities. All these become part of the equilibrium. The outcome does not create trust with the US in the Iranian nation.
*Just look at recent history. Unfortunately, there have been many terrorist incidents but you do not find even a single Iranian involved in any of those terrorist incidents. That, I think, should be reason enough for people to start doubting this picture, this image of Islam, this framing of Iran that has been presented and fed to them for the past many years. Iran has been a victim of terrorism for many years. Iran has been a victim of aggression. When Saddam Hossein invaded Iran in 1980, everybody was supporting him and nobody came to our help. When he used chemical weapons against Iran, everybody was supporting him, keeping quiet, and even giving him, including the United States, reconnaissance information that enabled him to use those weapons more directly against Iran, including Iranian civilians. But the Iranian people never took revenge against anybody. After the war ended, we welcomed the possibility of establishing the regional security arrangement in our region. We welcomed the possibility of engaging with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, reasons were found or excuses were found in order to continue framing Iran as a threat. Now with the nuclear agreement, that smoke screen is falling apart. Now you see the realities in our region. You see who is supporting terrorism in the region. Who is behind Daesh and Al-Nusrah, and all these people who are beheading innocent individuals in this region. Certainly, Iran has been on the side of those who are fighting these. We believe that we need peace in our region. We believe that we no longer can try to have security at the expense of insecurity of others. And that is an extremely important understanding and recognition of reality that has to sink in everywhere that you cannot have security while others are insecure. The outcome of that is terrorism and extremism. So we need to work together, everybody has to come together in order to establish a better world. And that is why President Rouhani long before Daesh became such a well-known threat in 2013 presented an idea to the General Assembly of the United Nations, called Wave (World against Violence and Extremism). That is the way Iran is dealing with these issues. We believe that terrorism and extremism are global threats and they require global response. The response cannot be just military. It has to be cultural, educational, economic; you need to deal with deprivation, unemployment, disenfranchisement, education and social issues. Why do we not have Iranians who are blowing themselves up? Because Iranians have the possibility of changing the future through the ballot box, as one of the very few countries in this region. When you do not give people the possibility, they will revert to extremism. This is no justification for extremism or violence, but this is understanding them. We need a multifaceted approach to deal with these issues. We need a genuine indigenous formula, not an imported, imposed, particularly by tanks and airplanes, solution. We need genuine indigenous responses to extremism and you need a multifaceted approach. And I think Iran is a serious partner in this fight.