Options against Iran Still on the Table
Iranian Diplomacy has interviewed Dr. Davoud Hermidas Bavand, foreign affairs expert on recent comments of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and Susan Rice on Iran.
UN resolutions, 5+1 incentives… are still applicable. Interview with Dr. Davoud Hermidas Bavand, foreign affairs expert.
Iranian Diplomacy has interviewed Dr. Davoud Hermidas Bavand, foreign affairs expert on recent comments of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and Susan Rice on Iran.
United States is sending clear signals to Iran. How do you see the recent remarks by American officials?
It’s a new opportunity Iran should use the best. Actually, Iran should also show relative flexibility and prepare the circumstances for constructive talks.
According to Hillary Clinton, the administration is undertaking a broad survey of policy options toward Iran. What are these options?
Options such as UN resolutions, 5+1 incentives…which are still applicable. Messages delivered by Joschka Fischer and Gerhard Schroeder are an instance of options still available in dealing with Iran. These initial steps determine the future prospect.
With what you said is there a possibility of change in U.S. approach with Obama’s presidency?
There is a tendency towards change. And Mr. Obama is earnestly following changes in domestic and foreign policies especially with regard to those countries U.S. is having problems with, Iran clearly one of them.
A policy shift signifies intentions for reaching a mutual understanding. But it should be bilateral. Both sides should moderate their stances and show relative flexibility to move from understanding towards agreement.
Can we trust U.S. hand extended toward Iran? And will Tehran clasp this hand?
Politics is not a love story. There is neither absolute hostility nor total friendship. It is the circumstances, that is, necessities and interests, which determine interactions. Today, United States thinks that it needs to shift to another approach to fulfill its interests. Iran should use the opportunity and show more flexibility.
Is United States’ fear of Iran’s influence in Latin America justified?
Latin America hasn’t had any historical relations with Iran and is outside Iran’s sphere of national interests. Tehran’s interests are primarily regional. As United States’ political backyard, Latin American countries have faced rapid change, so political investment in these countries is always at stake.
Americans know about the populist nature of the present governments in Venezuela, Peru and Bolivia. In the Cold War era they could be accused of communism, but there is no such threat now. Populist governments that have come to power follow socialistic approaches such as nationalizing industries etc. however, they are exceptions and Iran is neither financially capable of supporting nor geographically able to have solid relations with them. Robert Gates’ concern on Iran’s influence in Latin America is baseless.
Iranian Diplomacy has interviewed Dr. Davoud Hermidas Bavand, foreign affairs expert on recent comments of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and Susan Rice on Iran.
United States is sending clear signals to Iran. How do you see the recent remarks by American officials?
It’s a new opportunity Iran should use the best. Actually, Iran should also show relative flexibility and prepare the circumstances for constructive talks.
According to Hillary Clinton, the administration is undertaking a broad survey of policy options toward Iran. What are these options?
Options such as UN resolutions, 5+1 incentives…which are still applicable. Messages delivered by Joschka Fischer and Gerhard Schroeder are an instance of options still available in dealing with Iran. These initial steps determine the future prospect.
With what you said is there a possibility of change in U.S. approach with Obama’s presidency?
There is a tendency towards change. And Mr. Obama is earnestly following changes in domestic and foreign policies especially with regard to those countries U.S. is having problems with, Iran clearly one of them.
A policy shift signifies intentions for reaching a mutual understanding. But it should be bilateral. Both sides should moderate their stances and show relative flexibility to move from understanding towards agreement.
Can we trust U.S. hand extended toward Iran? And will Tehran clasp this hand?
Politics is not a love story. There is neither absolute hostility nor total friendship. It is the circumstances, that is, necessities and interests, which determine interactions. Today, United States thinks that it needs to shift to another approach to fulfill its interests. Iran should use the opportunity and show more flexibility.
Is United States’ fear of Iran’s influence in Latin America justified?
Latin America hasn’t had any historical relations with Iran and is outside Iran’s sphere of national interests. Tehran’s interests are primarily regional. As United States’ political backyard, Latin American countries have faced rapid change, so political investment in these countries is always at stake.
Americans know about the populist nature of the present governments in Venezuela, Peru and Bolivia. In the Cold War era they could be accused of communism, but there is no such threat now. Populist governments that have come to power follow socialistic approaches such as nationalizing industries etc. however, they are exceptions and Iran is neither financially capable of supporting nor geographically able to have solid relations with them. Robert Gates’ concern on Iran’s influence in Latin America is baseless.