A Landslide Victory for Solving Diplomatic Problems
Musavi’s election with a high vote will change the attitude of international community. Interview with Mohammad Ali Sobhani.
Only sixteen days have remained to the tenth presidential elections in Iran, when the incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has to compete with Musavi, Karrubi and Rezaei. Many experts believe that Ahmadinejad’s administration does not have a good record when it comes to foreign relations. Ali Musavi Khalkhali and Arezu Dilmaqani have discussed Ahmadinejad and Musavi’s foreign diplomacy with Mohammad Ali Sobhani, political analyst and former ambassador of Iran to Lebanon. Following comes a summary of the interview:
What happened to our foreign diplomacy in these four years? And how can return things to the place they were?
As soon as it seized power, the present government opposed all achievements of Khatami’s administration. Détente and trust-building, which were followed by Khatami and his diplomatic team, were dismissed. During Khatami’s presidency our relations with Arab, European and Asian countries were at a desirable level and we could claim that our foreign diplomacy intends to serve our development. Entering the international markets and gaining modern technology is possible when you are in good terms with other countries. But Iran has turned into a security problem for the world in these four years. We have undergone sanctions by the United Nations. And you see how other countries treat our citizens. These are the result of an adventurous diplomacy.
How could we reverse the trend? It seems that the situation is worse than the time Khatami ascended to power. We are facing four UN sanction resolutions. How is Musavi going to deal with problems in our foreign relations?
Speeding back to the good days is idealistic. We are facing four resolutions and that’s not a small problem. If there were no resolutions things would have been easier for us. But now we need an artful maneuver to control the situation. I hope Musavi, who is both an artist and a politician, and is known as a rational figure, solves the problem. Musavi’s outstanding characteristic is his rationalism. He never stepped out of this line during his premiership (when the country was engaged in a tough war with Iraq) and his short term as minister of foreign affairs. He would never persist on his opinion of others tried to convince him tactfully.
Another characteristic of Musavi is that he believes in a national consensus when it comes to national concerns. That’s how we can move through difficult cases such as relations with America and our nuclear program. He also believes in using the potential of our international figures such as Khatami. I believe that Musavi will return to the trust-building and détente policy.
From what perspective does Musavi view foreign diplomacy?
Interestingly, Musavi favors a regionalist policy. He believes that our potentials give us a chance to play a more important role in the region, and that would eventually lead to our recognition as a regional power by the international community. Also in Musavi’s view, foreign diplomacy should serve our national interests and development.
Unlike Ahmadinejad, Musavi is realistic. Look at Ahmadinejad’s claims that Iran is ready to manage the world. Many around the globe are not aware that this is merely an idealistic idea. They think that we truly have planned how to subjugate the world. Anti-Iran hardliners who have waited for thirty years to plot against our country are using such statements to mobilize the world against Iran. Israelis who have always been hostile to Iran are making the most of this opportunity, but Musavi is against adventurous policies.
Can we say that the problems in our foreign relations go back to one person, not to the team assisting Ahmadinejad?
Yes. I have mentioned before that decisions on our foreign diplomacy are not made in the foreign ministry in this government. Unfortunately foreign ministry itself has undermined its position as the handler of our foreign policies. Our cultural and diplomatic figures such as Velayati and Kharrazi are not involved in our foreign diplomacy.
What mentality leads to this pattern of conduct?
Distrust of the others and using foreign diplomacy as a tool for domestic propaganda and to gain the support of masses. This is totally incorrect. Foreign diplomacy should never be sacrificed for domestic propaganda. A good example is Holocaust denial, which neither served our interests nor Palestinians’. It only gave way to Israelis and Americans to add pressures on Iran. It facilitated the approval of sanctions against our country and united the world against us. Aggressive policies are neither acceptable in today’s world. Such policies never take us to the regional and international status we deserve.
We have four presidential candidates who all have plans for our foreign diplomacy. Which candidate is the best option in your opinion?
Ahmadinejad’s three opponents have all insisted on reforming the current trend but I believe Musavi the candidate who can best serve our national interests through foreign diplomacy. He has served as a foreign minister, and during his premiership, while we were fighting Iraq as an Arab country; we managed to gain the support of several Arab states. We even made arms deals with them, which shows how successful our diplomacy was. His capability to form a national consensus between different groups is also another positive point.
Who will be Musavi’s foreign minister if he becomes the next president?
Someone who follows his principles. It must be someone who has the highest potential to defend our national interests, boost our prestige, receive assistance from different political groups etc. A moderate figure is a necessity. See what problems Israel is facing with Avigdor Lieberman becoming its foreign minister. Even Americans are uneasy with him. A moderate figure shows the world that we seek peaceful co-existence and agreement.
In these four years, Ahmadinejad has undertaken ventures which no one else had the courage for. Some of these will have a lasting effect on our foreign diplomacy, such as cooperating with figures Professor Mowlana, or Hushang Amir Ahmadi who was trying to seal reconciliation between Iran and the United States. Does Musavi have the power to revoke these measures?
Let me not talk about certain people. But I tell you that a particularly significant characteristic of Musavi is his honesty. And honesty results in transparency. He was forthright with people during the 8-year with Iraq and he will be the same during his presidency. If there is going to be any negotiation, any reconciliation with the United States, people will be informed about that. The present government is not honest with people I believe. The path to rapprochement is clear. Our negotiating team must be the representative of all political groups and no secret deals should be made. People like Hushang Amir Ahmadi have no significance in United States political stage. Using them as a mediator is an insult against the Iranian nation.
Musavi is ready to meet Obama if real changes would be going to happen. What is his general strategy vis-à-vis the United States?
Musavi believes that a national consensus is necessary to resume relations with United States. If we are going to enter such a critical phase, all political groups inside the country should have agreed with it, otherwise all our diplomatic efforts will be useless. Musavi believes in dialogue with United States and our current situation calls for a move towards settling the differences. I think a figure like Musavi is an asset for our society. However, things also depend on how the elections in 12th of June will take place. A landslide victory for Musavi (just like the one which happened for Khatami in 1997) can solve a great part of our diplomatic problems. The elections will heavily influence the international community’s attitude towards Iran.
What happened to our foreign diplomacy in these four years? And how can return things to the place they were?
As soon as it seized power, the present government opposed all achievements of Khatami’s administration. Détente and trust-building, which were followed by Khatami and his diplomatic team, were dismissed. During Khatami’s presidency our relations with Arab, European and Asian countries were at a desirable level and we could claim that our foreign diplomacy intends to serve our development. Entering the international markets and gaining modern technology is possible when you are in good terms with other countries. But Iran has turned into a security problem for the world in these four years. We have undergone sanctions by the United Nations. And you see how other countries treat our citizens. These are the result of an adventurous diplomacy.
How could we reverse the trend? It seems that the situation is worse than the time Khatami ascended to power. We are facing four UN sanction resolutions. How is Musavi going to deal with problems in our foreign relations?
Speeding back to the good days is idealistic. We are facing four resolutions and that’s not a small problem. If there were no resolutions things would have been easier for us. But now we need an artful maneuver to control the situation. I hope Musavi, who is both an artist and a politician, and is known as a rational figure, solves the problem. Musavi’s outstanding characteristic is his rationalism. He never stepped out of this line during his premiership (when the country was engaged in a tough war with Iraq) and his short term as minister of foreign affairs. He would never persist on his opinion of others tried to convince him tactfully.
Another characteristic of Musavi is that he believes in a national consensus when it comes to national concerns. That’s how we can move through difficult cases such as relations with America and our nuclear program. He also believes in using the potential of our international figures such as Khatami. I believe that Musavi will return to the trust-building and détente policy.
From what perspective does Musavi view foreign diplomacy?
Interestingly, Musavi favors a regionalist policy. He believes that our potentials give us a chance to play a more important role in the region, and that would eventually lead to our recognition as a regional power by the international community. Also in Musavi’s view, foreign diplomacy should serve our national interests and development.
Unlike Ahmadinejad, Musavi is realistic. Look at Ahmadinejad’s claims that Iran is ready to manage the world. Many around the globe are not aware that this is merely an idealistic idea. They think that we truly have planned how to subjugate the world. Anti-Iran hardliners who have waited for thirty years to plot against our country are using such statements to mobilize the world against Iran. Israelis who have always been hostile to Iran are making the most of this opportunity, but Musavi is against adventurous policies.
Can we say that the problems in our foreign relations go back to one person, not to the team assisting Ahmadinejad?
Yes. I have mentioned before that decisions on our foreign diplomacy are not made in the foreign ministry in this government. Unfortunately foreign ministry itself has undermined its position as the handler of our foreign policies. Our cultural and diplomatic figures such as Velayati and Kharrazi are not involved in our foreign diplomacy.
What mentality leads to this pattern of conduct?
Distrust of the others and using foreign diplomacy as a tool for domestic propaganda and to gain the support of masses. This is totally incorrect. Foreign diplomacy should never be sacrificed for domestic propaganda. A good example is Holocaust denial, which neither served our interests nor Palestinians’. It only gave way to Israelis and Americans to add pressures on Iran. It facilitated the approval of sanctions against our country and united the world against us. Aggressive policies are neither acceptable in today’s world. Such policies never take us to the regional and international status we deserve.
We have four presidential candidates who all have plans for our foreign diplomacy. Which candidate is the best option in your opinion?
Ahmadinejad’s three opponents have all insisted on reforming the current trend but I believe Musavi the candidate who can best serve our national interests through foreign diplomacy. He has served as a foreign minister, and during his premiership, while we were fighting Iraq as an Arab country; we managed to gain the support of several Arab states. We even made arms deals with them, which shows how successful our diplomacy was. His capability to form a national consensus between different groups is also another positive point.
Who will be Musavi’s foreign minister if he becomes the next president?
Someone who follows his principles. It must be someone who has the highest potential to defend our national interests, boost our prestige, receive assistance from different political groups etc. A moderate figure is a necessity. See what problems Israel is facing with Avigdor Lieberman becoming its foreign minister. Even Americans are uneasy with him. A moderate figure shows the world that we seek peaceful co-existence and agreement.
In these four years, Ahmadinejad has undertaken ventures which no one else had the courage for. Some of these will have a lasting effect on our foreign diplomacy, such as cooperating with figures Professor Mowlana, or Hushang Amir Ahmadi who was trying to seal reconciliation between Iran and the United States. Does Musavi have the power to revoke these measures?
Let me not talk about certain people. But I tell you that a particularly significant characteristic of Musavi is his honesty. And honesty results in transparency. He was forthright with people during the 8-year with Iraq and he will be the same during his presidency. If there is going to be any negotiation, any reconciliation with the United States, people will be informed about that. The present government is not honest with people I believe. The path to rapprochement is clear. Our negotiating team must be the representative of all political groups and no secret deals should be made. People like Hushang Amir Ahmadi have no significance in United States political stage. Using them as a mediator is an insult against the Iranian nation.
Musavi is ready to meet Obama if real changes would be going to happen. What is his general strategy vis-à-vis the United States?
Musavi believes that a national consensus is necessary to resume relations with United States. If we are going to enter such a critical phase, all political groups inside the country should have agreed with it, otherwise all our diplomatic efforts will be useless. Musavi believes in dialogue with United States and our current situation calls for a move towards settling the differences. I think a figure like Musavi is an asset for our society. However, things also depend on how the elections in 12th of June will take place. A landslide victory for Musavi (just like the one which happened for Khatami in 1997) can solve a great part of our diplomatic problems. The elections will heavily influence the international community’s attitude towards Iran.