Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says his country supports a democratic solution for the Palestinian- Israeli conflict.

“Now imagine the most cruel person of our time, the child-murderer prime minister of the Zionist Regime [Benjamin Netanyahu] goes to Europe and plays innocent, saying Iran wants to destroy them,” said Ayatollah Khamenei during his meeting with A group of university professors and researchers on June 10, 2018.

Who Wanted to Throw Israelis into the Sea?

“They are truly pioneers in oppression and cruelty throughout history. The European addressee listens and shakes his head, without mentioning their [Israel’s] crimes in Gaza and Quds,” he said adding: “The Islamic Republic acts logically on all matters. On the matter of the Zionist Regime, [Egypt’s late President] Jamal Abdul-Nasser proclaimed they would throw the Jewish people into the sea. We never made such remarks.”

“From day one, we announced a plan. We said, today democracy is a modern method that the entire world’s population agrees on. We said, for decision making on the historical country of Palestine, refer to the Palestinian people. This plan is registered with the United Nations as the statement of the Islamic Republic.”

“Those who are true Palestinians and have been living in Palestine over a hundred years ago–Muslims, Christians and Jews–where ever they are, either in the occupied lands or outside of them. They should be surveyed. Their vote should be applied.”

“Is this a bad opinion?” he asked adding: “The Europeans refuse to understand this. Then, that child-murderer, vicious oppressor plays innocent, saying Iran wants to kill several million people out of their population.”

What is Iran’s plan for Palestinian Issue?
Iran officially announced its proposed solution in 2012 during the 16th Non-Aligned Summit in Tehran.
Iran suggests that all current and former inhabitants of the Palestinian territory should participate in a referendum and decide about their fate and future. Iran’s leader described the country’s suggestion in his Inaugural Speech at the 16th Non-Aligned Summit.

“All the Palestinians – both the current citizens of Palestine and those who have been forced to immigrate to other countries but have preserved their Palestinian identity, including Muslims, Christians and Jews – should take part in a carefully supervised and confidence-building referendum and chose the political system of their country, and all the Palestinians who have suffered from years of exile should return to their country and take part in this referendum and then help draft a Constitution and hold elections. Peace will then be established,” he said during his speech in 2012.
Read Iran’s View’s detailed report about the solutions for the Palestinian- Israeli conflict suggested by different parties.

The post Israeli- Palestinian Conflict: Iran Offers a Practical, Democratic Solution first appeared on .

India and Israel have had friendly ties for many years, but the rapid expansion of these ties, especially in military and intelligence areas, has become a source of concern for Muslim countries.

Given India’s history of defending Palestinians’ rights within the framework of the Non-Aligned Movement, there is the hope that the negotiations of Iranian officials during Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s recent visit to New Delhi could persuade India to maintain a balance in its ties with the Israel and Muslim countries.

Rouhani’s three-day visit to India from February 15 took place shortly after the Israeli premier’s trip to India, as well as the visit of the Indian prime minister to Israel and was the first visit by an Iranian president to the country since Ahmadinejad’s three-hour stay stopover in 2008. During Rouhani’s trip, a number of important agreements were signed. This comes as the Indians did not have a satisfactory performance in their economic relations with the Islamic Republic.

Rouhani began his journey from Hyderabad, an important city with more than 30 percent of Muslim population with a history of political and cultural influence by Iran. Over there, the Iranian president held a meeting with Muslim scholars at the Friday prayers of the Sunni-majority city and delivered a sermon among the worshippers.

Rouhani in India wished that the relations between Tehran and Delhi would once again be warm and close as in the time of the two countries’ ancestors. He, of course, took the first step towards fulfiling this wish with his presence in Hyderabad and visiting historical works inspired by Iranian culture and consulting with Indian Muslims. In this city, he emphasized the Islamic Republic’s desire to expand cultural ties with India.

A consultative meeting with Muslim scholars and the emphasis of the Iranian president on the history of the cultural and Islamic ties between the two countries had another strategic message for India. In fact, Iran, as one of the most important Muslim countries with a long history of presence in India, can help resolve the long-standing conflicts between Pakistan and India and reduce the negative security implications of the conflicts in the region.

In terms of economic relations, specialists believe India’s delay in implementing the Chabahar port development project had a negative message for the Iranians, confirming the analyses that Delhi believes its future ties with Tehran would be shaped by the decisions of the US.

The Chabahar project is currently in progress, and during Rouhani’s visit to India, 15 cooperation agreements were also signed by the two countries’ high-ranking officials.

However, taking into consideration the capacities of the two countries for cooperation, one can say the economic relations between Iran and India are not close enough.

This article was first published on IFP.

The post Iran Hoping to Persuade India to Maintain Balance in Ties with Israel, Muslims first appeared on .

A senior Iranian Foreign Ministry official said the Iran’s nuclear deal with the P5+1 group, known as JCPOA, proved to be a success story, but only for the P5+1. He made the remarks in sideline of the Tehran Security Conference on Monday. More than 200 Iranian and international political figures and analysts attended the one-day event.  

“Iran has fully lived up to its commitments regarding the deal as it has been repeatedly, 10 times, confirmed by the IAEA. However, Iran and the Iranian people would not remember the deal as a success story as the other side of the agreement has not fully honored its obligations. As a matter of fact, Iran has not benefited from easing of the sanctions,” he said during a meeting with a number of European politicians, according to Iran’s View Mojtaba Mousavi.

Trump must decide by January 12 whether to extend sanctions waivers. “What will happens if President Trump does not waive the sanctions and go out of the deal?” the official asked. “What I can tell you is that we have all received our instructions. The Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO) is fully prepared to speed up our nuclear program and we have also our instructions to go and activate the mechanism in the JCPOA to deal with this non-compliance of the deal by the US.” 

Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization chief had earlier warned that the country would reconsider its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) if the US fails to implement its commitments as per the nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers.

Speaking in a telephone conversation with IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano on Monday, Ali Akbar Salehi warned about the consequences of Washington’s possible withdrawal from the JCPOA.

Iran Not Convinced Europe Will Take Its Side after US Withdrawal

“It is the time for Trump to re-certify Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA and extend the waivers. If he refuses to do that, it means the end of JCPOA for the US. But is this the end of the deal for Iran and other parties as well? To be honest, it depends on the Europeans’ reaction,” the senior Iranian official added.
“Europeans must convince Iran that they can deliver on their JCPOA commitments without the US. It’s certainly a very big question. To be frank, however, we are not convinced that Europeans would do that. We are not convinced that Europeans can support their own companies against the US and encourage them to work with Iran in case the US sanctions are back.”

“Europeans have so far failed to convince Iran that they can maintain the deal without the US,” he went on to say.
“Actually Europeans played a very good role in past two or three months to prevent the US Congress from doing anything wrong regarding the JCPOA but I’m not sure they can do the same with President Trump himself.”

It seems that Iranian administration has concluded that the US is determined to exit from the nuclear deal. Iranian political circles are still discussing the best way to react to the failure of the JCPOA and some senior politicians believe that Iran’s reaction should be independent from the EU reaction to the US.

“If the US exit from the deal, Iran must leave the deal. We can’t again rely on the Europeans weak promises, we should put an end to this sequence of damages as soon as US kills the nuclear deal,” says Hossein Lotfi, a conservative political activist.

The post Nuclear Deal, Failure for Iran: Senior Official first appeared on .

A Persian version of this article published on November 3 edition of Iran’s state newspaper Jam-E-Jam. IFPNews.com translated the article into English and published it on November 5.

The global reactions to the temporary restriction of social media in Iran amid the recent unrest raises a serious question for Iranian people: if the freedom of Internet is so much important for other countries, why don’t we see any major reaction to the anti-Iran technology sanctions?
“Use of this service is restricted for your country.” This is a sentence that has deprived Iranian elites from having free access to information, and has for years kept Iranians from enjoying full benefits of the Internet and modern technologies.

Iranian people are considered first-class citizens of the global village only when it comes to the use of Internet for inviting people to street riots. However, if an Iranian wants to use the online territory for science and research, the “visa ban” applies to him/her.

Internet sanctions are good, but just for Iran!

We will later name several countries that have restricted social media in order to ensure their national security without any severe political and media pressure. We can even conclude that during the recent unrest, the Iranian government has shown much more tolerance than the Western countries who claim to be protectors of citizens’ rights. However, the important point is to understand that maintaining peace, security, and national interests is the top priority of any state. All countries, even those whose media is spreading propaganda against the Iranian government, would implement various restrictive measures in emergency situations in order to ensure their security.

Despite all these points, the international media harshly criticized the Iranian government for restricting people’s access to Telegram and made a fuss about it. This, however, has create a more serious question for Iranian netizens: if the freedom of Internet and the Iranians’ use of online services is so much important for other countries and international media, why have they refused to show any major reaction to the fact that Iranian people are deprived of using many online services due to sanctions? Iranian netizens are tired of receiving the message “this service is not provided for your country”. The United States’ widespread technology sanctions, in many cases, have even deprived Iranian people from receiving online training courses, web hosting services, Google’s specialized services, and the like. What is the difference between the Western governments’ restriction of professional Internet services for Iranian users and the Iranian government’s move to restrict certain online services in order to counter street riots?

A decision to restrict the Iranian people’s access to Instagram and Telegram messaging app amid the recent unrest in Iran has made the headlines within the past few days. The decision seems to be mainly aimed at preventing the activities of certain Telegram channels and Instagram pages that published fake news, spread rumors, and incited violence.

Blocking the Internet is bad, but just for Iran!

As expected, immediately after Iran’s decision to restrict access to Telegram and Instagram, which was made in order to prevent the expansion of rioters’ activities, foreign media started criticizing the Iranian government’s decision, describing it as a violation of freedom and civil rights. However, Iran is not the only country that restricts social media in order to control street unrest and prevent the spread of violence.

In August 2011, unrest and street violence broke out in London and several other cities in the UK after the British police killed a 29-year-old man. The British government believed the rioters coordinated their moves using social media, and thus it asked Facebook, Twitter, and Blackberry to restrict these people’s access. Some of these networks accepted the request, but UK Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons that his government was “working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.” At the same time, the UK police announced it would arrest anyone who sends violence-promoting messages using the Blackberry Messenger.

In exactly the same month, the US government shut down cell phone services, including mobile Internet access, in several parts of San Francisco in an attempt to control violence that had resulted from the police’s killing of a number of black and homeless people. The US officials believed that protesters were coordinating their plots to exacerbate the violence using online services.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of the US also includes protocols for limiting the access of citizens and mobile phone users to the Internet at the time of a national crisis. However, the US government has used the Act even against those who protested the construction of North Dakota oil pipeline.

Even France, which claims to be an advocate of Western liberties, has shown no mercy to the Internet and social media users whenever it comes to national security and interests. In 2015, France used an armed attack on Charlie Hebdo’s office as a pretext to block many websites. It even approved an emergency law that allowed the French interior minister to restrict websites and social media if deemed necessary. In 2016, the French ministry of justice arrested at least 39 people just for visiting websites that, according to the ministry, were affiliated with terrorists. Later in 2017, the French government urged the removal of videos related to the 2016 armed attacks on Nice. In the same year, the access of 11 million French people to Google, Wikipedia, and some other websites was temporarily blocked.

The post Why Were Social Media Apps Blocked During Iran Protests? first appeared on .

A Farsi version of this article appeared in the Iran’s state newspaper Jam-E-Jam, November 12, 2016.

Saudi Arabia has introduced a new phenomenon to the modern world; a kind of political hostage-taking, in which a tribal regime has availed itself of modern international legal instruments to advance its primitive policies. Mandatory residence and resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri in Saudi Arabia has put forth important questions regarding the reason, legal consequences, response of the countries and international organizations to it, and finally the issue of “breaking the law through legal instruments”- to which the United States has given rise-, and the essay makes an attempt to deal with them.

Why is Saudi Arabia removing its most important ally in Lebanon?
Regional developments have long been against Saudi’s desire; on the one hand, the victory of the Axis of Resistance in the war on terrorism in Syria and Iraq has increased Iran’s regional power and influence; on the other hand, the decrease of Saudi Arabia’s direct military intervention in Yemen, the disagreements between the countries of the Arabian Gulf region and also the unsuccessful efforts to remove Lebanon’s Hezbollah from the power structure have all turned Saudi Arabia into a potential loser in the transition period in the regional power system in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia has tried to introduce Hezbollah and Iran as the cause of the resignation of Saad Hariri and the emergence of a political void in the Lebanese sovereignty structure so that it could create tension and internal disagreements against the Axis of Resistance while increasing economic pressure on Lebanon as well as making the crisis so critical in such a manner that the only way to sustain the Axis of Resistance would be the retreat of Hezbollah and other political groups opposed to Saudi. In practice, however, the vigilance of Hezbollah and al-Mustaqbal led, unlike Saudi’s desire, to strengthening the unity of the Lebanese, and even the most important Saudi allies in the Lebanese sovereignty were forced to take a firm stand against Saudi Arabia.

An American trick for Breaking the Law through Legal Instruments
Pointing to Hariri’s Lebanese-Saudi citizenship, some analysts say that Saudi Arabia has tried to rescind Hariri’s political immunity following his resignation so that they can detain him as a Saudi citizen by plotting corruption charges. In accordance with Articles 29 and 31 of the Vienna Convention on political relations, officials, including heads of states, enjoy full political and judicial immunity and cannot be detained at any time. Another important point is that the cancellation of a political envoy’s immunity is feasible only through the written declaration of the sending country. Therefore, in this particular case, even if Hariri resigned willingly, the immunities will be enforced until the Lebanese government declares cancellation of his political immunity formally and through a written declaration, and Saudi Arabia cannot detain or rather arrest him under the pretext of Hariri’s Saudi citizenship.
Maybe that is the reason why Saudi Arabia refuses to announce Hariri’s arrest publicly. Saudi’s young leaders are now well versed in these American tricks on breaking the laws in an apparently legal manner. If we take a look at the structure of American sanctions against Iran, and in particular the post-JCPOA sanctions, we see a complex process of legislation that allow the United States to act contrary to the objectives of these laws and treaties without violating international treaties and laws. This is the trick that the new Saudi leaders have taken on the issue of Bahrain, Yemen and now Lebanon, in spite of the fact that their performance seems not as suitable as their American mentors.

Where is the Security Council?
But the third question to be answered is the role of international organizations and the Security Council in solving the Saudi crisis and the modern process of “hostage-taking of officials” by this country. Now even the US State Department, the most important Saudi ally, has implicitly confessed Hariri’s capture in Saudi Arabia. Hostage-taking of the head of government of a foreign country is unprecedented in the history of contemporary international relations and to ridicule all the values and principles that underpinned the creation of the United Nations, the Security Council and international law over the past few decades. If Saudi’s oil and financial strength is the reason why these international institutions are completely silent, then perhaps it would be better to talk about the end of the Western international system and the attempt to formulate a new and collective mechanism, which is what Iran is preparing for.

*Mojtaba Mousavi is the founder and editor of Iran’s View. 

The post Saudi Arabia and New World Disorder first appeared on .

In light of US President Donald Trump’s decision to decertify Iran deal caused heated debate inside Iran about the Trump’s plan for the JCPOA and the best Iranian reaction to US disavowing the nuclear deal. Mojtaba Mousavi tried to discuss the issue with Barbara Slavin, an American expert on Iran and a President Trump critic who believes that the new US president is not a rational player. 

Barbara Slavin is an American journalist and foreign policy expert. She is a Washington correspondent for Al Monitor and acting director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center. She is the author of a book about Iran–United States relations.

This interview originally appeared in the October 16, 2017 edition of Iranian Jamejam daily.

Q: How can Trump prevent the possible tension in US-EU relations while he increases pressure on Iran by introducing new sanctions and threatening to put an end to the nuclear deal?

Slavin: Trump cannot prevent tension in US-EU relations; on the contrary, his “decertification” of the Iran deal and threats to “terminate” the agreement if Congress does not act to address its flaws will increase US-EU tensions to a degree not seen since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Q: You talked about a possible dire US-EU tension. How can such tension influence the Middle East security and the West role in the region?

Slavin: Europeans will be less likely to work with the US on solutions to regional conflicts. This is a big opportunity for Iran to split Europe from the United States.
Q: Would you please elaborate more about the possible tension in US-EU relationship? Which aspects of the EU-US relationship are more vulnerable? Is that possible that such tension evolves into sort of a cold war between the two?

Slavin: I don’t see a ‘Cold War’ between the US and Europe; there are too many long-standing security, economic and people-to-people ties. I think Europeans will do their best to survive Trump and await more traditional and sensible US leadership after he’s gone.

Q: What would be the perfect role Iran can play in the above mentioned scenario?

Slavin: Iran, as I suggested, should avoid Trump’s trap and stay within the JCPOA. It should also work hard on internal reforms and make itself more attractive to foreign — and Iranian — investors by cleaning up corruption and getting rid of burdensome regulations. It should also stop jailing dual nationals on bogus charges as this chills the climate for investment and tourism. Forty years after the revolution, it is time for Iran to stop taking hostages.

Q: How likely is that the Congress would meet Trump’s expectations? How can the Congress (Maybe with the help of other JCPOA parties) address what Trump sees as the deal’s flaws?

Slavin: This is very hard to predict. Congress has struggled to deal with other issues, including health care, and any change in the current law on the Iran deal would require 60 votes in the Senate. Ultimately, this is Trump’s responsibility and he cannot foist it on Congress.
Q: Do you agree that Trump will not push the certain European states (France, Britain and Germany) to end their economic relations with Iran to keep them satisfied while the US is trying to force Iran to budge on non-nuclear issues?

Slavin: Europe is justly proud of its role in initiating negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue – at a time when President Bush would not talk directly with Iran without preconditions. European businesses have just begun to return to Iran and they do not want to jeopardize those contracts.

This will be a real test of the willingness of the international community to stand up to Trump’s intimidation and of the independence of Western businesses. I hope that Iran continues to abide by the agreement and that Europe – and US allies in Asia – also continue to implement the JCPOA.

Q: Part of Iranian establishment believes that JCPOA would be meaningless for Iran if US withdraws or refuse to abide by the agreement. They believe that EU will choose to stand by the US if Trump raise the cost of working with Iran (through financial and banking instruments). A few minutes ago Mr. Zarif told the Iran state TV that “If they revive the sanctions, we will decide whether to continue staying in the JCPOA or terminating it.”
Do you think, the Europeans can economically endure the Trump’s pressure if US withdraws the deal and introduce through penalties for those who do business with Iran?

Slavin: This is the key question – what European businesses do, not what European leaders say. However, I believe that there is so much anger toward Trump in Europe that there is a good chance that European businesses will remain in the Iran market and that they will be defended by their political leadership. There is also no certainty that Congress – or Trump – will re-impose secondary sanctions, no matter what Trump said on Friday.

Q: I see a quote from President Trump in which he says he has talked with Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron about Iran. “Don’t do anything. Don’t worry about it. Take all the money you can get. They’re all friends of mine,” he has said.
Does that mean sort of coordination between Trump and Macron on Iran deal? Many were hopeful that Macron can play a role in containing Trump. Do you see any ground for Macron and Trump to compromise on a modified version of the JCPOA so all parties including Trump’s US can stay in the deal?

Slavin: As for the influence of May and Macron, I would not count on it. Trump loves it when foreign leaders beg him not to do various things and then he goes ahead and does them anyway. He is a cruel person and the most incompetent American president I have seen in my lifetime.

Q: JCPOA is a very important deal and has implications for the international security. From the other point of view, we are witnessing Saudi’s intensified efforts to develop a nuclear program which, given to the Saudi’s aggressive behavior, can increase the regional instability.
How can this deal, if preserved, shape the future power structure of the region and the world? Do you see it necessary for the US to limit Saudi’s ambitious nuclear program?

Slavin: I am not well informed about Saudi Arabia’s nuclear intentions. Frankly, given all the challenges the Saudis face these days, I would not be too concerned about this.
Q: In a piece for National Interest, Joseph Nye wrote that the real challenge that the US is facing could be called “the rise of the rest”. Some authors such as Fareed Zakaria in his “Post-Americanism World” are pointing to the same challenge. In view of such analysis, do you think the US can overcome those challenges stemming from its power and hegemony? Or is it the Trump’s US has no clear awareness of such challenge?

Slavin: Long before Trump, other countries such as China were increasing their economic and geostrategic power. Trump has accelerated this process with his defiance of international treaties and other agreements such as the Paris accords, the Trans Pacific Partnership and now the JCPOA. He is not making America “great again.” He is diminishing our international role and it will take a lot of work by his successors to restore American leadership.

The post Joint Action with Iran a Test for Independence of European Businesses first appeared on .

Just two days after the US Senate advanced Iran Sanctions Bill, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said putting Qatar under blockade had led to “unintended” humanitarian consequences and called on Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt “to ease the blockade.”

“We’re seeing shortages of food. Families are being forcibly separated, and children pulled out of school…Our expectation is that these countries will immediately take steps to de-escalate the situation and put forth a good faith effort to resolve their grievances they have with each other,” the US top diplomat said.

The call for easing Qatar’s blockade comes as, despite the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries, the US Senate unanimously approved a bill to tighten Iran sanctions on Wednesday. The sanctions not only have significantly hampered Iran’s international trade, but also created serious obstacles in the way of importing medicines, endangering the Iranian patients’ lives over the past decades.

Meanwhile, the US senior officials have repeatedly accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism with no solid evidence. In the latest case, US President Donald Trump called the Tehran twin attacks the fruits of Iran’s support for terrorism. The attacks, which left 17 dead and dozens injured, were claimed by the ISIS terrorist group.

Trump’s statements which sparked international criticisms across the world stand in direct contradiction with his presidential campaign promises. During his campaign Trump repeatedly blamed his predecessor, President Barack Obama, for supporting Saudi Arabia. He also praised Iran and Russia for their fight against ISIS.

But Trump dramatically changed his positions since taking office and particularly after signing a $110b arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Now, he not only remains silent towards Saudi Arabia as the ideological hub of terrorism, but also accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism.

It seems that the US expresses concerns about terrorism and accuses certain states of sponsoring terror based on its trade ties with the regional states. With its significant trade relations with Saudi Arabia, the US has already closed its eyes to Riyadh’s dictatorship, violent acts and sponsoring terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda that was behind 9/11 attacks.

Interestingly enough, Washington is against Qatar blockade despite admitting its support for terrorists in Iraq and Syria. During his Friday statements, Tillerson said: “The nation of Qatar unfortunately has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.”

He went on saying: “The emir of Qatar has made progress in halting financial support and expelling terrorist elements from his country, but he must do more and he must do it more quickly.”

The post Blockade, Bad for Qatar, Good for Iran: US first appeared on .

For Iranian reformists, the twin parliament and Assembly of Experts elections on February 26 were also a chance to blow new life to their presence in the power circle of the Islamic Republic which they lost after their rejection of the results of the 2009 presidential elections, leading to street riots and months of chaos in the capital city of Tehran.

Almost six years after those days, Reformists are cheering the election gains and are ecstatic about their unexpected wins in the ballot boxes and sweeping Principalists off parliament seats in the Tehran constituency.

However, the results in the other cities are different and both Principalists and Reformists have enough seats to be influential in the next parliament and the Assembly of Experts, but the fact that almost all of the Principalists’ prominent figures in Tehran failed to find their way into the Parliament (and in case of the Assembly of Experts, only Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati was elected ranking 16th out of the 16 seats reserved for the Tehran constituency) is a major blow to them which had the upper hand over the course of the past decade.

Though Reformists’ gain in the elections is also a result of their coalition with government supporters, known as the Moderates, as well as some moderate Principalist figures such as Ali Motahhari which led them to support coalition lists for the twin elections, the fact that Reformists could gain such a major support from the people is an undeniable reality for the political power sphere of the Islamic Republic and on the other hand this victory poses, at the same time, an opportunity and a threat for the winning Reformists.

Will Reformists seize the opportunity?

After 2009’s post-election disputes and street riots, many Reformist leaders were arrested and many of their aides who spurred the public into street riots had to flee the country; subsequently, the leadership in Iran lost its faith in the movement and to loyalty of prominent Reformist leaders. This lack of confidence in the Reformist movement and absence of its leaders and forces beside consecutive defeats in the national and local elections pushed reformist figures out of the political scene, minimizing their role.

After Hassan Rouhani won the 2013 presidential election, he tried to pave the way for the return of Reformists to the country’s political circle, while, he himself is not a Reformist and even was a serious critic of them while he served as the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

The full participation of the reformists in the recent elections (even Reformists’ leaders under house arrest invited their supporters to participate in the elections) and then the results of the recent twin elections and especially the landslide victory of the Reformists in Tehran showed that the movement is coming back into the political sphere of the country and will revive its status as a legitimate game-changer.

Now, it’s about time for Reformist leaders to engage in direct talks with the political leadership of the system and to iron out misunderstandings and address the existing issues with them. Overestimating their reemerging power and making the same mistake of playing the role of staunch opponents of the Islamic Republic can lead them to a process which will not have better results than they gain in recent years. But a negotiated resolution not only will recreate the confidence and trust of the Islamic Republic to them but will secure their return to highest levels of the power in the country.

Dangers of a victory

If one was to study the voting pattern of the Iranians in last three decades, they would see Iranians mostly (if not always) make pragmatist decisions and never support a particular group because of their theoretical aims and promising rhetoric. Iranians evaluate the records of an official and after providing them enough time, they would decide to whether continue their support or terminate it. Unexpected victories of the Former reformist President Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 presidential elections are good examples of how different choices Iranian people can make due to their experience of the incumbent officials.

For this reason, Rouhani’s government- which turned to be a facilitator for the return of Reformism – will have a critical time for the rest of its tenure. Now the Parliament is also in line with the government and in case the government fails in fulfilling its promises, Principalists cannot be blamed as being the trouble makers! While people are hoping for a better economic situation after giving Rouhani more than two years to reach a nuclear deal, possible excessive concentration of Reformists on their political causes may undermine their ability to make significant and tangible changes in the life of ordinary people and so lose their votes in future Presidential elections, after less than two years.

In the words of the senior reformist leader Mohammadreza Aref during his campaign for the 2013 Presidential election, each time both government and the parliament was controlled by one party the outcome was not satisfactory.

Another threat to the Reformists is their inability in understanding the ordinary and the lower-classes especially in the small cities. They are the sources that provided Ahmadinejad with enough vote to win two Presidential elections against the robust rivals from the Reformist and Conservative circles. Today’s threat to Reformism is to make their usual mistake of confusing Tehran and large cities’ political tendency with national sentiments and ignoring lower- classes and ordinary people for who politics is not a priority.

Next presidential elections will be the scene of a critical completion between the Moderates/ Reformists who were controlling two important sources of power for at least two years and the Principalists who were out of power for the same period. I believe it will be the incumbent government’s economic record that will determine the next winner.

The post How Iranian Reformists’ Victory Can Turn Into Defeat? first appeared on .

Professor Joseph Samuel Nye Jr. is the former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He currently serves on the Harvard faculty as a University Distinguished Service Professor. Along with Robert Keohane, he founded the theory of “neo-liberalism” in international relations, and more recently coined the often-used phrases of “soft power” and “smart power”. He is one of the world’s foremost intellectuals in the fields of political science, diplomacy and international relations. A 2011 TRIP survey ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the last twenty years, and in October 2014 he was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board.

following is the Interview of Mojtaba Mousavi with Dr. Joseph Nye which first published in the October issue of the Age of Reflection monthly. 

A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall – November 1989. Many strategic analysts believe that the United States is still using the same pattern of collapse of communism in the East bloc to confront Iran. In the “Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics”, you have pointed to the American experience as well as the designation of the Marshall Plan as the means to undermine the Soviet soft power components. Do you believe that the same pattern can be adopted from the Cold War to undermine Iran’s soft power?

I do not think the situation of Iran today is like the Cold War. Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union collapsed from it own internal economic contradictions. The Marshall Plan was forty years earlier and designed to help West European economies recover from the devastation of World War II. The Soviet Union lost soft power after its invasions on Hungary and Czechoslovakia.  If there is a lesson in this for Iran, it is to free up its markets and society, and beware of interventions in neighboring countries.

This rationale has major drawbacks: essentially because Soviet Russia and Iran are profoundly different in not just their ideological makeup but the nature of their soft power. Iran’s Islamic Republic draws its narrative from Shia Islam, while Soviet Russia was born from atheist Marxism. Several critics of the US actually believe the country has ignored those fundamental and philosophical differences which exist in between Iran and Soviet Russia. How do you understand Washington’s position vis-à-vis Iran and are we seeing a repeat of the Cold War strategy here? In which case can this approach really serve the US?

 That is correct, but remember that Shia Islam is a minority and Iran should be wary of intervening in sectarian disputes. I do not see this as a repeat of a Cold War strategy. President Obama expressed an openness to dialogue right from the beginning of his presidency. Iran was initially reluctant to engage in that dialogue.

Although the Soviet Union collapsed and communism was to some degree defeated – Russia after all came to embrace capitalism, Moscow nevertheless preserved its political independence by remaining a non-aligned superpower. Is it not possible therefore to envisage that Iran will accomplish such feat – in that its goals might stray from the initial “revolutionary mindset” but still act an opposition to American imperialism? After all there are more than one way to resist and challenge.

 Capitalism in Russia is highly distorted by corruption. As I show in my book, “Is the American Century Over?” Russia is heavily dependent on one “crop” (energy) for two thirds of its exports. It also faces a demographic decline. This is not good, because declining powers often take greater risks such as Putin engages in now in his invasion of Ukraine and his intervention in Syria. I have no idea what the future of Iran will be, but it would be a mistake to model it on Russia.

President Richard Nixon called the US’ negotiations with Soviet Russia a “victory without war”. What President Nixon introduced and President Ronald Reagan followed into was a series of non-military actions which led to the ‘internal collapse’ of a country.President Barack Obama alluded a similar strategy, when,  in an interview  he argued that the path taken by both Nixon and Reagan vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and China inspired his own policies. Taking into account that his comments were made on the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal do you think the US is looking for “containment” instead of a real rapprochement? Is Obama replicating a Cold War scenario?

As I said above, I do not think Obama is following a Cold War strategy. My personal view is that the Middle East is involved in decades long series of revolutions, primarily in Sunni areas, which outsiders like the United States have little capacity to control.  In that sense, containing the spread of ISIS and its successors makes sense, but large scale intervention like the war in Iraq does not make sense. Where Iran will fit in all this will depend on Iran’s behavior.

Will this Iran nuclear deal lead to an increase of America’s footprint in the ME and therefore see Iran lose influence?

I do not think the Iran nuclear deal will increase the US footprint nor necessarily erode Iran’s influence.  Much will depend on how Iran chooses to behave.

Do you think US’ efforts to increase its soft power and smart power in Iran will lead to a change in narrative within the country, in that Iranians will no longer look on America with suspicion and animosity?

In general, increased contacts can reduce the stereotypes of hostility that can develop among countries. I hope with time this will be the case between the US and Iran.  Soft power can be a positive sum game from which both sides gain.

In a recent piece for National Interest, you wrote that the real challenge that the US is facing could be called “the rise of the rest”. Some authors such as Fareed Zakaria in his “Post-Americanism World”, are pointing to the same challenge. There are also philosophers who believe that America as “the” world superpower is coming to an end – For example American philosopher, Richard Rorty wrote in a piece for Decent magazine: “The American Century has ended (…) The spiritual life of secularist Westerners centered on hope for the realization of those ideals. As that hope diminishes, their life becomes smaller and meaner.” In view of such analysis, do you think the US can overcome those challenges stemming from its power and hegemony? Or is it the US has no clear awareness of such challenge? 

Americans have worried about their decline since the early days of the founding fathers centuries ago. In the last half century there have been several cycles of declinism. This tells you more about American psychology than it does about relative power positions of countries. In my book, I explain why I do not think the American century is over. At the same time, the rise of transnational challenges like climate change, cyber terrorism, and international financial stability will require cooperation among countries. In that sense, the rise of the rest as well as the new transnational challenges will require the US to work with others.  There will be no American imperialism or hegemony, but as the largest country, there will still be a need for leadership in organizing global collective goods.

In his September 16 address at a meeting with the IRGC commanders in Tehran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said:  “cultural and political penetration is more dangerous than military and security threats.” You also referred to the ‘culture’ as one of the key elements of soft power – you mentioned both the US educational and popular cultures of America as powerful media – maybe here we could use the term Trojan horses. Iran’s leadership has repeatedly warned against such “cultural invasion”. Iranians have themselves naturally organized into movements to counteract Western cultural intrusion, thus manifesting a national trend. Do you see a situation where Iran would disappear to the US; or could it be that Iran will walk a different path than that of the Soviet Union?

Countries evolve over time, and I have no idea what future choices Iran will make, but I suspect that most of its future evolution will be determined from inside Iran.

The post Interview: Joseph Nye on Iran and the End of American Exceptionalism first appeared on .

“Iran has been in sanctions condition for the past 12 years, and Russia is sanctioned too; so we have some joint interests to discuss. I look over the Iranian market and we know Iran has great experiences in working in these sanctions conditions which is much favored by Russia,” Sergey Lasutenko said in an interview with IransView’s Mojtaba Mousavi.

He said Iran and Russia are two of the biggest oil and gas countries in the world; adding Iran has great oil and gas reserves as Russia does and both countries have some big experiences in exploration and production of crude oil and other hydrocarbon products.

“We have some very close views on the market. The idea is to unify our forces. It is work of professionals to promote these ideas but the potentials in political and economical situations are very big. I think it will be very fruitful to cooperate,” he added.

He said Gazprom does not have many activities in Iran at the moment but it will be doing major projects in the near future.

“In the field of exploration, we can cooperate with Iran. Iran has a lot of experiences in constructing some machines and tools for drilling under the sanctions,” he said.  

He added Gazprom is estimating the Iranian market to estimate the Iranian forcibility and work of equipment production.

“We have technologies and Iran has its own. We have a great experience in offshore works. Gazprom is very good at sea drilling. We know that Iran has two seas: the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea; the Persian Gulf is very rich with gas and oil reserves and we can cooperate in the field.”

Iran and Russia are much closer than Iran and the US, he said, adding Tehran and Moscow have some platform to discuss in the oil and gas sectors.

Both Iran and Russia have great experience in drilling. Russia’s Gazprom has the biggest pipeline systems in the world, he said.

The post Gazprom after Iranian Savvy Developed Under Sanctions first appeared on .