The sanctions announced by the US Treasury Department on Thursday, targeted the entities cooperating with Iran’s Mahan Air, Caspian Air, Meraj Air, Pouya Air and Dena Air, which operates the airplane Iranian President Rouhani uses for his official travels.

According to Bourseandbazaar, an Iranian business news site, Dena Airways is the company which operates EP-DAA, an Airbus A340. Until November 2017, the aircraft was registered to Meraj Airways, an entity that was previously sanctioned as part of the Specially Designated Nationals list, known as the SDN list.

In Early February, German fuel companies refused to refuel Iranian foreign minister’s plane out of fear they would violate US sanctions against Iran.
The incident almost prevented Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif from attending the Munich Security Conference.

The US also imposed sanctions against nine Iranian and Turkish individuals and companies after President Trump withdraw from the nuclear deal between Iran and five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Under the deal, US was obligated to avoid imposing new sanctions against Iran.

The post US Bans Iranian Presidential Aircraft 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 .

Iranians voted Friday in a presidential contest that pit President Hassan Rouhani against a serious challenger, Seyyed Ebrahim Raeisi, in an unexpectedly tight race. Election polls historically misses their mark and unable to correctly predict Iran elections’ results. The results of latest US presidential election also came as a surprise to nearly everyone. Relying largely on opinion polls, election forecasters put Clinton’s chance of winning at 70%! In such circumstances, many observers are casting doubt on the accuracy of public opinion polls.

“The war of polls is scientific on the face of it, but it is commonplace in actual fact which has no realist bases and standard criteria. In Iran, too, a big difference in the results of the polls of the two parties in the elections is indicative of the fact that none of them is blessed with pragmatic and scientific tools for opinion surveys. Moreover, performance of big institutions has been discredited many times, such as the presidential elections of 2005 and 2013. In both these elections, the polls had never given a chance for the candidates who won the elections in the end. As a result, the polls should be taken into consideration in a careful manner”, says Payam Fazlinejad, having cooperated with various reformist as well as Principlist press as a writer and analyst.

Pointing to the devastating effects of the war of polls, he said, “Lack of analytical power and power measurement are risky, and leave negative effects on the decisions of the campaigns in the remaining three days to the election day because some part of their political decisions are made in these days based on the very polls and surveys which has no scientific base. The trend can result in miscalculations in campaigns of both parties either prior or subsequent to the elections. It even may turn triumph into a complete failure in the long run. The outburst of news about such matters in the last days which are on the basis of these opinion polls may work against itself only if it is mixed with miscalculations. It can be the case for all the campaigns.

In response to the question of “How close are the predictions of the reformist and Principlist elites and statesmen to what the people, in general, believe about the winner of the elections?” Fazlinejad, who has the experience of working as a senior researcher in the institution Keyhan for ten years, said, “We should learn from the experience. The US elections in 2016 proved with certainty that prediction is irrational in actual fact. I believe in Churchill’s statements which is peculiar to Iran’s political society, ’A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen’. Iran is a complex society which no one can foretell its behavior and unfortunately, no attempt has been made in order to work on its predictability. For the purpose of making the society predictable, we are supposed to work out plans for developing political psychology as well as political sociology circles, but neither elites nor statesmen actually pay attention to such fields except for the night of the elections!

In response to the question of “What do you think are the wrong measures of both parties?”, he said, “Both parties have heavily invested in the cyberspace and social networks, but took no notice of the real society from the beginning. When the political activists restrict themselves to the cyberspace, their relationship with different social strata and their issues and concerns are reduced and they lose the power of creating a big social movement. Both parties have made their best in the last two weeks to keep their supporters away from the “cyberspace restriction” in social networks. They have developed plans such as sending representatives to far-off places, small towns and villages, but leading the supporters to social networks, and the distribution of news and analyses in internet media have resulted in the energy outburst far on in time.

The post Rational People Never Foretell the Elections, Iranian Analyst 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 .

Tehran-Moscow relations are poised to enter into a historic phase under the current circumstances and given the two countries’ ups and downs in history.

Throughout the past several months, Iran and Russia have stepped up efforts to deepen their ties. The recent Moscow visit by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, holding the first Iran-Russia strategic relations meeting in Moscow, the Tehran visits of the Russian ministers of defense and energy and, above all, the visit by senior Iranian official Ali Akbar Velayati to submit the message of President Rouhani to Russian President Vladimir Putin are but examples that make the mutual efforts by the two countries to enhance their ties evident.

By sending Velayati, the Supreme Leader’s advisor in international affairs, to Moscow as his special messenger, Rouhani meant to convey to Russians that the Leader has thrown his weight on enhancing ties with Kremlin and that the move enjoys the backing of the Islamic establishment’s highest political decision-makers.

Now the question is: Why should Iran be seeking enhanced ties with Russia?

1. The sitting administration in Iran took office with promises of bolstering foreign relations and international status of the country in a bid to allay the nation’s political and economic concerns. To that effect, Rouhani has spent most of his energy on resolving Iran’s nuclear issue in the talks with the group of P5+1, while the outcome of the talks have disproved being worth his endeavors so far. As the talks drag on and US sticks to its sanctions against Iran, hopes for reaching a final nuclear agreement flare up inside Iran, and the administration has embarked on its Plan B to resolve the nation’s economic problems.

Enhancement of ties with Russia tells the West, especially the US, that the Islamic Republic has a firm Plan B and it would adhere to if the talks fail. It also says that Iran has not limited all its efforts to the future of the talks. “If they [P5+1 negotiators with Iran] fail to make such an agreement, the people of Iran, officials, the honorable administration and others have many different options. They should definitely take these options so that they can counteract and slow the plot of imposing sanctions,” said Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei in speech he delivered on February 8, 2015 in a meeting with commanders and personnel of the Air Force of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army.

2. Taking office of a moderate president in Iran has raised hopes for the peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear case with the West. This has stoked Kremlin with fears that more pressure will be put on Russia if Iran’s relations with the West normalize. Iran’s decision to raise interactions and enhance ties with Russia can quell its worries in this regard.

3. In its new approach, Iran has tried to exploit Russia’s dispute with the West in the talks. Dr. Velayati said after his meeting with Putin that new Russian stance in the talks should be expected in the talks.

4. There are several areas where the two countries enjoy common grounds like the crises in Syria and Iraq, opposing US monopoly and Iran’s tender to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Tehran-Moscow cooperation can facilitate these areas.

5. Iran and Russia can severely influence the world energy market. As the two countries’ oil revenues have fallen dramatically thanks to the falling oil prices, which they believe is a political plot hatched jointly by the US and its Middle East ally Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia have been prompted to think out plans to enhance their ties in order to shield their economies against the current and future economic assaults. This was evident when Russian energy minister attended Velayati’s meeting with Putin in Moscow.

All in all, when dealing with Russia, certain points need to be considered:
Iranian decision-makers must be wary of the fact that enhanced relations with Russia must not, under any circumstances, be based on West’s animosity toward the two nations because if this is not the case in the future, Iran will be the side that loses the most. Secondly, Iran must always remember that Kremlin would never prefer Iran over Western allies.

* Soheil Kheiri has an M.A in Eurasian studies from the School of International Relations of the Iranian Foreign Ministry. His articles about the Russian politics are published in the scientific journals and he regularly writes for Iranian newspapers and political magazines.

The post Iran Reaches Out for Russia: Why? first appeared on .

According to the informed sources talked to Iran’sView, the new Iranian President, Hassan Rowhani, perceived to have won the June-14 elections by his moderation promises, is said to have requested the Leader to give him a modest free hand in the country’s foreign policy affairs, including the prolonged nuclear standoff, so that he will be able to tackle the Islamic Republic’s economic problems to some extent.

It is years now that Tehran is at odds with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) over its nuclear case due to irreconcilable views of the negotiating sides.

According to a Rouhani aide who has spoke to Iran’sView on condition of anonymity, he has promised the Supreme Leader he will be able to scrape a large part of the stifling sanctions imposed on Iran without damaging the nature of its nuclear program provided that the Leader permits the president to act more flexibly in the talks with the P5+1.

“I would agree with what I once called ‘heroic flexibility’, as it is a proper move at times,” said the Leader during his address to the Sepah commanders on Tuesday, seems to be an explicitly agreeing to the administration’s request. However, he cautioned the president to be wary of the “other side and the chief objective” in the talks while being more flexible.

Though this was not the first time the Supreme Leader spoke of “heroic flexibility”.

“Artistic and heroic flexibility, softness and maneuver are accepted and welcome in all political grounds,” said the Leader in another meeting a fortnight ago with members of the Assembly of Experts. “But maneuvers should not be interpreted as a leave to cross the red lines or step back of fundamental strategies or neglecting the ideals.”

The Leader of Iran is still suspicious about the flexibility in international dealings of the new administration as it might be induced to cross some red lines (like direct and comprehensive talks with the US) or retreat from fundamental strategies of the Islamic Republic (like supporting Palestinian cause and the Syrian government as part of the resistance front).

The Leader once again reminded the administration in his Tuesday speech that it is not allowed to neglect the “objectives and ideals” of the Islamic Revolution with excuses like “The world or the trends has changed.”

According to political observers in Tehran, the Supreme Leader has allowed the administration to expand ties with European countries, engage in direct talks with the US over the Syrian conflict, and show more flexibility in nuclear talks. The Leader has decided to let Rouhani have his try in various fields, even though he (the Leader) is not optimistic about the West’s reaction to Iran’s flexible tone; which is why the Leader stressed in his Tuesday speech that the US and the West are seeking much greatest goals in Iran’s nuclear case and that it should be taken in and well analyzed by “challenging the hegemonic system by the Islamic Revolution”.

“We do not approve of nuclear weapons not because of the US or others, but because of our beliefs; when we say no one can have nuclear weapons, we would never seek such weapons ourselves; the dissenters of Iran are after something else. These countries would never let their nuclear energy monopoly be broken,” Ayatollah Khamenei said on Tuesday.

“Diplomacy is the field of smile and calls for talks and negotiations; however, all these should be defined in the framework of our major challenge.”

Ayatollah Khamenei has repeatedly cautioned the new administration against the Islamic Republic’s red lines and fundamentals while exhibiting flexibility in its foreign dealings. In his earlier speech addressing members of the Assembly of Experts, the Leader certified that every “administration or person has their own methods and innovations, and are allowed to practice them in their work.”

As a key player in Iran’s power struggle during the past 34 years, the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, or Sepah, has aligned itself well with the Supreme Leader’s directions, and stood up to administrations which fail to follow the Leader’s directions. Besides, the construction projects as well as economic activities run by the Sepah are a powerful lever that can help every administration to materialize their domestic policies; which may be why the President Rowhani addressed Sepah commanders a day before the Leader to ask them to support the administration economically.

With regard to Rowhani’s concerns about acceptance of his “flexible” policies by Sepah commanders, the Supreme Leader called on Sepah top brass to temporarily step out of politics and view the developments from outside.

“Sepah is not required to meddle in political grounds, but guardianship of the Revolution needs precise understanding of realities,” the Leader said on Tuesday.

“The organization that is deemed as the Revolution’s guardian arm cannot be expected to be alien to derivative political currents,” said the Leader, stressing that under the current circumstances Sepah must, of course, identify and counter all adversaries of the Islamic Republic.

The Leader is evidently giving the administration a free hand to remedy the country’s economic and political headache by putting into effect its innovations. Likewise the Leader would be happy see that his strategic decision has helped the administration manage to fulfill its promises and receive a palatable feedback from foreigners. However, if the government fails to get the desired response from the West by being more flexible, just like the Reformist administration of Mohammad Khatami, the Leader’s warnings and pessimism against the US and enemies will be well substantiated. 

“The revolution’s future is glorious for sure, but the time of its happening depends of the performance of the nation and officials. If we are united, integrated and decisive, such a future is soon realized, but if we are infested with indolence, arrogance and other such stuff, that future will be late to come.” Ayatollah Khamenei said to the top commanders of Sepah.

The post REPEAT:: Why Iran’s Leader Gives Rowhani Nuclear Free Hand? first appeared on .

The Leader voiced his strong support for the ongoing initiative of the current administration to engage in the talks with the West, including the US, to address Tehran’s nuclear impasse, and censured certain political parties who frowned upon the government’s diplomacy towards the West by installing derogatory banners and essays in the press.

Some of the banners showed the English-language slogan “The U.S. Government Styles Honesty,” and depicted a goateed Iranian official (presumably meant to resemble Zarif) sitting across from a U.S. counterpart who, under the table, conceals symbols of perceived American aggression.

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution advised the current administration against relying on the talks for resolving domestic issues. “We believe that officials should lean on domestic potentials to solve the matters. Successful countries in foreign diplomacy are those who place reliance on their domestic power.”

“We shall not trust a smiling foe. The Americans give us a venal smile at the negotiating table expressing tendency for talks, but at the very same time repeat that they have all the options on the table; what on earth may they do then?” the Leader went on to say.

Americans are most considerate when it comes to Zionists; but “we are free of such considerations. Since its incipience, we have regarded this regime as an illegitimate and bastard establishment.”

He underlined that talks with the US would only concern the nuclear issue, and posited, “Talks with the P5+1 group concern only the nuclear issue and nothing else.”

Referring to his New Year speech in the holy city of Mashhad, he said  that “as I have previously said I am not optimistic about the talks, though, God willing, the negotiations would not harm us.”

“By the talks the Iranian nation would enter into a superior intellectual phase,” Ayatollah Khamenei said.

“If the talks are successful, so much the better. But if they fail, the country shall stand on its own feet afterwards,” the Leader said confirming a previous speculation by Iran’sView.

Ayatollah Khamenei mentioned the nuclear issue of Iran with the West as well, and said, “Iran’s voluntary suspension of its enrichment program for two years in 2004 delayed the country at least two years in its nuclear agenda; however, it finally turned out to be our benefit… during the two years that Iran volunteered to suspend (uranium) enrichment, the West showed no sign of building confidence and easing sanctions against Tehran, so that the Leader mandated the then-administration to restore nuclear activities. Iran regards the 2004 failure as an instance for not trusting the West.”

The post Iran’s Leader Frowns at Hardliners, Pats Nuclear Negotiators first appeared on .

This Article is originally published in Al-Monitor

The phone conversation between US President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, during the final hours of Rouhani’s visit to New York, was unexpected enough to dominate the media spheres of both Iran and the United States. The reactions of the Iranian people have been significant and mostly positive. Even the Principlists and conservatives, whose ideology is not similar to that of Rouhani, have not reacted negatively to Rouhani’s diplomacy or that of his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, in New York.

Before Rouhani’s trip to New York, to participate in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had granted permission for positive signals and “heroic flexibility.” This resulted in the majority of the Principlists, conservatives and even the members, or sepah, of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) supporting — or at least not opposing — the government’s actions. Although a small number of extremists attacked Rouhani upon his return at Mehrabad Airport, these people are so isolated that even the Principlists criticize them.
The jokes being exchanged in the streets of Tehran, on the morning of Sept. 28, show that the residents of the capital are awaiting the continuation of the process which started in New York. “I will open a McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise in Tehran,” joked Tehran resident Arash, 27. “This time next year, I will fly directly to New York, and I will buy an iPhone 6 from the Apple store,” tweeted Hussein Allayee, a computer engineer, considering the possibility of the political relationship between Iran and the United States being restored.The markets of Iran, however, reacted more conservatively compared to the previous times. Tehran’s stock exchange continued a paced growth for the past few days: the dollar market initially dropped, then went up and finally returned to the price it was on Sept. 26.Iranians in general reacted very quickly, became emotional really fast and just as rapidly lost their interest and got bored. This positive atmosphere — which is the result of the discussions between the foreign ministers, and the presidents, of Iran and the Unites States — will soon be replaced with demands for tangible results. However, any informed political observant knows that solving the problems and misunderstandings between Iran and the United States requires long negotiations and discussions.

Read this article in Full here.

The post Collapse of US-Iran Negotiations Will Result in Return of Extremists first appeared on .