Nuclear Issue Will Not Resolve All Differences
November 9th, 2013 - by Sara Massoumi
Nuclear negotiations are continuing between Iran and the P5+1 in Geneva. Under conditions when everyone expected normal negotiations like the previous round of negotiations between the 11th administration and the western party three weeks ago, this time around everything took another form from the first day. Following cautious optimism, there were talks of highlighted hopes and huge titles like “reaching a big agreement”. With the sudden entrance of John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, to Geneva and his stay in the same hotel where the Iranian delegation and the European delegation led by Catherine Ashton are staying, everyone started the countdown to a different agreement but within the framework of the same targeted first step. Last night’s silence led to the point where there was news of the negotiations reconvening but there was no more talk of cautious optimism. Mohammad Javad Zarif, in his exclusive interview with Iranian Diplomacy just 24 hours ago, had reiterated that the sensitivity of negotiations was so high that he has remained in Geneva by Ms. Ashton’s invitation and cancelled his trip to Italy.
In an exclusive interview with Fareed Zakaria, the American journalist and analyst, Iranian Diplomacy asked him about Iran’s nuclear team and the ups and downs of this dossier. Zakaria, who is a Harvard graduate, had an interview with Iran’s Foreign Minister a few weeks ago.
Nuclear negotiations continue between Iran and P5+1. In your opinion, how different is Iran's current nuclear negotiating team from the previous one?
I believe that the current Iranian team is quite different from the previous ones. I think that they seem genuinely committed to find a common solution to a difficult problem. I think that they are people of good will and I think that they genuinely understand many of the world’s concerns about the Iranian program. Having said that, it’s a very difficult issue and what the international community is asking from Iran is a great deal of transparency and I’m not sure that Iran is yet willing to provide the full transparency that is being asked of it. I also believe that there are opponents of these negotiators within Iran and I hope that their voices will not get louder and louder as the negotiations continue.
Does the opinion exist in the US that the change in administration in Iran has led to a change in Iran's strategy regarding its nuclear program?
I think that many people in the US have welcomed the election of President Rohani; they have welcomed many of his initial moves, such as the new nuclear negotiating team, particularly the appointment of the foreign minister who is well liked in the US. But as to whether there has been a specific change in the strategy, that is what I think remains to be seen. I think there is some concern that, as in the past, Iran presents a good negotiating position but does not fundamentally change its strategy. President Khatami was also a very genuine figure but it was felt that at the end of the day he had powerful opposition at home and was not able to change Iran’s basic strategy. So I think that is the dilemma, that is the problem that many in the US see, that there are some people who are genuinely trying to move Iran to be integrated into the world again but there is opposition to that, and we in the US have no way of knowing which side will win in this struggle.
You talked about opposition to negotiations in Iran, but we have also witnessed opposition in the US, especially in the Senate and the Congress and also from right-wing hawks and the Israeli lobby. As Mr. Obama is insisting on diplomacy and not war with regard to Iran, do you think he is going to succeed in this process?
It’s a good point. Yes, there is opposition not just in Iran but in the US as well. There are many people who are deeply suspicious of the Iranian strategy, who believe that Iran is secretly plotting to get nuclear weapons and that these talks are simply designed to fool the world, and they are very very skeptical that Iran will ever make genuine concessions. And this is something that President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have to contend with. The hope is that Iran makes genuine offers for transparency and that these offers can be presented to Congress and if they are seen as genuine and far-reaching, then that opposition will quiet down. But you’re absolutely right, there is opposition to negotiations in both countries and in a sense both presidents, President Rohani and President Obama, must be wondering the same thing about each other, which is ‘I like this guy, but can he deliver on what he is saying.’ And each one is asking that, it’s not just Obama asking that about Rohani, but it’s also Rohani asking that about Obama.
Will the resolution of all nuclear uncertainties mean the end of the West's differences with Iran and the suspension of all sanctions, or will the sanctions be removed, as some US Senators claim, only when Iran achieves the liberal democracy the West intends for it?
It’s a good question, and here’s how I would answer it. I think that the nuclear issue will not by itself resolve all the differences, and will not resolve them in the dropping of all sanctions, because there are other issues with regard to Iran, support for what the West regards as terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, support for Iraqi militias, support for the sending of the Quds forces into Syria, which has now been very well documented by a variety of news organizations. And so I think there are those broader concerns that clearly affect the relationship. I also think that there is something that Iran has to think about which is even broader than that, which is that there are elements of the regime that still believe that the regime is founded in opposition to the US; the ritual ‘Death to America’ chants, the burning of the American flag, the trampling on the American flag, the stomping on the President’s face. The US does not do that to Iran. That is what Iran does every year repeatedly and routinely about the US. It’s difficult for me to imagine how the two countries could have normal relations while this still remains a prominent feature of Iran’s politics. So Iran I think has to ask itself does it want to come back into the world, and if it does, then it will have to moderate these elements. It’s not impossible. You know, Communist China used to do all this stuff in the 1960s, and then it changed because it realized it had more to gain by integrating into the world than being isolated from it. And I don’t know whether Iran’s political elite has yet made that decision for integration rather than isolation.
Do you think that the US government is still seeking regime change in Iran?
I think that there are probably some elements within the government that still wish for that, but I think on the whole that strategy has largely died with the Bush administration. I think that the Obama administration is not seeking regime change. I think you can see that in the fact that, from President Obama’s campaign, it has made clear that it would like to negotiate with the regime, it has reached out to the regime in the first months of President Obama’s presidency, it has responded to the overtures from President Rohani, President Obama’s aide has said that it’s the White House that made the suggestion that the two of them meet. So if you look at all those steps, it would certainly suggest that they are not trying to engage in regime change.