Diplomacy without Diplomats

Ali Mousavi Arezoo Dilmaghani

Ahmadinejad’s foreign diplomacy in an interview with Dr. Seyed Mohammad Sadr, former deputy minister of foreign affairs
A few days before the Geneva negotiations, state-run TV broadcasted a documentary on the history of Iran’s nuclear activities and negotiations with West. The documentary accused Khatami’s administration of appeasement. What is the implication of such programs?Well the state-run radio and TV, or the so-called ‘national media’, is supposed to be the voice of all Iranians. But that looks more like a dream now. The nuclear documentary is a good instance. Apparently the state-run TV has not yet found out that the nuclear program is not the possession of one political figure or one administration. It is a process with a 30-year history in the Islamic Republic. Every political figure and every administration has advanced the project one step forward until it has reached the present point.

Weaker people who lack self-confidence and doubt their own capabilities always try to humiliate the others. The nuclear program is a textbook example. Since the Ninth Administration rose to power, it started questioning the efforts of previous administrations and accusing them of reconciliation with West. The documentary you mentioned is just another case of such attempts.

Ironically, Ahmadinejad’s administration that launched such vitriolic attacks on Khatami’s administration commits the Geneva blunder, the Islamic Republic’s weakest negotiation in thirty years. The negotiations definitively prove what I said about how Ahmadinejad and his team try to cover up their weakness, [that is,] how incapable his team is in diplomatic negotiations and pursuing national interests.

Why do you call it ‘weak’ negotiations?

I am not divorced from reality. I am analyzing the case as an impartial observer. The agreements made in Switzerland would deliver to West all our thirty-year nuclear achievements on a tray. I did not know about the details of the negotiations at first. But the moment I found out about the dealings in Geneva I recalled Qaddafi. The Libyan leader had also spent time, money and energy on Libya’s nuclear program, but when pressurized by the Americans, loaded all the nuclear achievements on a cargo ship and sent it for the Americans. What Ahmadinejad’s diplomatic team was about to do was a microcosm of Qaddafi’s move. Iran was about to hand West all the 1600 kilograms of its low-enriched uranium stockpile. The question is what is the relation between the fuel needed for Tehran’s research reactor and our uranium stock? We used to buy the fuel from Argentina in the past. Now if we had a government with an international credibility we could still purchase that fuel. Linking Tehran reactor fuel and uranium stockpile was a strategic mistake.

Was it the government’s stumble or West’s stratagem?

It was Ahmadinejad that first said we would either purchase the 20% enriched uranium or exchange it with low-enriched uranium. ElBaradei made a similar proposition afterwards. Ahmadinejad has now discovered what a big mistake he had made promising to hand the uranium stockpile to Russia and France to receive fuel rods.

The agreement would harm our nuclear and national interests. We are in a double bind here. If Iran fails to keep its promise, things will not go back to the days before the talks, they will become worse. International pressures will increase and West will tell the world that: see! Iran is not committed to its promises at all. Iran is unreliable! Then we should await tougher sanctions.

As you said, the government has now become aware of its mistake and it doesn’t want to act against national interests. On the other hand, Iran will face further international pressure if it fails to fulfill its Geneva promises. What is the optimum measure to get out of this situation?

What can I say? Having international prestige is essential to the solution, but with the present international and domestic circumstances, this administration certainly lacks it.

As you said this is a double bind. Is there a third way to the problem?

Only Ahmadinejad should think of that.

After the Geneva negotiations, Ahmadinejad’s team was trying to propagandize that unlike the negotiations between West and Khatami’s administration, this time Iran has managed to convince West acknowledge this right. This is deemed as a victory by the administration. How do you see the story?

First of all, they should prove this claim. If West has admitted Iran’s right then why won’t it lift the sanctions? What the government says is not true. West is even trying to impose more stringent sanctions. Second of all, the whole enrichment project was initiated during Khatami’s administration, of course with a lower number of centrifuges. Ahmadinejad is standing on the shoulders of Khatami –and previous administrations. What he did was only to add to the number of centrifuges.

How come such a radical administration which has questioned all the previous negotiations and agreements is now yielding everything so easily?

It is the trait of all radicals to blow hot and cold. A look at the history of politics and society proves that. If you remember, Ahmadinejad started with anti-Western slogans, wrote preachy letters for Bush and then, made friendship gestures to him, who is more Zionist than Israelis. Bush’s adherence to Christian Zionism led to two bloody wars in Middle East, but Ahmadinejad had no problem with sitting and listening to his speech in UN general assembly. I’m talking about such things. Radical figures should not be assigned with such serious responsibilities.

Dr. Sadr, how do you see the issue of negotiations with the United States? Should Iran engage in talks to discuss bones of contention? If yes, what is the best way to secure the least threats and most benefits for our national interests?

There is no problem to negotiate with a country we acknowledge, but several points should be taken into consideration. First, we should know the history of bilateral ties and be aware of the diplomatic trend Americans have followed in Iran, so to become sure that they are not going to repeat their mistakes.

If there is going to be any resumption of ties between Iran and the US, it should be based on mutual respect and shared interests. Iran should not engage in any relations that put it in the inferior position, like what Ahmadinejad is doing now. We remember a time when the Americans used our phantoms to bombard Vietnam even without the Shah’s permission. They actually ruled this country. That should never happen again.

At the current circumstances, US is in dire need of Iran’s cooperation, since it is stuck in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine and has problems with the entire Muslim World. If we are going to sit at the table of negotiations, they should know that we want to be at the same level, no ‘superpower’ and ‘rogue state’ story. The way Ahmadinejad acts –like his plea for resumption of Iran-US ties in the latest interview with Larry King- will serve us no good and even if it ends in reconciliation, would be something like the ties we had during the Shah’s reign.

The Bushehr nuclear power plant, Zohreh satellite contract, Tupolev contracts…Russia has failed to fulfill its promises in all these agreements. Why do we trust Russia?

As I said before, it is because we have no clear conception of diplomacy. Frequently it has been said that Iran should not rely on Russia. I do not want our country to cut ties with Russia. Russia is a great country, but we should not trust them to that extent. The government thought that this country would use its right to veto resolutions against Iran. Russia is not a closed book. We knew that it would support Iran to a certain level, and as long as the Iran card servres it to solve problems with the United States. The only thing it would do after it had taken the advantage would be to slightly soften the tone of the resolution and then vote for it.

Then why the government still pins its hope on Russia?

Because there are no diplomats to conduct Ahmadinejad’s diplomacy. Veteran diplomats of the ministry are marginalized and we are seeing the consequences in our relations with the United States, Russia, France, and the Arab World. Ahmadinejad has had no diplomatic success.

In an interview with the Turkish TRT channel, Ahmadinejad said that Iran will only negotiate with Five plus One on purchasing fuel for Tehran’s research reactor. While Ahmadinejad views the negotiations as such, West regards the talks as one step towards controlling Iran’s nuclear program. When would this disagreement end? Plus, Ahmadinejad says that Iran won’t trust the United States as long as the Guantanamo Bay detention center holds prisoners. That is when less than two months have passed since the leakage of news of catastrophes in Kahrizak detention center south of Tehran. Is Ahmadinejad aware of this paradox?

Well, paradoxes are not few in his remarks. The question is who sent prisoners the Guantanamo Bay? It was George Bush who Ahmadinejad was so eager to cooperate with. How come you express your sympathy for those imprisoned by the United States, but you never utter a word of condolence for victims of post-election protests?

Uttering such remarks clearly demonstrates radicalism and lack of principles, both of which severely harm our foreign diplomacy. Radicals are unreliable and when the international community comes to the conclusion that Iran is unreliable, nothing can be done.

Like Ahmadinejad, Obama also seems keen to resume ties with Iran. He believes that recent nuclear negotiators were constructive. Obama also released a statement on the anniversary of US Embassy occupation by Iranian students. He seems intent to pursue diplomatic means despite all the challenges. Is the America president trying to tell the world that he has taken all possible peaceful means before forming a consensus against Iran? Or there is another reason behind his efforts?

My personal belief is that Obama sought a new age of relations with Iran and the Muslim World before he was elected president. He aimed to launch a comprehensive change project. You see that in foreign diplomacy, Obama is reversing Bush’s policies. He rejects unilateralism and has adopted a multilateral, collaborative policy instead. Obama shelved the missile defense shield project and once again selected Europe as a reliable, strategic partner. Israel is the only obstacle on Obama’s diplomatic map.

As to Iran, I think he was waiting for the result of elections to start any initiatives. Of course he thought that any likely gestures should be made towards the Supreme Leader. So he sent Ayatollah Khamenei a letter and received the answer. Post-election developments hindered the reconciliation process. Iranians’ uprising and human right issues have constricted his initiative. Obama’s recent message shows that he is still intent to follow the rapprochement policy, but nuclear issues, the presidential election, Ahmadinejad’s behavior etc. have made him more hesitant.

If there is going to be any negotiation between Iran and the United States, it will be on the sidelines of the nuclear talks. But clearly, the talks will be merely a masquerade for Iran. On the other hand, some observers believe that the real problem lies not within Iran’s nuclear program, but in Iran-US strained relations. So if Iran and the United States solve their problems, the nuclear program won’t be an issue anymore. Which interpretation is closer to truth in your opinion?

I think the nuclear program is a real concern for the United States. It is not an excuse. But the true problem lies in Palestine-Israel crisis. If US is concerned with Iran’s nuclear activities, it’s because of Israel’s security. If it’s concerned with what it alleges to be Iran’s support for terrorism, it’s because of Hamas and Hezbollah’s threats for Israel. Israel’s security is the United States most serious Middle East concern. US interests in Middle East are Israel’s interests. Oil, Israel and Palestine, terrorism, nuclear energy, human rights etc. are all in one package. It is wrong to think establishing ties with the United States will solve all our problems.
http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/index.php?Lang=en&Page=21&TypeId=12&ArticleId=6317&BranchId=44&Action=ArticleBodyView