US Should AppreciateOpportunity Rouhani Presents

One reaction to Rouhani’s trip to the United Nations was that against a minority, the majority of society and a majority at the airport, was positive and appropriately welcomed him. There is also a minority critical of the talks, and within this minority, a small number displayed an extreme reaction.

According to E’tedal, the people of Iran went to the ballot boxes for presidential elections and put Rouhani on his way to presidential office at a time when the reputation and credibility of our country was not as it is now. Some have such feelings that they have no inclination toward the condition of our country’s interactions to improve. They seek to damage these relationships at every opportunity, as exemplified by the incident in Mehrabad Airport when Dr. Rouhani was entering the country. This very matter was an excuse for us to interview Ghodratollah Alikhani,* the text of which follows:

Q: With the American president’s telephone call to Rouhani, the taboo of relations with the U.S. was broken. What opinion do you, as a political “activist,” have regarding relations with America?

A: Managing and normalizing relations with the West, including America, is a matter that should be carefully investigated by Iran’s diplomatic apparatus. Higher-ups say that we cannot cut off relations with America forever. Besides, the Americans have announced a willingness to hold talks with Iran several times in the past. Among the indicative and serious instances of this, one was in the 1960s, or that incident with Mr. McFarlane, or another, during the time of Mr. Khatami when U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in an apology to Iran, brought up the desire for talks. Because of conditions that existed in the past, this did not take place until Dr. Hassan Rouhani’s trip to New York and the expectations the people had of his diplomatic team increased society’s expectations regarding this trip and even a possible encounter with the U.S. president. The diplomacy that Rouhani and his team pursued in New York, from his speech in the United Nations General Assembly to his meetings with high-level officials from around the world, and especially Europe, was a step in the direction of the country’s national interests. In any case, the expectation arose in society that a development in foreign policy, and even relations with the United States, would arise in the course of the president’s visit to New York. I had predicted that this time we would see every chair at the U.N. filled and that no chair would remain empty. This time, not only did no chair remain empty, but his speech and his arguments were very well received. He powerfully presented Iran’s fundamental stances in his speech before the U.N. General Assembly. This speech also caused imams all over Iran to have a good attitude. Of course, this trip becomes the subject of more domestic and international attention in its final hours with the telephone call between the U.S. president and our country’s president.

Q: Some critics say that this trip compromised the ideals of the revolution.

A: Look, critics split the trip into two parts. They praise the first part, while highlighting and capitalizing on the second. We should examine the trip in its entirety. Was what Rouhani said in the General Assembly or his talks in the course of side-meetings a deviation from the regime’s stances? And if it was not, why would the president’s having a telephone communication — moreover, one initiated by the Americans — be a blow to the ideals of the revolution? Did he give some concession during his phone call? Or did he, say, promise to suspend uranium enrichment? Unfortunately, some want to compromise the importance of this trip and its positive points because of one phone call. So many telephone calls resulted from that same steadfastness and firmness in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly! On the other hand, those being critical are few in number, and Iranian society is not limited to one particular class. Transformation in foreign policy was a national demand, for the sake of which the president has set about reviving Iran’s culture, civilization and dignity and making others respect Iranians.

Second, let us look at which individuals are unhappy about the results of Mr. Rouhani’s trip. Or let us look at which people were agitated following that telephone conversation, which resulted neither in negotiations, nor in an immediate and complete solution to the problems between the two countries. What is Israel saying now? It also rejects what the president said in the General Assembly and is also uncomfortable with that telephone conversation. This means that it is not evaluating this trajectory in order to secure its own interests. Because of this, we should look more closely at this matter.

Q: Do you consider the confrontation with Mr. Rouhani in Mehrabad** to have resulted from a respectable point of view? Do you believe that this perspective should not be manifested?

A: We had two kinds of reactions. One reaction to Rouhani’s trip to the United Nations that, against a minority, included the majority of society and a majority at the airport, was positive, and appropriately welcomed him. There is also a minority critical of the talks and within this minority a small number displayed an extreme reaction. This is in a situation where well-known fundamentalists and registered political figures also have described Mr. Rouhani’s trip and even Obama’s phone call as judicious on the whole. But that small number displayed a negative reaction to what happened in New York and caused that ugly incident in the Mehrabad airport. Criticism is everybody’s right, and everybody can express their own perspective. They can agree or disagree with this matter or any other issue within the framework of the law. But the events at the airport and some of the insulting actions that were taken in the course of them were no coincidence in my opinion. At the same time, I should point out that the West and the United States should also make use of the this opportunity that has come up because a president who has come to power in Iran with public acceptance and new approach can, in his interactions with the country’s institutions and officials, begin to solve the foreign policy problems.

Q: Mr. Khatami’s government paid a heavy domestic price on account of his anti-tension policies. Do you not think that Mr. Rouhani will also pay this price? What should the U.S. government do?

A: The West and Americans should appreciate the opportunity Mr. Rouhani presents and know that negotiation and the building of trust is a two-sided process. They should also take positive steps toward Iran, so that the existing costs are reduced to a minimum. The recognition of Iranians’ rightful claims is an initial step, and practical actions should be taken, so that the government can set about solving foreign policy issues on the foundation of national interests and domestic consensus. Russia, France and the U.S. have no difference with one another regarding Iran. It is Iran’s national interests that should be important to us. What is important is to move along a path that secures national interests on the basis of the principles of wisdom, dignity and prudence. At the same time, from the time of the Islamic Revolution, our “red line” in foreign policy has been Israel, and our relations with other countries is not an issue in the framework of national interests and the regime’s principles. Of course, we should be attentive to the fact that, overall, the supreme leader’s stances are the final word, and that if he considers a matter to be in conflict with the principles and ideals of the revolution and regime, he will make a declaration in this regard.

*Translator’s note: Ghodratollah Alikhani, known as a moderate politician, is a member of Iran’s parliament and the parliamentary advisor to the president of Iran’s Expediency Council, a post occupied by centrist Iranian politician and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani.

**Translator’s note: Upon returning to Iran from the New York U.N. General Assembly meetings and leaving Mehrabad Airport in Tehran, Rouhani was met by a group of protesters chanting anti-American slogans, throwing eggs and rocks, and, in one case, throwing a shoe at the president’s motorcade.