Government’s Diplomacy: International Interaction
Following the Revolution, each administration pursued its desired foreign policy; there was the policy of open gates during the construction period; in the period of reform, the policy of détente and growing relations with the West and Europe was pursued; and during Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran’s foreign policy was based on an outlook towards the East. It seems that during the past two years, there has been a suspension period in our approach towards the international system. This suspension is caused by the atmosphere of hope and wait with regard to the resolution of the nuclear issue. Despite the fact that the 11th administration has pursued the policy of strengthening and improving its relations with the neighboring countries, no tangible change has been felt in our relations with the southern neighbors. How would you assess the foreign policy of the 11th administration?
The bases and objectives of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran during the past two years have not changed from the past. The bases are the same which have been stated in the Constitution and the 20 year development plan of the country and the guidelines of the Supreme Leader. But there has been extraordinary change in our relations with other countries. The positive impacts of this change can be analyzed in two concepts; first, international interaction which the Islamic Republic of Iran has created with the global community; this was a challenging issue before but now an approach of interaction and dialogue is pursued. The second policy which Iran has pursued is making efforts to reach an agreement in the international scene. Based on its knowledge and experience in negotiations, this administration attempts to achieve its national interests and security through this approach.
Based on the diplomacy of agreement-seeking, has there been any balance between the establishment of relations with the Persian Gulf littoral states, Middle Eastern countries, the Caucasus and Europe or is Iran’s foreign policy solely based on the resolution of the nuclear issue?
The establishment of good relations with the neighboring countries has always been the priority of Iran’s foreign policy. Cooperation and good relations with the neighboring countries has always been one of the principles of Iran’s foreign policy as stressed in the Constitution. The only difference in this period is the new look of the world towards Iran following the last presidential election; it was due to the people’s choice and the new president’s outlook towards the world. I call this approach international interaction and the diplomacy of agreement-seeking. Therefore, a positive atmosphere was created for the resolution of differences with the neighboring countries and the international community. In order to pursue these objectives, Iran’s foreign policy regarding the countries of the region and the world became more active. The most important issue which is tied with our national interests and security and our economic development is the nuclear issue and the sanctions. Today we see a change in the positions of the P5+1 countries especially the US which pursues a more realistic view towards Iran’s right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. This is the result of Iran’s approach in interaction, dialogue and agreement. Due to the positive negotiations which took place between Iran and the P5+1, new sanctions were interrupted. As a result of repeated negotiations, a positive outlook for mutual understanding has been created and at the same time general agreement to achieve a desired and acceptable outcome for both sides has been reached which would maintain Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and lifting sanctions.
All these issues indicate that there is a more positive atmosphere in the world which is in line with our national interests and security. On the other hand, the threats and crises which have formed in our surrounding region and the world have created this opportunity for Iran to have more active participation and cooperation in regional and international security.
The issue of terrorism was not a major issue in the international scene before. The international community made attempts to introduce Iran as a threat against international security. But Iran’s approach against centers which threatened international security changed this incorrect mindset. Has the change in Iran’s foreign policy led to the removal of these misinterpretations or was Iran’s practical role in confronting ISIS effective in this regard?
Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, our country has always been faced with international threats and was never a threat against international security. Iran has always been under pressure, sanctions and strategic control by the neighboring countries and the international community. Even a war was imposed against Iran. Two factors prevented Iran from proving its righteousness. Although Iran was not a threat against international security and was always under pressure, it was not able to create the atmosphere of international dialogue to prove that it is not a threat but rather is threatened. Thus, it was always considered as a threat against the regional and international security. As a result, certain resolutions were adopted by the UN Security Council against Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities. Furthermore, there was not enough determination to participate in international issues. Today, there is stronger determination to prove that Iran is not a threat against international security. We have shown that we are ready to participate in establishing security. Some of our neighboring countries and the P5+1 countries wrongfully consider us a threat. We are making great efforts to prove our claims and are prepared to take part in establishing security. The fatwa issued by the Supreme Leader is an assurance that Iran is not a threat and has no intention of using nuclear weapons. This issue was also proposed in President Rohani’s speech in the UN General Assembly regarding the global campaign against violence and radicalism. Iran has shown its intention in its fight against ISIS and is more strongly present in this scene. On the other hand, our revolution was a constructive revolution and not destructive; a revolution which would establish security, not threaten it. Today, the unity which was established between the countries of the region, Israel, the US and even the UN to introduce Iran as a threat against international security and impose sanctions have been disrupted. There are differences of opinion now between Israel and its staunchest ally which is the US. The US seeks to reach an agreement and recognize Iran’s right within the NPT framework and IAEA regulations but Israel is against it. There are even differences between the US and some Arab states which are suspicious about Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities. Similar differences existed between Europe and the US when Solana was in charge and this has now turned into an understanding. This is the result of three important elements; the first element is national solidarity and collaboration which assures the world that Iran attempts to remove these concerns and participate in the establishment of security. The other element is international which shows that the regional and international pressures, threats and sanctions during the past four decades have not been able to destroy Iran. This shows Iran’s potential capacities due to its geopolitical location and components of power including energy, ideology, science and technology which led to the localization of nuclear science. Today, the international community has recognized these capacities and reached the conclusion that it could not talk with Iran, with all its capacities, in the language of pressure, threat and sanction. Thus, it has begun to talk with Iran and recognize its nuclear activities. The other factor is that the US today is not the same as the US in the 1990s and early 2000s which was the only superpower of the world. Certainly, following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the US was the sole superpower and was involved in international crises as such. But today other countries have been able to convince the US that the US cannot act alone and maintain its reputation and be successful. Therefore, the US needs to interact with the international community because it is only one member of this community which is of course powerful and has more capacities and influence. The US has reached the conclusion that it cannot safeguard its national interests and security in the world by itself and must cooperate and talk with other medium and big powers in order to resolve global problems. Many problems which exist in the world today cannot be resolved without the cooperation and interaction of a collection of countries; an example is environmental issues and the Kyoto Convention which the US has not signed and is now under pressure or the issue of nuclear prevention about Israel or other countries which are not members of the NPT and there is no control over their nuclear arms. But Iran has shown that it has a more logical approach towards the execution of international laws and regulations and pursues international dialogue.