Dr. Pezzekian's note in the Tehran Times newspaper is both significant and worthy of consideration in terms of its form and semiotic choices, and its content.
The first point is his taste in publishing his first note on foreign policy in a domestic publication, which we have not seen much of before. Senior politicians typically published their material in a famous European or US publication in order to gain international exposure. His first act as president-elect was to choose a domestic newspaper, and this, in my opinion, can be interpreted as self-confidence: in any case, the note of the president-elect of Iran, especially the first one, is given due attention, and the most important international publications reflect it, as they did. But the choice of Tehran Times, which even in terms of the origin of domestic politics does not quite match what Dr. Pezzekian came up with, is in itself a kind of determination of the playing field by itself and also the first step in terms of internal cohesion to solve the external problem and involve all political factions. This issue may be beyond the perspective of many political activists who think that as soon as they win, they should draw their sword and put everything under the sword.
The first content point of this article is the approach of the 14th government to the "power of logic" instead of the "logic of power", which is basically in accordance with the Constitution, at least in Articles 152 to 154. The logic of power means determining the tasks of the relations of nations and states based on their power and especially its material dimensions, which is of course a very backward and dysfunctional position. Even the most realist tendencies do not believe in such a determination in theorizing and announcing their up-to-date positions. If a moderate country like Iran believes in the "logic of power" in its conventional and classical sense, it must both bow down and practice complete obedience to those more powerful than itself, whether Western or Eastern, and it must also oppress those less powerful than itself to the extent possible, both of which are contrary to morals and religious teachings, Iranian tradition, and the basic components of the Islamic Revolution and the Constitution. However, the power of logic is a sign of the historical insight and culture of Iranians in the power of persuasion.
Regarding the content, it should be noted that, as stated in the election debates and speeches, the first priority in foreign policy and in the country's foreign relations in general is to de-escalate tensions and try to normalize Iran's image and relations in the international environment as much as possible. To this end, Dr. Pezhakian has correctly recognized that there is no need to create tensions in other areas. If we are to resolve the nuclear issue, revive the JCPOA, strengthen and enrich relations with Europe, and manage relations with the United States, there is no need to create tension, offend, or cause concern in neighbors or countries with whom we already have good relations.
Of course, the path of constructive engagement in foreign policy, which is mentioned in the documents of the upper echelons of the regime, has bottlenecks that must be addressed, but this is not meant to mean a one-sided view of foreign policy. The article’s clear and unvarnished position on Israel, the effort to assist and synergize with Islamic and Arab countries on the Palestinian issue, and the effort to develop relations with countries and regions of the world that have better relations with us, are incidentally the basis for this de-escalation and constructive engagement in the bottlenecks of foreign policy. Ironically, the obstacles are supposed to be removed so that these existing relations can take on a more qualitative and real aspect, rather than being destroyed in advance due to concerns.
Experience shows that when a problem in critical foreign policy issues moves towards resolution, it can potentially provoke sensitivity in areas where relations were normal or close, and damage can be reproduced from those same points. Therefore, moving towards resolving the problem in challenging foreign policy areas has requirements such as preventing the sensitivities of several groups of actors: domestic actors, neighboring countries, non-hostile competitors, and also countries that have maintained their relations with Iran during the sanctions and the existence of the problem; incidentally, it is necessary to take advantage of the current possibilities to remove restrictions in foreign policy. The 14th government seeks to increase its options in foreign policy, not eliminate existing options.
Furthermore, the article by the president-elect showed that the other side in issues that require resolution in Iran’s foreign relations should not have an unrealistic perception of the 14th government. In any case, the 14th government is supposed to secure Iran's national interests, and not to provide an open embrace and a guaranteed platform for whatever the opposing sides are attacking. If we pay attention to John Kirby's statements at the beginning of Dr. Pezzekian's election, we see that the image created in Washington needs to be corrected and brought closer to reality. Although such statements may be justified by attributing them to the domestic politics of the United States and its electoral issues, from the position of the president and the upcoming government in Iran, the issue cannot be seen in this way, and any interaction should be viewed solely from the framework of national interests and the national dignity of the Iranians.
Dr. Pezzekian's note in the Tehran Times newspaper is both significant and worthy of consideration in terms of its form and semiotic choices, and its content.
The first point is his taste in publishing his first note on foreign policy in a domestic publication, which we have not seen much of before. Senior politicians typically published their material in a famous European or US publication in order to gain international exposure. His first act as president-elect was to choose a domestic newspaper, and this, in my opinion, can be interpreted as self-confidence: in any case, the note of the president-elect of Iran, especially the first one, is given due attention, and the most important international publications reflect it, as they did. But the choice of Tehran Times, which even in terms of the origin of domestic politics does not quite match what Dr. Pezzekian came up with, is in itself a kind of determination of the playing field by itself and also the first step in terms of internal cohesion to solve the external problem and involve all political factions. This issue may be beyond the perspective of many political activists who think that as soon as they win, they should draw their sword and put everything under the sword.
The first content point of this article is the approach of the 14th government to the "power of logic" instead of the "logic of power", which is basically in accordance with the Constitution, at least in Articles 152 to 154. The logic of power means determining the tasks of the relations of nations and states based on their power and especially its material dimensions, which is of course a very backward and dysfunctional position. Even the most realist tendencies do not believe in such a determination in theorizing and announcing their up-to-date positions. If a moderate country like Iran believes in the "logic of power" in its conventional and classical sense, it must both bow down and practice complete obedience to those more powerful than itself, whether Western or Eastern, and it must also oppress those less powerful than itself to the extent possible, both of which are contrary to morals and religious teachings, Iranian tradition, and the basic components of the Islamic Revolution and the Constitution. However, the power of logic is a sign of the historical insight and culture of Iranians in the power of persuasion.
Regarding the content, it should be noted that, as stated in the election debates and speeches, the first priority in foreign policy and in the country's foreign relations in general is to de-escalate tensions and try to normalize Iran's image and relations in the international environment as much as possible. To this end, Dr. Pezhakian has correctly recognized that there is no need to create tensions in other areas. If we are to resolve the nuclear issue, revive the JCPOA, strengthen and enrich relations with Europe, and manage relations with the United States, there is no need to create tension, offend, or cause concern in neighbors or countries with whom we already have good relations.
Of course, the path of constructive engagement in foreign policy, which is mentioned in the documents of the upper echelons of the regime, has bottlenecks that must be addressed, but this is not meant to mean a one-sided view of foreign policy. The article’s clear and unvarnished position on Israel, the effort to assist and synergize with Islamic and Arab countries on the Palestinian issue, and the effort to develop relations with countries and regions of the world that have better relations with us, are incidentally the basis for this de-escalation and constructive engagement in the bottlenecks of foreign policy. Ironically, the obstacles are supposed to be removed so that these existing relations can take on a more qualitative and real aspect, rather than being destroyed in advance due to concerns.
Experience shows that when a problem in critical foreign policy issues moves towards resolution, it can potentially provoke sensitivity in areas where relations were normal or close, and damage can be reproduced from those same points. Therefore, moving towards resolving the problem in challenging foreign policy areas has requirements such as preventing the sensitivities of several groups of actors: domestic actors, neighboring countries, non-hostile competitors, and also countries that have maintained their relations with Iran during the sanctions and the existence of the problem; incidentally, it is necessary to take advantage of the current possibilities to remove restrictions in foreign policy. The 14th government seeks to increase its options in foreign policy, not eliminate existing options.
Furthermore, the article by the president-elect showed that the other side in issues that require resolution in Iran’s foreign relations should not have an unrealistic perception of the 14th government. In any case, the 14th government is supposed to secure Iran's national interests, and not to provide an open embrace and a guaranteed platform for whatever the opposing sides are attacking. If we pay attention to John Kirby's statements at the beginning of Dr. Pezzekian's election, we see that the image created in Washington needs to be corrected and brought closer to reality. Although such statements may be justified by attributing them to the domestic politics of the United States and its electoral issues, from the position of the president and the upcoming government in Iran, the issue cannot be seen in this way, and any interaction should be viewed solely from the framework of national interests and the national dignity of the Iranians.
But what has been seen in the press following the publication of the president-elect's article, including the reception and criticism, in some cases the author's crudeness is truly surprising: those whose claims are unbearable have such a primitive, old-fashioned, and banal view of international issues that one wonders if such a new and innovative approach is motivated by personal motives and perhaps an appetite for being seen and played with. Because if the judgment of our previous officials in these decades has been immature and rudimentary, the situation for the author of these lines is doubly unfortunate. Of course, the country's conditions, considering this amount of resources, indicate the existence of such closed-minded and incompetent views at some levels of governance. In many cases, the comments and criticisms are compassionate, expert, and fair, and it seems that their views should be taken into account regardless of political or factional origin, but in some cases, it is a different matter. Sometimes, cases are raised that are even more surprising: Sometimes the author is completely unaware that what he is talking about is the stance of an elected president and not a medium-sized or small political activist. Therefore, there is no need to include in a note every complaint and grievance about everyone. Anyone who has been a member of the Foreign Ministry at least administratively or has a relevant education and is supposed to know something about diplomacy should note that what is said about the positions of other countries, including China and Russia, regarding Iran cannot necessarily be corrected by taking a stance, which would have been done by now. If there are any mistakes in the context of these cases, more than taking a stance, one should address the cause. If the reckless author looks at the entire article, he will see that in balance with everything that has been brought up about these two close countries, the issue of the 14th government’s foreign policy not being the only option has been raised, which itself indicates that the relevant cause has been resolved. Since these references are causal and not causal, they are much more real and non-symbolic for readers of words such as governments, unlike uninformed readers such as the author of the aforementioned note.
File
