Essay on Dr. Masoud Pezzekian's website on July 17, 2024 -
The original text is in Persian and the following translation was done by Ai.
Dr. Pezzekian’s note in the Tehran Times is both significant and worthy of consideration in terms of its form and semiotic choices, as well as 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 well-known European or US publication in order to gain international visibility. 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, which they did. However, choosing the Tehran Times, which does not even match what Dr. Pezzekian came up with in terms of its domestic policy origins, is in itself a way of defining the playing field by himself and also the first step towards internal cohesion to solve the foreign issue 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 swords and destroy everything they have. The first substantive 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 relations between nations and states based on their power, 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 their theorizing and announcing their current positions. If a moderate country like Iran believes in the "logic of power" in its conventional and classical sense, it must both bow its head and practice complete obedience to those more powerful than itself, whether Western or Eastern, and it must also commit oppression to the extent possible against those less powerful than itself, which are both contrary to morals and religious teachings, Iranian tradition, and the basic components of the Islamic Revolution and the Constitution. But 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 destined 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 tensions, offend, or cause concern in neighbors or countries with whom we already have good relations.
Of course, the path of constructive interaction 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-dimensional view of foreign policy. The article's clear and unvarnished stance on Israel, its efforts to assist and collaborate with Islamic and Arab countries on the Palestinian issue, and its efforts 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 foreign policy bottlenecks. Ironically, the obstacles are 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. From this process, it should be understood that the United States – Biden, Trump or anyone else – as well as the three European countries need to redefine relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, including proposing and resolving the most important issues between them, and this point has been taken into account in the article published in the Tehran Times. Finally, we must remind ourselves and the entire world that the issues between Iran and the above countries, including the nuclear issue, are not cases for which Iran is responsible, and therefore, resolving these issues will not be through unilateral trust-building by Iran. Violations of commitments on issues such as the nuclear issue, the JCPOA, etc. will of course be resolved when the opposing parties also have a real will to correct their fruitless approaches in those paragraphs. Although each government has its own priorities and approaches in foreign policy, two issues are common among all governments: one is the basis of foreign policy, which is the general principles of balance in foreign policy and is based on honor, wisdom, and expediency, and the other is the goal of foreign policy, which is to ensure the interests, security, and pride of Iran. The main claim that is the subject of disagreement between governments and different origins is the prioritization of issues, and the other is the method and success of implementation.
Another issue in this article is the updated understanding of the non-polarized and post-polar international order. This shows that the 14th government, in its view of foreign relations, including politics, economics, security, media, etc., does not see itself as a prisoner of a camp-based, West-Eastern order, and therefore seeks to establish a multi-choice and comprehensive foreign policy for 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 was 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 countries, the issue of the 14th government’s foreign policy not being a single option has been brought up, 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. It should be noted that the repeated use of exclamation and question marks, as well as the repeated use of adjectives and adverbs, does not contribute to the legitimacy of the speech, but rather indicates bias, weakness in reasoning, and another problem hidden between the lines. Otherwise, anyone who has read the Tehran Times article will find it all saturated with a balanced foreign policy, neither Eastern nor Western, and avoiding a single-option foreign policy, and in this case, there is no need to ask a firm question about what has been called "extreme orientalism." It is better to refer to new course materials in foreign policy and international relations in order to correct the perception of concepts such as "partnership or strategic relationship." Today, strategic communication in the world, like many other political terms, has lost its Cold War meaning, and therefore understanding them requires an up-to-date picture of the literature of international relations and world politics. Communication and even strategic partnership today no longer mean permanent and comprehensive alliance, but rather, due to the post-polar order that dominates the world, alliances are subjective, and communications are described as "strategic" in the sense of their long-term and sustainable nature.
The "hows" that are asked out of urgency are neither in the position of their explanation in the first memorandum of the President, in which he is supposed to explain his positions and approaches, nor can they be explained through everyday discussions. The place for theorizing in these cases is the university, and the place for their operationalization is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other relevant agencies. A person who is apparently experienced in foreign policy is expected to have this minimum realism of politics.
Finally, it should be noted that the Iranian president will not be constantly concerned about whether or not he will arouse enthusiasm among politicians and journalists around the world when writing and expressing his position. Every senior politician will express his positions with complete calmness and implement them to the extent possible, and if he is sufficiently confident, he will focus on balanced, balanced, and realistic policymaking and planning instead of worrying about dramatic performances; whether or not someone on the other side of the border will like it. In the final analysis, such writings by former officials once again raise the concern for the reader: "Have we put our interests and resources at risk and loss in all these years due to such unfamiliarity in some cases?" God willing, this has not been the case.
File
