Essay on Shargh Newspaper - February 8, 2020 -
The original text is in Persian and the following translation was done by Ai.
Last week, following the interview of our country's Foreign Minister with the German magazine Spiegel, a noisy atmosphere was created for him and the apparatus under his management. Regardless of the atmosphere and details related to its domestic policy, we should always use these opportunities to discuss the content and analyze the strategy and tactics. Are we really facing the triad of war, resistance and negotiation in the acute tension with the United States? And if so, which is the correct choice among these three?
If we abandon the surface and delve into the depth of the issue, the conclusion that is reached should be to notice the structural and conceptual tensions between them over the past forty-one years. But this careful observation of the forty-year trajectory of this more or less tense relationship also reminds us that the disagreement between the two sides, which apparently has its ideological origins, has been marginalized and somehow managed at times due to the exigencies of national interests, and again, with the breakdown of calculations on one or both sides of the relationship, the distance has increased and the written or unwritten agreement has largely lost its effect.
Rationally, we cannot have a prejudice and a predetermined position in the country's foreign relations against the governments and institutions that we recognize. In the sense that our position, approach and action will usually be a function of the positions, approach and performance of the other side. This is true for all governments and institutions recognized by the Iranian government: if the government closest to us adopts a different approach to its positions and approaches and acts differently, for example, hostilely, then naturally our diplomacy will not turn on the same heel of friendship with this previously friendly government, and the diplomatic apparatus will be obliged to respond to this change of position quickly and decisively. In the same way, when a government that has been or is an enemy of our country changes its approach and perhaps tangible changes can be observed in practice, the same appropriate and proportionate change will be expected from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, it can be said that in any situation, even a war with a government that we recognize, the doors of diplomacy are not necessarily and irrevocably closed. Rather, as an accepted fact in international relations, the promotion of bilateral relations in terms of level and quality will always depend on the positions and performance of the parties, and from this perspective, we cannot take the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs as a basis.
Therefore, in response to the main question of this note and following the points mentioned, we can conclude that we have never, and with any government that we recognize, had war, resistance, or negotiation as a goal or even a principle. Rather, both our goal and our fundamental principle in foreign relations are purely national interests, and all the options, examples of which were mentioned, will only be used as tools for this goal. Incidentally, it is good to remember that diplomacy is typically the final steps on this path.
The current sanctions under the maximum pressure campaign have reminded both sides of this tense relationship more than ever before: on the one hand, Iran, both at the government level and the public, has become more and more aware of the real role - rightly or wrongly - of the United States in international interactions, and has also realized that even interacting with friends and relatives in the international arena without this country's interference will be very difficult.
On the other hand, the United States has also been forced to abandon the illusion of creating structural changes through sanctions pressure and Iran's economic contraction. Because with all the pressures that are being imposed on the Iranian people and government in various areas today, the fact that life is still going on in its real form in Iran, despite all possible and comprehensive pressure being applied to this country, and whether it likes it or not, the economy and, in short, Iran's power have become too much to pull the rug from under its sovereignty or bring it to its knees in the negotiation room with economic-sanction pressure, even by preventing its oil exports.
As the two sides' picture of the scene they find themselves in becomes more concrete, perhaps it will become more necessary to revisit the issue. Although it seems that the task is now more difficult for both sides than in the first six months of this year, there is still an opportunity to change the current erosional path, given Europe's position, the relative stability of the Iranian economy, and the upcoming elections in the United States; as if the diplomatic initiative should be used to throw the ball in the other side's court and force it to correct its concrete performance and initially - even if it means "suspending sanctions" - turn away from this path.
Shargh Daily link
File
