Interview with Etemad Newspaper, January 25, 2025 -
The interview was in Persian and the translation below was done by Ai.
As a first question, what is your assessment of the reflection of Mr. Zarif’s positions as one of the official officials of the 14th government in the context of the important Davos summit and also his interview with Fareed Zakaria on the sidelines of this summit?
In the context and on the sidelines of the Davos World Economic Forum, Dr. Zarif met with many statesmen and intellectuals and spoke with them. The main topics were about Iran’s foreign policy approach in the 14th government, especially with regard to regional developments. Dr. Zarif spoke in detail about the narratives fabricated by the Zionist regime about the Islamic Republic of Iran and, by explaining the opportunity-oriented view and approach of the 14th government and the historical position of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the past more than two centuries, exposed the fake narratives, especially those based on Iran’s weakness, to regional and international audiences.
Do you believe that this conversation carried a specific message to the new US administration, taking into account Tehran's positions on the nuclear program and emphasizing an honorable dialogue?
Dr. Zarif did not send a specific message to anyone, including the United States, and no dialogue was held on this matter. What is clear is that, given the necessary political will, there is a good opportunity for the Trump administration, given that Republicans have been able to win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate on the domestic front, to make decisions in the foreign policy arena that take into account the interests of this country and not the demands of Israel, and to define a reasonable strategy regarding Iran and the Middle East. The reality is that in any situation we must try to prevent Iran from becoming the center of attention. Because this issue can impose costly costs, threats, and frictions on Iran through the Zionist regime’s security project.
To what extent do you believe that the diplomatic approach of Mr. Pezishian’s government in the media context, especially by a figure who previously played a prominent role in the nuclear negotiations, can neutralize the leverage of the American hawks of the Trump administration? And also provide the basis for consultations between Tehran and Washington?
The reality is that this trip was not carried out with such a goal and was more focused on Iran’s genuine activism in the international environment and regaining our country’s share of effective platforms. In any case, our country has considerable diplomatic capabilities, and everything in the diplomacy of the Islamic Republic must be implemented with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the centerpiece, and given Dr. Zarif’s real position, this coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is at its maximum.
In the current circumstances, to what extent has Mr. Zarif’s visit and his message been able to neutralize the narrative of Israeli and Western circles about Iran and our country’s regional interactions?
The truth is that Israel is trying to forge a “dangerously weak” narrative about the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is both incorrect. It is one thing to say that the resistance-oriented forces have paid costs in the past year, and it is another to interpret it as “the weakness of the Islamic Republic of Iran”; this interpretation is achieved when we consider the resistance-oriented forces to be Iranian proxy forces, which is not really the case. First, in many cases, the resistance movements that we know today in the region are older than the Islamic Republic, and logically, these forces cannot be created and manufactured by Iran. Second, a proxy force is meaningful when the decision and goal-setting of its movements are made at the origin - for example, Tehran. However, in the case of the resistance axis forces, neither of these two is correct; these forces make their own decisions and act independently. It is as if in many cases, even these decisions and actions have not reached Tehran. In some cases, even the decisions and actions of the resistance axis forces have had a serious angle with Tehran, and these cases can be traced back to the past decade. This shows that basically the resistance forces are not proxy forces, but genuine entities that have been formed based on historical-geographical necessity. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s relationship with them is, of course, a supportive one, but these forces have never been part of Iran’s deterrence or military power, and targeting them would mean weakening Iran. The reality is that resistance will remain a core and old idea against the occupation of the Zionist regime. Resistance is not planned, but a spontaneous pattern that can be organized later.
The second idea, “the danger of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” which is being constructed by Israel in order to secure Iran, must also be scrutinized and analyzed. The core of this interpretation can be explained on the basis that since Iran’s proxy forces and deterrent elements have been affected, this country will inevitably change its nuclear doctrine. But the premise and conclusion of this argument are wrong. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not fundamentally see its deterrent force in harm, and given its self-sufficiency, stability, and self-confidence in the security it has created, it does not need to adopt strange moves and approaches. The Islamic Republic of Iran's approach today is a positive and opportunity-oriented approach, and it is most appropriate and successful for this approach and spirit to be heard in contexts such as the World Economic Forum. At the same time, today's negotiations do not need much context, and its bottleneck, mostly cost-benefit calculations and the sustainability of its results, can be explained in light of historical aspects. If the parties feel that the benefits of an idea outweigh its costs, they should definitely not avoid that path.
Etemad Link
File
