Interview with Khabar Online, June 27, 2024 -
The interview was in Persian and the translation below was done by Ai.
Zeinab Esmaili: We talked to Sasan Karimi, a lecturer at the University of Tehran, about the new situation in the world, Iran's position, and the opportunities that are being lost. He believes that "lifting sanctions is the focal point of the foreign policy of the doctors, but with Mr. Ghalibaf's minimalist view, I think it is unlikely that he will pay the necessary attention. Mr. Jalili is also basically indifferent to this issue and denies the effect of sanctions and the possibility of their lifting."
The current world has its own order that arises from the existing disorder, political alliances, military contracts, etc. reflect this new situation. Where is Iran in the new situation? In what atmosphere do the election candidates see Iran?
In my opinion, the world today is in a post-polar era. The activism of diverse actors, the non-hegemonic nature of the actors, the lack of permanent alliances, and the establishment of thematic coalitions are among the characteristics of this era. The election candidates had no personal connection to such a new space and were not seen as having much capacity for current world issues. However, what their entourage and experts said and wrote for them was in some cases very backward, in some cases somewhat backward, and in some cases up-to-date.
Iran’s situation in the current world situation is not interesting in terms of the order that was presented. Because sanctions have prevented our minimal working contacts with the world and have put us in a state of survival. This is while all developing countries are moving forward at a strange speed and passing us by. Especially in qualitative and developmental matters, we have fallen far behind the trends we see in the world. Technology and capital exchange are the biggest areas that we are deprived of, and this backwardness is very strategic and may become irreparable in the future. Times like these determine the position of countries in the next order, which unfortunately must be said, will probably decline Iran’s position again.
Fortunately, all opponents of the JCPOA have agreed to negotiate today. What kind of government with what characteristics do you think can have the necessary tools to negotiate and reach an agreement with the world?
It seems to me that this change is a compliment and that they know that any promise to the contrary is extremely sensitive. In practice, what many candidates who have traditionally opposed negotiations focused on results say is mostly erosive and fruitless negotiations that we have witnessed in the past. International work requires an updated and realistic perspective that most of the friends present in the electoral race are deprived of.
While the Moderation and Development government was able to achieve the JCPOA, it lost it with Trump's departure, as well as the relationship with Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, the Raisi government was able to restore relations with Saudi Arabia, make membership in Shanghai possible, and in the most recent step, it has reached an agreement to resume relations with Bahrain. These show that the conservative government can also claim achievement. So we can't really argue that they don't know the language of the world and...
In the case of Shanghai, that's not the case, and Iran's membership was finalized in Ordibehesht 1400 and its letter was received.
In the case of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, of course, we know that it wasn't the destruction of the previous government's working relations, but rather a kind of sabotage in the work of the previous government. But in any case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs can always solve the problem by relying on its expertise and especially by utilizing the capabilities of the relevant universities. It's as if the problem with Saudi Arabia, etc. was not solved within the government and was solved outside it.
The most important file of the government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which was very close to being finalized, was the revival of the JCPOA, but unfortunately, due to the wrong vision that existed, the opportunity was lost at important points and the country was unable to make proper use of the relatively favorable conditions that had arisen. In my opinion, the revival of the JCPOA fell victim to two things: an inappropriate perception of the real conditions of foreign policy and the international environment, which led to the war in Ukraine and subsequent situations, and a lack of readiness to complete the work. The final signature at the end of any agreement puts the broker in serious historical danger and will always bear the brunt of damage and criticism. But national interests require that the broker make such a sacrifice.
In the presidential candidates’ foreign policy debate, the JCPOA was practically a forgotten point and was rarely addressed. As a graduate of politics and international relations, do you think that, given the approaching expiration date of Resolution 2231, Iran can work with the world without essentially reviving the JCPOA?
Absolutely not! Considering what is behind us, namely the Europeans’ fire and the recent resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors and the recent statements of the European Union representative in the UN Security Council, and what is ahead of us, namely the US elections, it seems to me that our negligence will lead to the West making excuses and starting the mechanism for resolving the JCPOA disputes, known as the snapback, which will pave the way for the loss of the final sunset of the agreement. After the final sunset in Mehr 1404. If everything goes well, there is no possibility of the Security Council sanctions against Iran returning, but it is likely that if the new government in Tehran does not make sufficient efforts to advance the work of reviving the JCPOA in the short term, we will lose this sunset and the Security Council sanctions that were imposed on the country during Mr. Ahmadinejad’s government will return. This is an important point. Of course, the candidates talked about lifting the sanctions, which was the focal point of Mr. Pezzekian’s foreign policy and the sidelines of Mr. Qalibaf’s talks. But from Mr. Qalibaf’s perspective, I think it is unlikely that he will pay the necessary attention. Mr. Jalili is also basically indifferent to this issue and denies the effects of sanctions and the possibility of their removal.
What consequences could the continuation of a government like Mr. Raisi’s government or the government of the fundamentalists and conservatives have for the country?
The fundamentalists are a spectrum. Mr. Qalibaf’s government will certainly be noisy, but at least the issue of foreign policy and the requirement to lift sanctions will not be denied in it. They will probably move forward with many margins, but the government headed by Mr. Jalili, in my opinion, will be in a different paradigm and cannot even be compared to the 13th government. I think it is unlikely that in his paradigm one can really hope for issues surrounding the lifting of sanctions, snapback, and the JCPOA.
Khabar Online Link
File
