In response to the question of the reason for the emergence of such a path by the Europeans, Karimi said: Our work with Europe has reached this point for four reasons; One is the failure to revive the JCPOA and the fact that European politicians felt that they had been played with all this time, and at two points (March 1402 and July of this year), with the approximate return of some of Mr. Araqchi's achievements in the sixth round of negotiations (June 1402), the negotiations were still not concluded and remained open for no understandable reason to European countries.
He added: The second reason is related to public opinion within Europe, which in recent months has made it difficult to be lenient towards Iran in the media and due to movements abroad.
He clarified: The third reason is the lack of significant interests in Iran. Compared to Iran's rival countries such as Arab countries and Turkey, etc., the amount of interests involved in Iran by the West is really close to zero, and this makes it easy for them to "pass on interests". One might even say that today, passing on Iran has not only become cost-free for countries, but also beneficial.
Karimi continued: "The fourth reason, from the European perspective, is Iran's support for Russia in the Ukraine war, which, in addition to threatening their geopolitical position, has also made public opinion in Europe more stubborn and sensitive towards Iran. The Ukrainian war is seen by the West as an anti-European war, and the issue of drones and other issues that we were unable to resolve in professional dialogue has caused significant credit costs for us, and in fact, we have unwittingly become partners in Russia's defeat in the Ukraine war." In response to the question that some believe that calling the IRGC a terrorist group by the Europeans gives Israel an open hand to confront Iran on Iranian soil and that this action reduces the cost of any war for Israel, what is your opinion on this matter? What is Israel's role behind these decisions and how can Israel's actions in this regard be neutralized, he said: "These cases do not have any specific legal basis and are mostly political pressure." Yes, politically, when a country does not have many supporters in the international environment, coercive action and even other types of action against it become less costly and, as mentioned, sometimes beneficial.
He added: It seems to me that the Israel lobby in Europe and the United States is stronger than we give it credit for in our calculations. There is indeed a lot of political pressure from various directions on politicians in the West from the Israel lobby, and this is even noticeable in the decision-making and think tank spheres, which ultimately sometimes leads to such cases.
He clarified: It is not really possible to neutralize such a thing with a short-term plan; if such a will arises at the high levels of decision-making in the system, it will require many changes at the think tank and executive levels. So that the decision-making and think tank areas, as well as the high level of the government, are emptied of non-experts and pseudo-experts who lack professional and specialized authority and simply present their positions in a bulletin format. In this case, and provided that national cohesion returns in support of the country's policies, it is possible to professionally engage in politics and advance national interests, which in this case will be neutralized.
Karimi, in response to the question that some state that the West and Israel are trying to place the IRGC in a position like the Taliban, Boko Haram, or even ISIS in the eyes of public opinion, said: "This is while the IRGC is practically the official military force of our country and they should not be allowed to simulate it, because in this case, European politicians will be able to more easily convince the public opinion of their countries that Israel is fighting a terrorist organization." What is your opinion on this matter? He said: I do not think that it will lead to violent actions, but in any case, these cases can potentially be the subject of such actions to isolate the country and its sovereign forces. In any case, as a professional politician, you should try to ensure that the countries you face do not form alliances against you and that their interests do not conflict with each other. In any case, these cases, which have more political weight, can come into play on the day of the incident.
In response to the question that the US listed the IRGC as a terrorist group when it had no diplomatic relations with Iran, but Iran and Europe have relations, if the IRGC is listed as a terrorist group by Europe, it will have much greater consequences, what is your assessment of this statement and how the basis of the difference in the consequences of the two actions of Europe and the US can be compared, this expert on international affairs said: The issue is both diplomatic relations and beyond that, the fact that this was done in the United States during the time of Trump and was considered among his crazy actions and did not have legitimacy in terms of public opinion, but Europe, which today takes these positions at the level of the European Parliament and possibly the Council of Europe, as well as the major governments of the Green Continent, is in a way a creator of international norms.
He added: That is, the reality is that the political, media and public opinion burden of these two actions is extremely different and this issue must be paid attention to. Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and our Presidency, especially in the Legal Department, act in a reactive, unprofessional and second-hand manner, and this has led to the fact that even the expert body of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not being used appropriately. That is why you see that within a year and a half we have changed our position from a high, rightful and creditor position in the international environment to the opposite, and this is regrettable.
In response to the question of how you see the shadow of this action on any Iranian nuclear activity, some believe that by using this statement and accompanying public opinion with it, Europe will be able to question Iran's peaceful nuclear activity much more easily than before by increasing its excuses, and this issue is reminiscent of what happened in Iraq and the US's excuse for attacking Iraq. How do you evaluate this issue? Karimi said: To question our nuclear file, political will is largely sufficient. Because so far, the statements made by the West in the nuclear field have not had a strong legal and technical aspect. But political pressure could make it easier for France or Britain to take action in the form of a snapback mechanism, and we would return to Chapter VII of the UN Charter. In addition, the sunsets of the JCPOA have also been lost, and this point is more dangerous for the country in the current situation than ever before, and our obligation now is to create a kind of national consensus and professional policy-making and politics.
In response to the question of how effective he considers the role of some provocative and arbitrary actions, such as graffiti on the British embassy or some extreme and inappropriate comments by our country's officials, in escalating this tension, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Tehran said: These actions are ignorant or treacherous. Because they are extremely useless and extremely costly, and they make things easier for our adversaries. In similar cases, such as the attack on the British and Saudi embassies, we have even witnessed condemnation of the action by the highest officials of the system, but these things are repeated again. The only thing these actions do in the international environment is delegitimize us, and the reaction of the ambassadors of European countries in these instances was also of the same nature.
In response to the question of how influential the country's diplomatic apparatus was in creating these conditions and how the role of diplomacy can be strengthened in reducing this tension, Karimi said: Incidentally, the weakness of the diplomatic apparatus at its head has caused the most ground for these issues to arise in the past year and a half. The expert capacity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is relatively good, but the top of the pyramid of the current Ministry of Foreign Affairs really lacks expert resources. Therefore, in their calculations, they do not understand something called "the atmosphere of the international environment" and "building consensus against the country" and do not propose strategic decisions to the decision-making system. Because the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in addition to carrying out its assigned tasks, also plays a monitoring role for the country's decision-making institutions and transfers analysis from the international environment of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the system. Therefore, in the absence of a circle of experts and the role of individual positions in this, the task of decision-making becomes more difficult and the error rate increases.
In response to the question of what effects this action will have on the country's economic situation and what consequences it will have in the country's economic sphere, considering the economic structure of our country, by calling the IRGC a terrorist organization, he said: Of course, the impact factor of such an issue should be seen in the decision-making of European governments, and by passing a resolution, no other burden will be imposed on the system except for political coincidence. However, basically, if there is a will to impose more sanctions on the private sector, etc., everything can be attributed to this issue and the field for trade with Iran will be narrowed. Especially since sanctions have different impact factors when they are labeled differently, and this label is very sensitive.
In response to the question of how operational you see the possibility of summoning ambassadors and what its consequences will be, Karimi said: I do not see this issue as imminent at the moment. Because there is also this analysis in Europe that cutting off communication can lead to more radicalization of countries, and the lack of communication will make it difficult to plan for possible reactions. But the consequences if it happens are severe and are not a good sign of the direction we are heading.
In response to the question of what scientific solutions should be adopted by the country's diplomatic apparatus to overcome the potential crisis, this foreign policy expert said: "I do not think that this management in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the ability to design and analyze usefully. If there is a will to ward off evil, either the initiative in the areas of international security should be transferred from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to another place in the government, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, regardless of the declared approach of the current government, should make fundamental changes with a national perspective and present a new face and capability in the field of management and expertise at a high level, which is unlikely and may fundamentally have problems in cooperation with other government departments.
In response to the question that one of the difficult points of the nuclear negotiations that posed a great challenge was the issue of the IRGC's removal from the US blacklist. If the European Union repeats this action, how much more unattainable will it be to open the issue of revitalizing the JCPOA? Karimi said: "I consider the negotiations to revive the JCPOA irrelevant in the current situation. The only effect of what remains of the JCPOA up to this moment is that the approach towards our enrichment and nuclear activities has not become more severe, which is of course very important. However, it seems that the West no longer needs the nuclear pretext to put pressure on Iran in the international environment because with the actions that took place in the JCPOA negotiations and its implementation until last year, this issue has been removed from the top of the list of sensitive issues. In addition, now more acceptable and more fruitful excuses for such projects have emerged and are available.
He added: "But if the JCPOA had been revived and inappropriate approaches had not caused the negotiations to fail, it is highly likely that these new excuses would not have arisen in the first place, because both domestically and internationally, we would have had prospects that would have called for more patience from everyone."
ILNA Link
File
