A U.S.-based analyst is of the opinion that talks over the 2015 Iran nuclear deal will not result in an agreement between Tehran and Washington because the Biden administration is unwilling to reach a deal with a revolutionary government in Tehran.

“If Biden’s cabinet wants to reach any agreement with Iran, the Republicans use it as a tactic to attack Biden. Also, I ensure you that Americans cannot reach any agreement with Iran and the JCPOA talks result in nothing from the American side,” Dariush Sajjadi said in an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times.

Following is the full text of the interview:

Q: The recent developments in Iran has cast a shadow on the Biden’s government and has created at least one different talking point in foreign policy discourses. How far do you think these developments and the new conditions may affect Biden Administration’s approach toward Iran in general and toward the Vienna talks in particular?

A: I was one of those who used to say that nothing would come out of the JCPOA in Mr. Raisi 's administration because the Americans did not want it. Why?  When the Americans began the negotiations, the pragmatist government in Iran came into power. I mean, Mr. Hassan Rouhani, the successor of Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was always been considered by Americans as part of the pragmatist faction.

International laws are defined based on power.Since the [Islamic] revolution of Iran, the Americans have been closer to Iran's pragmatists. And in the McFarlane affair, they liaised with Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani's team including Mr. Hassan Rouhani and Mr. Vardinejad. The [American’s] main goal during the last forty-three years has been to shift political power balance against the revolutionary faction in Iran by making concession to the pragmatic faction. When Mr. Rouhani became the president, it was a good opportunity for the White House to change the political balance in favor of pragmatists through the JCPOA negotiations. But something happened in between. The main candidate for the White House [to carry on negotiations] was Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani.

If you remember, Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani entered the 2013 presidential race. He was so politically powerful that if he had not been disqualified, he could go, without getting the Leader’s permission, to the United Nations to give a speech, negotiate with Obama, make some concessions. The Americans would have made deal with Hashemi. Why? Because they knew that Mr. Hashemi was so powerful that he could use their favor inside Iran to isolate the revolutionary faction. After Hashemi was disqualified, though Hassan Rouhani was a member of Mr. Hashemi’s political family, the Americans knew Iranians and knew that Hassan Rouhani was not powerful enough to make any deal with him. Therefore, the JCPOA negotiation was fruitless.

Despite negotiations, the JCPOA was not considered as a trump card for Rouhani. When Hashemi Rafsanjani passed away, I wrote that Rouhani's government is doomed, because Rafsanjani was the detached intellect of Hassan Rouhani cabinet. After Hashemi, Hassan Rouhani became passive, because, in the eyes of the Americans, he lost his main supporter.

Riyadh wants to take revenge for its failures in Yemen and Iraq through Iran International.When Mr.  Raisi entered the office, the [Iranian] system became uniform. The Americans understood that they could play in Iran if there was dissension and polarity.
When the system became uniform, I said: “JCPOA will be futile.” Why? In the then-presidential elections, when Mr. Jalili was the candidate against Mr. Velayati, in one of the debates, Mr. Velayati reminded Jalili scornfully that diplomacy is not a philosophy class.  At the same time, I gave an answer to Mr. Velayati in one of my articles that in the Islamic Republic, diplomacy is a field of philosophy.

It was for this reason that the late Imam wrote his most philosophical letter addressed to Gorbachev before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. When Zarif became the foreign minister and the JCPOA was signed, I wrote at the time that if the JCPOA was not signed during Jalili’s negotiations and was signed during Zarif negotiations it was because America and the (remaining) 5+1 group did not seek to resolve the issue with Jalili because Jalili was a representative of the revolutionary faction, and they didn't want to make any concession to them. Zarif represented pragmatists, therefore, 5+1 reached an agreement with Zarif. When the government of Raisi came to power, it did not make any sense for them to make a deal with him and his faction. Basically, the main goal is to isolate the [Iran’s] revolutionary party.

Meanwhile, several events happened in between that changed the balance of power in favor of Iran; one was Russia's attack on Ukraine. Well, Russia's attack on Ukraine was somehow a good thing for Iran, it gave rise to a fuel crisis in Europe.

On the other hand, not only Biden but also the Democratic faction were in their most fragile political situation. Currently, inflation in America is very high and the middle class of the [American] society is under undue pressure. You know, America was once known as happy America.

In fifties, sixties, seventies, a holiday was defined for an American who was either in Disneyland, or on a trip or at a party and was happy. After 2007, when America fell, that happy American now works two or even three shifts to be able to pay his bills in the weekend. No more weekend! Inflation has gone up and when Biden imposed sanction on Russia’s oil, American citizens were the first who were hit by fuel cost which increased from two dollars a gallon to seven dollars, five dollars, six dollars. Therefore, America is suffering more from inflation.  The Democratic Party is in its most fragile state…. If Biden’s cabinet wants to reach any agreement with Iran, the Republicans use it as a tactic to attack Biden. Also, I ensure you that Americans cannot reach any agreement with Iran and the JCPOA talks result in nothing from American side.

Q: Do you think the Biden government pays attention to the opposition abroad?

A: To answer your question, I will give a historical example to make it more relevant. If you remember, in the 2008 Nowruz, Obama sent a very polite congratulatory letter to the Leader of Iran for the first time. And this was a signal. Look! The political structure of the White House is not uniform. Traditionally, the White House is divided into doves and eagles. Doves of the White House are known for their diplomacy, Eagles for an iron fist. In 2008, Mr. Obama wrote that letter on behalf of the dovish faction with Mr. John Kerry and the same Joe Biden. The trio took over the game against the eagles who were looking for radical encounters. On the other hand, Mrs. Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta as the Pentagon chief were looking for a fight. But Obama took over the game and began the negotiations through Oman.

Selling arms to Iraq to fight against us was not wrong at that time and Europeans did it very brazenly. Although the Leader welcomed the negotiation but, he gave his historical speech in Mashhad about "iron hand under a velvet glove". Anyway, they came forward. Until June, when fraud in [Iran’s presidential] elections was raised, and people took to street.

It was after the riots in Tehran that the eagles in the White House took over the game and Hillary Clinton officially promoted the riots through Twitter and Facebook. Obama resisted until the last moment to maintain diplomacy. Not that Obama is against them and in favor of Iran. They both pursue the same goal, using different methods, one with diplomacy (and) the other with confrontation.

Obama tried as much as he could, but after the suspicious killing of Neda Agha Sultan, the American media promoted it even though it was against law, because according to the law of journalism in the West, no media has the right to publish news and images that hurt public opinion. On September 11, when 3,000 people were killed in Manhattan, no television showed a single body. But in the case of Iran, this law was forgotten and the scene of the killing of Neda Agha Sultan was spotlighted one whole week with two goals. The first goal was to influence international opinion against Iran, and the second target was Obama himself because he had resisted a little and had not said anything [about Neda’s death]. Finally, when pressure increased, Obama was forced to give up and make a harsh speech against Iran.

The Leader also gave him an answer. Then the dovish faction lost the game to the eagles, and they continued those games for two years, resulting in imposing paralyzing sanctions [on Iran]. So, the political climate in America is not uniform. Currently, there is strong anti-Iran lobby in America including the Jewish lobbyists who place heavy pressure on AIPAC and SWIFT.

They (the West) are afraid of an Iran which they once refused to sell even barbed wire to.In 1988, England played in the camp of Israel and the eagles. In fact, in 2008, England, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were seeking to break up nuclear talks and to push toward military confrontation. After Mr. Malley’s remarks, the opposition abroad launched a campaign against him. He did not say anything wrong. The diplomat was trying to keep the game in the field of diplomacy through the same dovish faction. But these excited masses of Iranians outside the country who think there is a smell of the revolution [in Iran] increased their pressure to such an extent that they asked for Malley’s resignation. I want to say that there is still the same climate of political factions in America especially now that America has a fragile condition both economically and militarily.

About Ukraine. Well, Europe also has its own concerns. Europe is not the Europe of the Obama era, when 5+1 (countries) were allies. Now Europe's problem with America is much more serious. America does not have much concern about fuel shortage.  And that's why Europeans complain more than Americans about the issue of drones.  Sorry to use this term “Americans are flirting with diplomacy,” but Europeans have serious concerns. Therefore, the Europeans have taken harsher stand about riots in Iran than the Americans. Ukraine, of course, is an important reason. But another reason is because European democracy is extremely secular, that’s why Europeans are harsher than Americans [in their reaction toward the unrest in Iran]. Secularists are against hijab. Especially in France after the Renaissance hijab became strictly a taboo. In America, they don't care much about hijab, but it is very important for Europeans. That's why France has taken more sever stand than others.

Q: How do you in general evaluate the role of Persian-language media abroad about Iran's internal affairs, especially with regard to the events unfolded over the last few weeks?

A: first, these are not media. Media has its own academic definition. If you look at the recent events, you will realize Iran International [TV] is playing the main game. A professional journalist obviously doesn’t consider them as media at all. In fact, professionally, a media has no right to introduce its own political orientation into the program. While in Iran International, each anchor has taken stand and given judgements. So do not consider these media. Most of them are making propaganda. BBC can be considered as a kind of media. It plays its game more professionally. Of course, they make mischief, but at least they make it professionally. But don't consider Iran International, Manoto, and Voice of America as media at all, especially Iran International.

Iran International is Riyadh's political tool. In fact, Riyadh wants to take revenge for its failures in Yemen and Iraq through Iran International. Riyadh has lost the game in Yamen despite large investment on Muqtada al-Sadr and others. It lost the game in Iraq when the new prime minister and president of Iraq took office. Therefore, Iran International is fueling the fire [of riots in Iran].

Second, it goes back to the weakness of the media inside Iran. Unfortunately, our media did not act professionally, especially radio and television. You see, the output of our radio and television is not what it must be. Why? Because you monopolize the media; we have one radio station in Iran; we don't have any other one, and the structure is employee-oriented. So, the journalists are not professional. They have a monthly salary; they want to get their monthly salary and do some work to earn their money. In America, one faces Fox News, CNN, MSNBC,… all of which are private and increase the quality of their work to steal even one audience from each other. But here, where there is no competition, there is no concern, so the result is a poor and weak broadcast. In 2017, when I was in America, Ofogh TV invited me through Skype; there they showed an interview of Mr. Karbaschi with BBC who defended Iran's national interests very firmly and seriously. Then the anchor asked if you liked Karbaschi's speech. I said of course I like it. But why don't you give this tribune to Karbaschi and others like him? Or why have you never given them a tribune and they must go there? We have performed very poorly in terms of media and now it is quite evident that a media such as Iran International with its fake news and mischievous propaganda can very easily endanger Iran's national interests. If we can say Iran International has had any effect.

Q: What is the purpose of the West in creating such as huge commotion over Iran’s sale of drones to Russia?

A: Don't take international laws too seriously because they are defined based on power. Genghis Khan had a ring with the inscription "Force is right". You have as much right as you have power. The Europeans who are now complaining why Iran is giving drones to Russia used to sell a large number of weapons from chemical to Dassault Super Etendard, Mirage, etc. to Saddam Hussein to fight against our country. Selling arms to Iraq to fight against us was not wrong at that time and they did it very brazenly.

The second example is when the American embassy was occupied, they were creating a fuss that Iran has violated the Vienna Convention and occupied the territory of the embassy. But the same convention was violated in 2007 in Erbil when helicopters landed on the roof of the Iranian liaison Office in Erbil, kidnapped our diplomats in bed cloth, confiscated our docs and kept [our diplomats] for 2 years. Neither the European Union nor the UN made any comment on it. My point is that don’t take international laws very seriously, it is all about your power.  Their concern is not drones, they’re afraid of an Iran which they once refused to sell even barbed wire to. But Iran has gone so far that it is selling drones to a superpower. They did the same to Iran. Aren't these laws the same as the ruling laws of that time? I want to say that part of these concerns is due to their failure in bringing Iran to its knees. I explained earlier, another part is that Europe is extremely secular. And the secular tradition has a very negative attitude towards religious issues, especially hijab. And the hijab and riots are an excuse in the hands of Europeans to exaggerate the drone issue far more that it is.

 

 

 

By TEHRAN TIMES