Sara Samavati

Mohammad Atrianfar, who serves on the central committee of the Servants of Construction Party [“Hezb-e Kargozaran-e Sazandegi”], spoke to Rooz about the Columbia University incident, the nuclear standoff, and the Eight Majlis elections. Atrianfar believes that conservatives and fundamentalists will not be able to provide a unified slate for the forthcoming parliamentary elections because they are both currently in power. Excerpts:

Rooz (R): Based on your assessment and analysis, what do you think the outcome of the winter Majlis elections will be?

Mohammad Atrianfar (MA): My prediction is that if Mr. Khatami agrees to run as a candidate from Tehran, people in the provinces will also be mobilized. In that case, given Khatami’s historic role and the kind of support he will receive from Mr. Rafsanjani, the election atmosphere will swing towards reformists and the new Majlis will be led by the reformists’ bloc under Khatami. However, if this does not happen, and Mr. Khatami’s support of reformists stays at the level of guidance and advice, what emerges will simply be a powerful minority reformist faction in the next Majlis.

R: Let me step outside the election talk and ask you what your party’s policy towards the nuclear crisis is, and how that differs from policies of other parties?

MA: Political groups in Iran have generally endorsed the following policy when it comes to the nuclear issue: that we support Iran’s obvious right to peaceful use of nuclear energy and conducing research. On this issue, our views are similar to the views of the country’s officials. However, the difference between reformists, including the Kargozaran party, and the fundamentalists, is that if too much insistence on this issue pullsl Iran into an irreversible trap, the policy must be revised. Iran is very shaken by the atmosphere of sanctions and military strike, and that does not help the progress of things. However, when the issue is a national issue, we insist on defending our country’s obvious legal rights.

R: And my last question is about a current issue. You know that the incident at the Columbia University affected many Iranians. How do you think Mr. Hashemi would have been treated if he was there?

MA: If Mr. Hashemi was there, that incident would not have taken place. We think that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s radical policies – especially those that are very sensitive in the Western world – create such a reaction. I believe that if Mr. Rafsanjani or Khatami were there, such a heavy atmosphere would never have been created, and the event’s host would not have dared insult the symbol of a country, i.e. its president.