Omid Memarian
o.memarian@roozonline.com

As a journalist and a political analyst, Mahmud Shamsolvaezin is a known figure in ‎Iranian affairs. In an exclusive interview he told Rooz that if Iran was assailed even to the ‎smallest degree, he would hold the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad’s administration responsible ‎for it which has succeeded in providing the necessary means for harming the national ‎interests of Iran. Here are the excerpts of the interview.‎

It should be noted that President Ahmadinejad recently complained about the critics of ‎his government and called them goats.‎

Rooz Online (R): Since coming to power about two years ago, President Ahmadinejad ‎has used different words to belittle the critics of his administration and policies. Where is ‎this language coming from?‎

Mahmud Shamsolvaezin (MS): The rhetoric and language that Mr. Ahmadinejad uses, ‎whether addressing his critics or even his closest associates in the government, are not the ‎words of a statesman. They resemble those of a man in the street who has arrived at the ‎President’s house on Pasteur avenue by accident. So his language, whether domestically ‎or internationally, is that of the street. The other issue is that Mr. Ahmadinejad has never ‎understood the meaning of opponent, critic or adversary and therefore he uses this type of ‎language to address them or when he refers to them. Furthermore, Mr. Ahmadinejad has ‎suffered from an inferiority complex since the day he walked into the executive office. ‎And precisely because of these, he has never been accepted by any political, social or ‎cultural member of the country’s elite. This is true not only at the international scene, but ‎also domestically, because the violent and harsh language that he uses and his lack of a ‎character. Mr. Ahmadinejad of course is aware of the opinion of the Iranian elite and ‎critics regarding him and therefore he strives to make himself present and known by ‎attacking them.‎

R: But his supporters inside the administration believe that his ascent to the presidency ‎has been successful, both inside and outside Iran. Particularly outside the country where ‎he spends a lot of his energy . . . .‎

MS: He lacks any elite or leadership quality that would attract the public towards him. ‎And contrary to the international stage, his words have very few listeners in the Iranian ‎political domain. This is the reason why I heard his use of the word “goat” for his critics ‎from you. In other words, as a journalist I should be aware of his statements and rhetoric ‎since he is the president, but I have ruled him out. I am only a journalist, but you can ‎imagine how the political elite and public opinion makers view him. So his words do not ‎resonate with the Iranian public. At the international level, his words have had an impact. ‎But only to be used by the United States and its allies to exert grater pressure on Iran ‎aimed at extracting concessions from it.‎

R: Mr. Khatami and Mr. Ahmadinejad have both been the focus of international attention. ‎What similarities and differences do you see in them?‎

MS: I have found one similarity and one difference. The similarity is that one week ‎before the presidential elections, neither knew that he would be elected president. The ‎differences however are many. Despite getting into office with 22 million votes and the ‎extraordinary position that he enjoyed among the Iranian elite and also the respect that he ‎enjoyed at the international level, Mr. Khatami did not take himself seriously. Because of ‎this, he failed to meet the expectations of his domestic audience and international elite. ‎Mr. Ahmadinejad on the other hand, lacks any standing among the Iranian or ‎international elite, but strives to present himself as someone important and thus takes ‎himself very seriously. Which is why his rhetoric is so harsh and violent.‎

R: What is the reason for his choice of words and what may their consequences be for ‎Iran?‎

MS: I think Mr. Ahmadinejad and his aides have concluded that this is the one and only ‎presidential term he will have, regardless of what the choice of the Iranian regime may ‎be. Polls indicate that his popularity is less than 27 percent, even among those who voted ‎for him. He is thus striving to revive his initial popularity that he gained through his ‎numerous promises such as bringing petrodollars directly to the public. The consequences ‎of this rhetoric can be very dangerous for Iran’s national interest. The language that he ‎uses regarding Israel and Iran’s nuclear issue has already cost Iran’s national interests ‎without bringing any benefits to the Iranian people. Under these circumstances, we ‎should be expecting more negative consequences. In any case, if Iran is hit even with the ‎smallest blows, I would hold the rhetoric used by Ahmadinejad’s government to be ‎responsible for it.‎

R: Is there a strong possibility for this?‎

MS: The possibility is rising by the day.‎

R: Do you think more pressure will also be exerted on domestic critics too?‎

MS: I don’t think under the current domestic circumstances anything else can happen ‎because Mr. Ahmadinejad’s words are not taken seriously by the elite. Nobody is ‎concerned about his possible responses. This is because it is not he who is running the ‎show, but others who are managing the confrontations.‎