Omid Memarian
o.memarian@roozonline.com

Former parliamentarian and faculty member of the Isfahan Technical University, Ahmad ‎Shirzad, spoke to Rooz about the latest US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report and its ‎implications. ‎

Rooz (R): What are the positive and negative points raised in the U.S. spy agency's report on ‎Iran's nuclear program?‎

Ahmad Shirzad (AS): If we examine the report from the American point of view, one positive ‎point is that it reduces the threat of a military strike against Iran. When this report clearly states ‎that Iran is not making a nuclear bomb, American voters are less likely to approve of an attack ‎against Iran. On the other hand, there is a negative point, which is that the report clearly states ‎that pressuring Iran can be effective, and that if we pressure Iran, we can gain concessions. ‎

Therefore, it can be concluded that chances for an imminent war are basically null and much less ‎likely than previously thought. However, political pressure on Iran and especially economic ‎sanctions will continue. The Iranian people may face some difficulties and economic problems. ‎

R: This report confirms that Iran was operating a military nuclear program until 2003. Iranian ‎officials have welcomed the report without picking up on such points. How will implicit ‎recognition of these points be interpreted by the international relations experts?‎

AS: It is natural for Iran to deny this issue and all of us too are behind this official view because ‎of our national interest. The important point is that [this report] transforms Iran's issue from a ‎pressing and immediate case to a program whose past may have been a bit unclear. Therefore, ‎the issue is very different. Iranian officials are now under pressure try to answer questions ‎related to the past and prove that they had no negative intentions. This is very different from ‎portraying the country as a dangerous one that is seeking immediate access to nuclear weapons. ‎As a peace activist, I really welcome the Iranian officials' willingness to embrace this report, ‎because it shows that Iranian officials do not like to portray their country as a dangerous country ‎that undermines peace, and are happy for things to be normalized again. ‎

R: Responding to the report , Mr. Ahmadinejad said last Tuesday that perhaps Americans should ‎take one or two more steps towards a compromise. Do you think that Iranian officials have ‎interpreted this report as on olive branch from Washington?‎

AS: This is a kind of political flirtation from the long distance. So long as Mr. Ahmadinejad is ‎not at the center of a grand compromise with Western countries, nothing will bear fruit. I think ‎that Mr. Larijani sacrificed himself and opened the path with his resignation. The problem with ‎Iran is that any development, whether peaceful or not, will not be successful until Mr. ‎Ahmadinejad is at the center of it.‎

We had a little experience during the arrest of the British sailors. When it began, threats were ‎flying around on both sides and Mr. Ahmadinejad placed himself at the center of the ‎controversy, delivering the harshest rhetoric. When it was decided to solve the issue, once again, ‎Mr. Ahmadinejad was at the center. I think that others should open the way so that Mr. ‎Ahmadinejad can take the full credit, I think that that is a positive sacrifice and people, whether ‎inside government or outside, should be willing to make this sacrifice. Mr. Ahmadinejad can ‎take credit so long as that helps take pressure off Iran. As an Iranian, I am completely willing to ‎make that sacrifice. ‎