Omid Memarian
omid@memarian. info
Dr Elahe Koolayi is a former MP in Iran’s sixth Majlis. She is a professor at Tehran University and follows international developments closely. In an interview with Rooz she said that although there is an expectation that during Barrack Obama’s presidency steps will be taken towards talks between Iran and the US, there will most likely also be more pressure on Iran, particularly through the United Nations. Here is the interview.
Rooz (R): Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani recently said that Obama is saying the same thing that George Bush used to say except that they are in a different form. Do you agree with this view?
Elahe Koolayi (EK): It does appear that the nature of US policy, particularly towards Iran will change fundamentally. In view of the three-decade record, it is not very realistic to expect an improvement in these relations; in fact one can expect pressure on Iran to increase. Past experience shows that the US government has no intention of changing its policy despite some peripheral changes. We should not forget that during President Clinton’s administration, despite changes in Iran’s approach towards the US, America’s policy towards Iran did not become more peaceful.
R: What tools are available for pressure on Iran?
EK: Mr. Obama is trying to present a better image of US policy to the world and redress some of the mistakes that Mr. Bush made, particularly regarding the Middle East. Therefore, it is very likely that he will have more support and cooperation to exert more pressure on Iran. What is certain is that the current established course by UN Security Council resolutions against the Islamic Republic of Iran would be pursued and it appears that diplomacy and political tools, particularly economic means, will be more important.
R: There is a view about Iranian policy makers that the country’s foreign policy machinery does not know exactly what to pursue at the negotiations table and at what specific point to compromise. At least there is no consensus on these points. Do you agree with this?
EK: We certainly have a lot of criticism of Iran’s diplomatic structure. What is important however is that Tehran is concerned about its security more than any other issue. And this exists because in the past the policy of confidence building and relaxation of tension that was pursued by Khatami’s administration, but was not responded positively by Washington has actually increased the historic distrust and suspicions.
R: How is that Libya and North Korea eventually reached an understanding with the United States and entered into talks with it despite all the difference they had with it and the international community. But when it comes to Iran the prospects for improving relations are bleak.
EK: Many observers who have commented on relations with Iran have emphasized the meagerness of the incentives that were offered to Iran. In fact we must understand the importance and position of Iran in the heart of the Middle East and the important region to the north of the Persian Gulf in order to treat Iran in a suitable manner. If we accept these observations then the difference between Iran and North Korea will become clearer. And as you mentioned, the resolution of deep rooted historic issues does not take place rapidly and requires patience and thought to change misunderstandings.
In any case there is no doubt that the presence of Mr. Obama has created the expectation that Washington’s look at Iran will change. I hope that in practice too there will be a tangible change in US policy. If real and practical changes take place in US policy towards Iran, then one can be hopeful that in the course of relations between the two countries we will witness suitable practical measures.
