Rooz discussed the recent developments in Iran’s nuclear issue with Dr Hermidas Bavand, the secretary general of the National Front. He believes that by not accepting the enrichment suspension Iran would suffer very heavy consequences. Read on for the details.
Rooz (R): What can the impact of the recent exchange of prisoners between Hezbollah and Israel on the talks between Iran and the West?
Dr Hermidas Bavand (HB): Some of the new developments in the region have to a certain degree facilitated the resolution of the (nuclear) dispute. The talks between Syria and Israel and the European countries, the understanding between Hezbollah and Israel over the exchange of prisoners and remains of combatants, and the talks between Hamas and Israel through Egypt have improved the environment for some resolutions. So perhaps today the issue of Iran, which possesses nuclear technology, is the most important regional and global issue.
R: Are these developments visible in the US as well?
HB: Yes. In the US Congress too Democrats and Republicans have put forth views that are in the interest of the US for some form of dialog with Iran. The Bush administration has used the new environment, and to satisfy some of the Congressional demands has entered the nuclear talks as a peripheral concession. As you know the US had repeatedly stated that it would not enter into talks with Iran so long as Iran had not suspended its enrichment activities. So this is a small psychological and political concession that Iran has gained.
R: At the Geneva (5+1) talks, Iran was given 2 weeks to respond to the 5+1 Group’s latest incentives proposal to Iran. In your view, if Iran does not accept the package, what conditions will it be subjected to?
HB: If the sides had decided to remain entrenched in their original positions, then diplomatic talks would not have made any sense: because the sides knew the positions of each other. But when some acceptance is made, then talks can be held, meaning that a potential readiness to moderate their original position, which is why they participate in the talks, i.e. to reach an agreement. When Iran participates in the talks and counter-proposes a package, it shows that Iran is ready to move on with the talks.
R: What may happen if Iran does not show flexibility and does not accept suspension?
HB: I think that if Iran believes that the continuation of its aggressive strategy will in future bring it better terms, it is wrong. In other words if Iran does not give a positive response during these two weeks, this will provide the US and others with a justification that they have exhausted the peaceful process in dealing with the issue without any results. This will provide a more favorable environment for the fourth UN Security Council resolution and more unilateral sanctions not only by the US but also the European Union. This would be more extensive than what they did with Bank Melli. With such a position, the international consensus against Iran will be complete.
R: What do you think will be Iran’s response in the next two weeks?
HB: I think Iran needs a comprehensive reevaluation of its factional domestic positions. I think the national interest of the country requires that before Iran is pushed into the reactive mode – the historic record shows that it did not take advantage of the best opportunities and conditions it had but instead accepted situations and demands under the worst conditions – it should move on because it is clear that Iran’s perseverance is not permanent. We may accept the situation under the worst conditions, which will be very unpleasant for the Iranian people. The other side has been very clever in creating the conditions for their next moves so that they posses the legitimacy from the international perspective and also from the people and Congress in the US. So Iran must be aware of the regional changes and available opportunities. Otherwise, I think we will face very, very difficult consequences.
