Nader Irani
Taghi Rahmani is a well-known Iranian reformist journalist and academic writer, classified as a nationalist-religious personality, who has spent more than 500 days in prison since his first arrest in 1981 for displeasing the government through his writings in various moderate and reformist newspapers.
We at Rooz discussed current issues facing Iran with activist Taghi Rahmani. Rahmani believes that "Iranian society is currently at a no-war, no-peace situation." This situation is "conducive to the emergence of militarized conditions." Below is the text of this interview.
Rooz (R): What is the status of the Iranian nuclear case, especially after it was reported that Javier Solana had last left Iran in dismay?
Taghi Rahmani (TR): In my opinion, Europe does not want war against Iran because it would suffer many losses as a result. If a destructive war brakes out, American companies will have the upper hand and receive all the contracts. On the other hand, if the Americans want to play a larger role in Iran's foreign policy, then too Europe's role will decline. Therefore, if the situation moves toward confrontation, Europe would be at a disadvantage. As a result, Europe is trying to either calm the conflict or at least bring it under management and control. In return, hardliner parties in America want their European allies to be in synch with them as much as possible in order to bring the world on board in all areas.
R: Given this situation, what is Iran's condition?
TR: In my opinion Iranian society is currently in a no-war, no peace situation. Sanctions in a way create tension which is conducive to the emergence of military conditions. Now, if the Americans want to implement any of the Yugoslavian, Soviet or Iraq's projects in the Islamic Republic of Iran, each would result in a serious headache for Iran, which it has.
R: Under what conditions has the headache manifested itself?
TR: In the form of a deteriorating national potential. In other words, during the last 30 years of no-war, no peace, the deterioration of national potential has reached its climax. This worsening of conditions can unleash wide destruction around the country and, if followed by a military strike, can cause even more destruction. The weakening of national possibilities has other important consequences as well. This deterioration keeps us lagging behind our neighbors too.
R: What role has the no-war, no-peace situation played in Iran's political makeup?
TR: This situation is ideal for security- and military-oriented movements. In this midst, nationalist and reformist movements are harmed the most. Military currents always seek tension, but even if they can manage the tension, they have to understand that this management is two-pronged and it is not possible that they are not allowed to adequately manage it. The Iranian society, in light of its strengths, meaning a young and plentiful population, strategic location, plentiful petroleum reserves, is entertaining both military and economic ambitions. In my opinion, economic ambitions are much better than military ambitions.
R: In your opinion, what is the best way of confronting imperialism?
TR: There are three important and strategic solutions to confront imperialism: (1) the Soviet model; (2) the Jamal Abdel Nasser model; and, (3) the Indian model.
R: Is this seen in Iran as well?
TR: There are some currents in Iran that think about America in these terms, but both the first and the second models are passé. In reality, this policy itself creates tension. This view, in its rights, creates a kind of confrontational approach to power that is much larger and can unite the region against you, and at the end you would not receive many points.
R: How has India acted in this connection?
TR: The Indians could exert influence all over the Indian subcontinent but instead they focused on the domestic issues and, while saving their own independence, they sometimes had crises with Americans, sometimes with Russians, and even with the Chinese. This is because in international and regional relations, the Indians wanted to act on the basis of their national interests.
R: How can we interpret Mr. Khatami's efforts after 2 Khordad (post 1998) in this framework?
TR: Despite all his efforts, Khatami had neither the courage nor the ability to institute such a policy in Iran. In addition, the Iranian society needs such a thing.
R: Where does the 5+1 Package leave Iran? What does Iran have to do currently and urgently to avoid further sanctions or unforeseeable actions by the West?
TR: We are being pushed into a corner with more speed every day. This corner, whose dimensions are economic, political, social and cultural, is very dangerous. The project that some have prepared for our nation is not just the Afghanistan and Iraq project, but it could very well be the Yugoslavian or Soviet project. Therefore, we have to break some taboos including the negotiations taboo and it is the responsibility of both the regime and the opposition to clearly explain this issue. What is currently happening as a result of sanctions is that they empower the militarists, delay democratization in Iran and weaken the national potential.
If, under these conditions, Iran moves to a compromise, it would very much favor its national interests.
TR: Would Europe and the United States back own from their condition of suspending enrichment?
R: If we do not move toward reconciliation, we have to understand that because of international prestige issues, America and Europe would not back down from the position of suspending enrichment. Unfortunately, Iran's foreign policy has made this into a prestige issue for the international community. This is a correct saying in politics that we do not have permanent enemies or friends. One of the reasons why the British and Americans decided to remove Dr. Mossadegh in a coup d'etat was because they felt that by punishing Mossadegh they would in fact punish the whole region. The belief that we should move against the international community's consensus, will not succeed, in my opinion. The principles of dialogue, trust-building and insisting on the right to enrich uranium must be separated form one another. These principles have been separated by the Islamic Republic, but what is important is that this separation takes place at a time when the national potential has deteriorated. Under these conditions you see that there are no jobs and no production in the country. On the other hand, unstoppable imports fueled by reducing tariffs have pushed production back into retreat, which eventually leads to unemployment of many workers. If we put these next to each other we see that, in addition to the absence of expertise in country's management, sanctions are rapidly deteriorating Iran's national potential.
