A group of Iranian journalists recently went to Europe. Badral-Sadat Mofidi, the secretary of the country’s Association of Journalists was among them. In this interview with Rooz, he says that the purpose of the trip in reality was to send a message to Iranian authorities that without a suspension of uranium enrichment, respect for human rights, and a change in Iran-US relations the future did not hold anything other than more sanctions and even a possible military attack on Iran. Here are the details.
Rooz (R): You along with a group of other journalists had recently travelled to Brussels. What was the purpose of this trip?
Badral-Sadat Mofidi (BSM): Recently it became possible for me and a group of journalists to take a one-week trip to the capital of Brussels, which is also the capital of the European Union. While the goal of the trip was not predictable for me, it was nevertheless an unprecedented trip. Before the purpose of the trip (which had been previously announced to be acquaintance with the EU) became clear, a picture of Iran’s future and relations with the EU in the larger context of its place in the world was presented to us which while being realistic was also very pessimistic and disconcerting.
R: Why disconcerting?
BSM: The EU conditioned any relations with Iran, particularly commerce – economic ones to the resolution of the nuclear issue, which was one-sided and meant the acceptance of the complete suspension of uranium enrichment for which the emphasis was on pressure ranging from sanctions to military threats. The most painful part was that we were thus selected to convey this bitter message to the people of Iran. In other words, this was an ultimatum to Iran! This was painful to me because until then I had been under the impression that with the history of European soft diplomacy and their refrainment from using force regarding Iran, and so their position was unexpected.
R: How do you view the European position regarding the nuclear issue? In what specific areas may they retreat from their position?
BSM: After the energy session, during lunch we had a discussion with a senior advisor to Solana, the foreign policy tsar of EU, regarding EU’s policy towards Iran’s nuclear issue, and it became clear that the Europeans were apparently not willing to retreat from their demands in this regard. Despite the emphasis of Mr. Cooper regarding Europe’s desire to reestablish closer relations with Iran, I did not see the slightest softness that their relations would have in future. Cooper stressed the important role that Iran played in the region saying that Iran and Europe could make each other wealthier and energy was the issue in which they had a significant common interest. Cooper argued that it was in the interest of Tehran as an independent exporter, to turn Europe into an open market for Iran while it was in the interest of EU not to be completely dependant on Russia for its gas needs. But immediately following that he mentioned the 630 kilograms of enriched uranium in Iran and asked what Iran intended to do with it. He asked what information we had about uranium enrichment in Natanz. Obviously a response to this question was not within our power or position. I think while raising this question with us Cooper was in reality addressing the authorities in Tehran.
R: Why have Europeans broken off their talks with Iran on the eve of our presidential elections?
BSM: I raised this issue with Cooper from a different angle. I asked, “If you insist that Iran should suspend its uranium enrichment activities, then why 2 months before Iran’s ninth presidential elections in 2005 did you unilaterally stop the negotiations while you had reached agreement with Khatami’s administration on 4 issues?” Cooper asserted that it was Iran who broke the agreement and resumed work in Isfahan which was followed by a resumption of enrichment activities in Natanz. This is despite the information that I have received and of which I was absolutely certain this assertion did not conform to the facts. Later Cooper did modify his position a bit and said, “Both parties had problems and perhaps Europeans should have done more work to find a long-term and more stable solution to Iran’s nuclear program.”
R: So one can conclude that a European specialist mentioned a European shortcoming in this regard although this cannot lead to a bilateral Iran-US resolution. Where did the US fit into Cooper’s position?
BSM: Cooper stressed that we had to bring in the US into the solution of the problem. He said that it was necessary for the US to modify its relations with Iran and that we would then benefit from better relations with the US. He described the Americans joining the EU regarding the resolution of the nuclear issue through talks to be a good opportunity for both sides but at the same time reminded that if there was no resolution between Iran and the US, sanctions against Iran would increase and could even lead to military threats against Iran. In the end, Cooper said, “I do not wish to threaten, but these are the realities that do concern us. We desire that good relations prevail between Iran, the EU and the US but the necessity for this is that both sides demonstrate greater flexibility on the issue.”
