Akbar Ganji
BY Akbar Ganji
Iran’s new President Hassan Rowhani has said he wants direct negotiations with the US.
It has been some time since Western powers realised that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the country’s most powerful man.
Although he had been opposed to direct negotiations with the US for a long time, in a speech on March 21 he said if Iran’s [nuclear] rights are recognised, “I will not oppose negotiations with the US.” This was a positive step forward. Khamenei also said the US had no desire to resolve the most important dispute with Iran — the nuclear standoff — although a solution would be “very easy.”
How would it come about? “By the West’s recognition of Iran’s right to uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes.” Concerns of Western powers can also be addressed “very easily,” he added. How? “They [and Iran] can implement legal regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency [governing nuclear programmes], which we never opposed right from the beginning.” But the US, according to him, had no desire for a resolution.
Khamenei believes that the US goal is regime change, and although President Obama claims this is not the strategy, he has been pursuing it in practice.
Khamenei’s view is that the goal of economic sanctions imposed on Iran is to create severe hardship for the Iranian people to provoke them to topple the Islamic republic. Not only has the Obama administration denied Khamenei’s charge of regime change, it has also stated repeatedly that it recognises Iran’s right to peaceful use of nuclear energy.
If that is the case, the issue to clarify is the meaning of “the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy”. Does Obama include the right to enrich uranium, which Iran is entitled to do as a signatory of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty? What we do know is that Obama has imposed crippling economic sanctions on Iran, which have badly damaged its economy.
Harming or destroying the economy of a country is, first and foremost, punishing the people of that country, not its regime.
Hyper-inflation, depriving tens of thousands of people of employment, recession, severe shortage of critical medicines and dramatic increases in the prices of food items is the price the Iranian people are paying. If the goal of sanctions is the overthrow of the regime, the lessons from history are not favourable.
French historian Alexis de Tocqueville showed that the French revolution happened when the economy was growing and was led by those doing well economically. The Iranian revolution of 1979 occurred when Tehran was experiencing a high rate of economic growth. If the US goal is a transition to democracy, sanctions are forcing agents of that transition — the middle class — to join the ranks of the poor and lower class, and turning democracy and respect for human rights into marginal goals. The fact is that the dispute between Iran and the US cannot be reduced to stand-off over the nuclear issue. Other problems in which Iran plays a significant role must be addressed as well: The security of Israel and the Persian Gulf, the instability in the region, especially in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain.
Addressing such complex problems and reaching agreement requires not only direct negotiations between Iran and the US, but also a comprehensive framework that takes such problems into consideration. Thus, each side must recognise the legitimate interests of the other.
It is also against national interests of the US to demonise Iran.
Tehran is not a breeding ground for the Taliban, Al Qaeda or Al Nusra Front, the terrorist group in Syria.
Such ideals as freedom, democracy and respect for human rights have deep roots in Iran. Feminists are highly active in Iranian society. All prerequisites for a transition to democracy exist in Iran.
The majority of Iranian people do not subscribe to anti-Westernism or anti-Americanism. If free and competitive elections were held, secular democratic forces would win. In the most recent presidential election, people voted for the candidate who was most distant from the one considered Khamenei’s favourite. This candidate, Hassan Rowhani, seeks a peaceful resolution of the dispute between Iran and Western governments and wants direct negotiations with the US.
In his inaugural speech on August 3 in Khamenei’s presence, Rowhani re-emphasised his commitment to working with Western governments. Khamenei in turn declared: “I approve the views expressed by the esteemed president in regard to adopting a reasonable approach to international and political affairs. Our approach ought to be rational and wise.” Thus, the path for negotiations between Iran and the US is cleared, provided national interests of both sides are taken into account. The Guardian
BY Akbar Ganji
Iran’s new President Hassan Rowhani has said he wants direct negotiations with the US.
It has been some time since Western powers realised that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the country’s most powerful man.
Although he had been opposed to direct negotiations with the US for a long time, in a speech on March 21 he said if Iran’s [nuclear] rights are recognised, “I will not oppose negotiations with the US.” This was a positive step forward. Khamenei also said the US had no desire to resolve the most important dispute with Iran — the nuclear standoff — although a solution would be “very easy.”
How would it come about? “By the West’s recognition of Iran’s right to uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes.” Concerns of Western powers can also be addressed “very easily,” he added. How? “They [and Iran] can implement legal regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency [governing nuclear programmes], which we never opposed right from the beginning.” But the US, according to him, had no desire for a resolution.
Khamenei believes that the US goal is regime change, and although President Obama claims this is not the strategy, he has been pursuing it in practice.
Khamenei’s view is that the goal of economic sanctions imposed on Iran is to create severe hardship for the Iranian people to provoke them to topple the Islamic republic. Not only has the Obama administration denied Khamenei’s charge of regime change, it has also stated repeatedly that it recognises Iran’s right to peaceful use of nuclear energy.
If that is the case, the issue to clarify is the meaning of “the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy”. Does Obama include the right to enrich uranium, which Iran is entitled to do as a signatory of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty? What we do know is that Obama has imposed crippling economic sanctions on Iran, which have badly damaged its economy.
Harming or destroying the economy of a country is, first and foremost, punishing the people of that country, not its regime.
Hyper-inflation, depriving tens of thousands of people of employment, recession, severe shortage of critical medicines and dramatic increases in the prices of food items is the price the Iranian people are paying. If the goal of sanctions is the overthrow of the regime, the lessons from history are not favourable.
French historian Alexis de Tocqueville showed that the French revolution happened when the economy was growing and was led by those doing well economically. The Iranian revolution of 1979 occurred when Tehran was experiencing a high rate of economic growth. If the US goal is a transition to democracy, sanctions are forcing agents of that transition — the middle class — to join the ranks of the poor and lower class, and turning democracy and respect for human rights into marginal goals. The fact is that the dispute between Iran and the US cannot be reduced to stand-off over the nuclear issue. Other problems in which Iran plays a significant role must be addressed as well: The security of Israel and the Persian Gulf, the instability in the region, especially in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain.
Addressing such complex problems and reaching agreement requires not only direct negotiations between Iran and the US, but also a comprehensive framework that takes such problems into consideration. Thus, each side must recognise the legitimate interests of the other.
It is also against national interests of the US to demonise Iran.
Tehran is not a breeding ground for the Taliban, Al Qaeda or Al Nusra Front, the terrorist group in Syria.
Such ideals as freedom, democracy and respect for human rights have deep roots in Iran. Feminists are highly active in Iranian society. All prerequisites for a transition to democracy exist in Iran.
The majority of Iranian people do not subscribe to anti-Westernism or anti-Americanism. If free and competitive elections were held, secular democratic forces would win. In the most recent presidential election, people voted for the candidate who was most distant from the one considered Khamenei’s favourite. This candidate, Hassan Rowhani, seeks a peaceful resolution of the dispute between Iran and Western governments and wants direct negotiations with the US.
In his inaugural speech on August 3 in Khamenei’s presence, Rowhani re-emphasised his commitment to working with Western governments. Khamenei in turn declared: “I approve the views expressed by the esteemed president in regard to adopting a reasonable approach to international and political affairs. Our approach ought to be rational and wise.” Thus, the path for negotiations between Iran and the US is cleared, provided national interests of both sides are taken into account. The Guardian
