Concerning the Iranian nuclear crisis
Interview with the Iranian- American economist and publicist Farhad Yazdi

Question: As the Iranian nuclear situation becomes more and more critical, voices among some western circles become louder who claim that Iran is a country that is too large per se in its region and will always be a threat to peace and security in this part of the world as soon as it becomes too powerful militarily. How do you judge this view? Which strategy do these circles propose for Iran's future?

Yazdi: These claims are not supported by any historical facts. Iran's last successful war dates back to the year 1795, when the Qadshar- King Agha Mohammed Khan went to war with Russia over Georgia. The last 210 years only saw Iran go to war once, in self defence against Saddam's Troops. Over the greater part of it's history, the allegedly too big Iran found itself in the neighbourhood of a powerful and much larger Russia. Since Peter the Great (1682 until today), Iran has stood under direct or indirect pressure from Moscow. Also, Turkey in the West and Pakistan in the Southeast are much stronger militarily than Iran. Pakistan even possesses nuclear weapons and has a population twice the size of Iran's. Turkey, a member of NATO, is de-facto undefeatable with many US- military bases on its territory. US troops are also stationed south of Iran.
To develop it's economic potential, Iran needs stability, security and peace both in the country itself as in the whole region. Teheran’s present aggressive foreign policy has to do with the Islamic republic and not with Iran being too big. The circles you mentioned equate the Islamic regime with the country itself and the Iranian people. I believe that these circles do not only have the military threat in mind when they talk of Iran being too big; at the same time, these people are thinking of the rich resources of oil, gas, and other mineral substances in circumstances, where the consumption of energy resources has increased substantially due to the rapid development of China and India. The question of securing and controlling the supply of the world economy with energy is an important reason of these groups in western countries to argue against too big an Iran. With its richness of resources, 70 million inhabitants, and its geographical situation between two very important oil- and gas regions (the Caspian and the Persian gulf), Iran plays a central role for entire world economy. From the perspective of these circles and also of some developing countries, an Iran divided into many small states would be easier to control and, if need be, easier to defeat militarily. Under these circumstances, it is all the more important that the Iranian government disproves such sceptic concerns against Iran in its present territorial integrity with a courageous policy-- which is not taking place.
Unfortunately, a divided Iran is a serious option for established and potential powers. Additionally, it would be in the interest of several separatist groups and neighbours of Iran to divide Iran into several smaller states.

Question: All Iranian and foreign critics of the regime oppose a military attack against Iran. It is only the leaders of the Islamic regime who apparently want to provoke a war, i.e. the Iranian President Ahmadinedschad and the spiritual leader Ayatollah Chamenei. Which strategy is the Iranian regime pursuing with this hard and unyielding course?

Yazdi: War is always the last option, and when a war breaks out, all other means for settling a conflict must have failed. No sensible human being and no sensible government prefer a war. Two regimes for whom reason and national interest were of no importance, Saddam’s and that of the Taliban, one to the west and the other to the east of Iran, got themselves involved in a war, with the peoples of both states now having to bear the catastrophic consequences of these armed conflicts.
The Islamic regime in Iran firmly believes that an armed attack on their country is unlikely. On the one hand, Iran has a population far larger than Iraq, is stronger militarily, and possesses a national sense of unity which has grown over many centuries and enables the country to resist an armed attack far better than Iraq or Afghanistan have done. On the other hand, the momentary instability in Iraq and the direct involvement of the US and Great Britain in armed conflict harm the position of these countries when opposing Iran. Consequently, the Iranian regime is trying to exploit this rare constellation internally in order to stabilise itself by mobilising support from the Iranian people. By driving the crisis closer to the edge, the regime is hoping to bring the population of Iran onto their side.
However, this calculation can lead to undesirable and unpredictable results. Despite the fact that no people, especially not the Iranian people, wish for a war and that the allied powers in Iraq face a more than difficult situation, one must not underestimate the highly destructive power of the western military, especially that of the US- army. The allied powers have been highly successful militarily in fighting Iraq’s army, even though the attempted stabilisation of the country and the building of a democracy have not delivered the desired results. In other words, the events in Iraq must not prompt the leaders of the Islamic government to completely ignore the military potential of the allied powers.

Question: Since 18 years (1986-2006), the Islamic republic is trying to hide its entire nuclear programme from the eyes of the world. The largest part of this programme was realised while Europe was practicing the politics of "critical dialogue" with the Islamic regime. Is such a policy and the one-sided stressing of the sole effectiveness of critical diplomatic dialogue capable of preventing the danger of a nuclear power Iran from becoming reality?

Yazdi: The Iran nuclear crisis has contributed greatly towards improving the relationship between Europeans and Americans which had cooled down considerably until then. After a few years experience of the politics of "critical dialogue", the European nations have understood that they cannot play the role of a global player without military power and the support of the US and that friendly relations with the US are, in the long term, much more beneficial than short term profits to the detriment of the US. Since many years, the western nations depend on each other economically as well as in terms of security. China and Russia have developed in a similar way for some time now and do not want to endanger this positive process because of Iran. Even though they are temporarily doing good business with Iran, this should be dwarfed by the advantages that business with the western nations brings.
Thus, all major powers have more or less problems with Iran. All of these nations, including the neighbouring states and those of the middle east, will not tolerate attempts of Iran to obtain nuclear weaponry. In a sharp contrast to the case of Iraq, where the US and Great Britain faced opposition by the European states and Russia and China, all of these nations now are on the same side and unanimously do not support the plans of Teheran of enriching uranium. The disagreement in this case concerns the manner in which this goal should be achieved.
For how long deliberations will continue and when sanctions or even military actions are imposed on Iran will depend on when Iran, in the judgement of the western nations, is capable of mastering the entire process of nuclear technology. As long as the western states are convinced that Teheran still has a long way to go, there will be dialogue accompanied by mild threats and smaller sanctions.

Question: The Europeans insist on direct deliberations between Iran and the US. Can direct talks between the two arch enemies contribute to a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis?

Yazdi: As such, deliberations and talks that show the Islamic regime different possible scenarios are positive. But in this case, the regime has brought itself in a difficult position by maintaining a hard and inflexible course. Leaving this course would now imply the admission of defeat in the route taken so far, and such a loss of face is almost impossible to imagine. The question is now, which new proposals Iran can make to the USA and the other partners. Moreover, where the deliberations with the US also include issues such as the middle east conflict, international terrorism, Iraq and the human rights situation in Iran, Teheran has to be prepared for even more concessions. All of this decisively limits Iran in its possible scope of action.
Also, the Iranian leadership will not seriously be open for deliberations with the US, because such talks would reveal the contradictions of the regime. At this point, it must be stressed that different groups within the system have different interests, so that every agreement with the US would be questioned and compromised by the other side.
When Ahmadinedschad became president of the Islamic republic with support from the military and the security apparatus, the opportunity existed where he could have approached the US for direct deliberations, backed up by political stability in the country. But, as a consequence of the hard and truly impossible positions he adopted during the last six months, this option is no longer seriously open for debate. In the Islamic regime, there is not a single person in a position powerful enough to enter into a binding agreement with the US. And the most important condition for extensive talks with the US is the obvious domination of a group over its rivals in the system of the Islamic republic.

Question: Other countries know very well about the dissatisfaction of the Iranian people with the Islamic regime, and are consequently surprised when precisely these people adopt the position of the regime in the question of nuclear technology. How should one understand this contradiction?

Yazdi: Since the beginning of the Islamic revolution, the national pride of the Iranian people has been hurt. The humiliation and lack of attention for the interests of the people, which already had been present in the old regime, was carried on in a massive extent in the Islamic republic. A constitution which de facto leaves the people without rights, vast numbers of arrests, executions, dispossessions, and private appropriations of public riches by the highest personalities of the regime have had a massive influence on the national feelings of the Iranians. Also, the eight- year long war against Iraq, a nation of one third of Iran’s population and without national history had a devastating effect on the national feelings of the Iranians.
So, during the past years, Iranians have been hurt in their national pride from all directions. A kind of hatred of foreigners is growing in Iran which follows from the repression of the fact that one is responsible for the miserable present political situation oneself. The so described psychic phenomenon has successfully been instrumentalised by the Islamic regime for their purposes by stressing the Iranian "right" to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. Iranians have much more important "rights" than that to the peaceful use of nuclear technology which are disregarded by the regime day by day. Never does the regime mention these rights, such as human rights or the right of the Iranian people of self determination. However, the other side of the medal of the politics of instrumentalisation is the strengthening of Iranian nationalism, which as such represents a danger to the rule of the clerics.

Question: European states believe that the support of the US for the democratic movement within Iran and the present US-government's insisting on a regime change in Teheran make a solution to the nuclear crisis impossible. During the 27 years that the regime is in power, the security of the region as well as that of the whole world and of Iran itself has been severely reduced. Despite the fact that obviously both the western countries as well as the Iranian people would benefit from a regime change in Iran, the Europeans do not pursue a respective policy. Is the European policy not directed contrary to the interests of the Iranian people?

Yazdi: Continuing the Islamic republic means that there will be new crises, even after a possible solution of the present situation, to replace the last one. Crises are characteristic for this regime. One cannot have given any attention to the interests of the Iranian people if one resolves a crises in such a way that it will certainly be replaced by a subsequent one. The west must with all available power support the struggle of the Iranians for democracy, rule of law and national unity. And even if some European states cannot demand a regime change directly in their deliberations, what they can do is insist on respect for human rights and make this a condition for further agreements. A lasting solution of the Iranian nuclear crisis and of other crises which will arise strictly depends on the progress of democracy and the rule of law in Iran. For until today, a case in which two democratic states have attempted to settle a dispute by the means of war is unheard of.

Mr. Yazdi, thank you very much for the interview