Any observer and spectator inspecting the internal affairs of Iran can obviously recognize that the structure of the public opinion of the Iranian people and also of the peoples of the world is based on a special body that considers sitting at the negotiating table is a submission and surrender in front of the logic of force and intimidation adopted by the great powers that are working to impose their domination on this world.
The strategy of the “Death to America” chants in Iran
Hence, the team that is in charge of facilitating and accomplishing the foreign affairs in the Islamic Republic of Iran has to take this important issue and this political obvious and certain axiom into account, and this requires certainly not to inject itself in any negotiations or direct dialogue with the Americans unless being crucially sure that the current U.S. administration is really determined to adopt a more open and more positive approach in dealing with the Iranian file.
In this context, we emphasize the need not to deal with the diplomatic mobility and accomplishments that were achieved by the delegation of the Iranian Foreign politics during the recent trip to New York. This goes beyond the general framework of the basic fundamentals and the clear principles espoused by the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, upon which it has been based since its foundation and since the victory of the Islamic Revolution more than three decades ago.
Indeed, the logic and the spirit of the speech made by the Iranian president in the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, as well as the speech delivered at a nuclear disarmament meeting, come under the framework of stressing the assets and constants upon which the Iranian Foreign politics and diplomacy are based.
Yet, the failure to approve the request of the White House to conduct a meeting at the level of the presidents of the two countries during this late trip is also a work that can be classified within the framework of respecting the public opinion prevailing among the people of Iran, and thus we should pay tribute and thank sincerely the esteemed president and the diplomatic delegation accompanying him for this act. We should consider this as part of the fruit and the positive results achieved during this trip.
Nevertheless, this trip had some charges and unnecessary costs and consequences that we should have avoided, and we refer to them as follows:
The meeting that lasted for half an hour between the foreign ministers of Iran and the U.S., Zarif and Kerry, and also the telephone conversation that took place between Obama and the Iranian President, can be considered as part of the costs and the consequences of this trip.
The reason for this is that the Americans have sought, through their media mobilization throughout the world, to promote those two cases as reflecting an Iranian surrender and submission because of the pressures faced by the Iranian government due to the severe economic sanctions imposed on Iran on the one hand, and the choice of the U.S. military posed on the table on the other hand. They considered that this was what forced the Iranian regime to accept to sit down at the table of dialogue and negotiation with U.S. officials. While from the Iranian side, this was considered for more than three decades as one of the forbidden taboos and just thinking to do it is originally not allowed, and the same goes for taking such a step in reality.
This was a loss faced by the Islamic Republic’s foreign diplomacy, and has sent a harsh blow to the status of the Iranian people and their stature. Also, this showed the world an exclusive and unique model of steadfastness, when standing against the approach of arrogance and egotism practiced ever by the American administration against the vulnerable and oppressed peoples of the world. This price is not a modest price, what forced the Iranian people to pay it as a result of what happened during the recent visit to New York.
The case of extreme aversion felt by the Iranian people to America because of its tendency to injustice, arrogance, and domination, and because of its repeated continuous and unlimited attacks against Iran’s benefits and national interests, is also endless and unlimited.
Despite the fact that some people wanted through this visit to New York to melt some of the ice accumulated at the level of relations between the two countries, as well as at the level of the aversion of the Iranian people to America and its administration, but what happened on the Iranian territory during the performance of the Friday prayers last week was opposite to that totally; hundreds and thousands of Iranian people came out immediately after praying to the streets in rallies expressing their anger against America’s unjust violations, readily unleashing their voices to repeat more than any time before the “Death to America” chants.
But, unfortunately, the media and especially those that claim to be representing the current of modernity and openness in the country, which are combined, similar and acting as one voice broadcasted across a number of speakers, has hidden those marches, which were reflecting the annoyance of the Iranian street.
Although a dialogue or a negotiation does not necessarily mean achieving reconciliation between the two parties, and does not also mean that one party is prevailing the other, and although what is important is the result of dialogue and the result of negotiation, but the issue relating to the American-Iranian situation is completely different.
This comes because the structure of the public opinion of the Iranian people and the peoples of the world is based on a special body that considers sitting at the negotiating table is a submission and surrender in front of the logic of force and intimidation adopted by the great powers who work to impose their domination on this world.
Hence, the team that is in charge of facilitating and accomplishing the foreign affairs in the Islamic Republic of Iran should take this important issue and this political obvious and certain axiom into account, and this requires certainly not to inject itself in any negotiations or direct dialogue with the Americans unless being crucially sure that the current U.S. administration is really determined to adopt a more open and more positive approach in dealing with the Iranian file.
The Americans in their conversations conducted with nations and peoples have a very bad habit; they usually put their hands in the pockets of the people that they are conversing with, and say to them: put everything found in your pockets on the table and lets we share them with you. They do not feel like paying anything from their own pocket.
The Americans tried during this fast and quick trip to practice this bad habit along with the skilled performing movement that Netanyahu tried to carry out. Hence, the Iranian diplomatic team in front of these performing movements must pay attention to the following:
A- The principle of dialogue for dialogue should not be accepted in any form.
B- To stand firmly against the American repeated unfair and illegal demands.
C- To be aware of the Americans would try to circumvent this team in order to empty its pockets, while the Americans themselves will not pay anything from their pockets, and the foreign affairs team should thus take in exchange for each bid it gives through negotiations in return.
D- Any form of bilateral dialogue at the level of the initial introductions and questions is not a useful dialogue, and thus dialogue must continue in its previous form, and in the dialog template with the G-1+5.
The insistence of some officials to adopt the tactic of the “heroic softness” and adopting a consistent political strategy, as well as some irresponsible remarks made by them on the issue of the “relations with America”, and also regarding the slogan “Death to America”, all this also contributed to raising the high cost of this trip.
A good example on that in this area are the unbalanced and distorted statements being cited from Ayatollah Sheikh Hashemi Rafsanjani. His website quoted him as saying:
It is noteworthy that this claim is untrue and has no basis or underlying document. Imam Khomeini (R.A.) has said in his political will:
In contrast, the Iranian people have heard for long audio and video words and statements said by late Imam and broadcasted by the Iranian television in which he supports this slogan.
Among these resources we review the following evidences:
1) He said:
3) He said:
4) He said:
Unfortunately, this speech which was issued by Sheikh Hashemi Rafsanjani coinciding with the telephone call between Rohani and Obama, was not the only saying by him, but there were also other talks by him quoted days before, when he said: “The negotiation and relations with America are the most important issues that cannot be resolved, and reaching a critical opinion on it cannot be done but only by Imam Khomeini (R.A.). We should have solved this issue during the life of the late Imam”. Rafsanjani pointed out that he had sent in this regard a letter to Imam Khomeini in his life requesting to solve this issue. However, he did not show the people what was the reaction of Imam about this request?! If the late Imam ignored this request- he did so- why Rafsanjani did not tell the people about it?! If the Imam has announced his outright rejection of this request, also, why did not he notify the people?! Even, if we assumed that the Imam has agreed to this request, at least, he would have issued, said, or sent any signal to refer that he approves and endorses it, but this is not reflected in any of the Imam’s words, speeches and/or statements.
In fact, issuing such statements, and promoting them in the media by a number of journalists did not have any benefit but only raising the costs of this recent trip to New York.
Taking a decision regarding the talks or relations between Iran and America is one of the affairs and special powers of the rank of the leadership of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
Moreover, the leader of the Islamic Revolution in his recent statements supported the diplomatic actions of the government of President Rohani, saying:
Yet, providing help and support for the Iranian foreign diplomatic team does not mean to work to mitigate the level of the people’s aversion to the American felonies, or to reduce the level of the people’s hatred towards the practices and schemes of the global arrogance. Rather, this means raising the costs of the diplomatic confrontation with America; a kind of providing facilities to the other party.
The Iranian people, especially the elites, know very well that they should not abandon their support for those responsible for Iran’s foreign policy. If there were anything wrong done during the trip to America, we should admit this with courage, as the Iranian Foreign Minister did, and we should strive to correct it, rather than being dragged behind this error to weaken the Iranian position, and this itself adds an expensive cost and an additional price.