Britain made a big mistake regarding Iran

Kharrazi , who served several positions after the victory of the Islamic revolution, mentioned in an interview with the “Fars” news agency some view points about many issues, particularly Iran’s foreign policy, and said that the previous Iranian government did not succeed in determining its priorities in terms of the foreign policy. He added, “This is what led us to face some of the problems that emerged as a result, while we were moving forward to improve our position with Europe, which was seeking to establish a strategic cooperation with us. The first step was based on confidence-building but has turned into a confrontation and deterrence so as to take our foreign policy away from peaceful coexistence, mutual understanding, and dialogue”. 

** As a result of replacing 3 countries with 6 others in the nuclear negotiations, its role has been strengthened. 

Kharrazi said that replacing 3 European countries in the nuclear negotiations with 6 countries led to strengthening Iran’s opposition front, and this was clearly revealed in the dual positions of Russia and China. 

He also announced that the priority in the foreign policy was granted to Latin American countries, what revealed the lack of true vision towards Latin America and Asia. This comes while the Leader of the Islamic Revolution had said months ago that France, India, China, Russia, Lebanon and Syria are strategic actors in the policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
We have united with countries in Latin America that have no weight in the international equations. In Asia, we have headed towards countries that manipulated us because the priority in terms of the foreign relations was America. 

** The policy of deterrence caused us a serious damage. 

The former Iranian diplomat draws the attention to the entanglement of the European economy with the Iranian foreign trade, saying that: “When this decision was made and we began to expand our relations with Russia, China, India and the countries of East Asia and Latin America, we expected the decline of the trade exchange in parallel with the decline of the political cooperation. That matter sparked challenges in front of our foreign policy, turned Europe into a tenacious competitor, and created a lot of problems for us after it was on the verge of switching to become a reliable friend in the face of America. 

** America took advantage of Iran’s convergence with Latin America to put pressure on that region. 

Regarding the positive relations between Iran and Latin America and America’s concern, Kharrazi said that Latin America was considered the back door to the United States, not to mention that Cuba and Venezuela were the cause why Washington was facing a lot of problems. 

Therefore, I think that the Americans did not feel great indignation about this issue, but felt relieved because this thread formed an excuse for them to exert pressure on this region. 

** Europe faced America because of the nuclear issue. 

Kharrazi believes that the suspension applied by Iran over two years has had good results including that Britain, Germany and France did not give up to the American demands regarding Iran’s nuclear program and regarding submitting it to the UN Security Council. Iran also had a strategic cooperation with France on the Lebanese affairs. Both Britain and America have made great efforts to target the Lebanese resistance and to put Hezbollah on Terror list but France has invested all its energies and prevented this until last year when Iran was absent and away from the scene. 

** After Iraq it was Iran’s role. 

Kharrazi continues saying that the United States after the occupation of Iraq was knocking the drums of war against Iran being provoked by some Arab countries as well as by the Zionist entity, but the wise diplomacy of the leader of the revolution and carrying out some maneuvers in that period paid off and prevented this disaster. In addition, we have made some nuclear gains and have changed our nuclear file from a military and security file to a human rights and political one. 

The former Iranian ambassador to France said that raising the subject of the Holocaust had not been in favor of the nationalist Iran, even though it pleased some people in the world. He added that the successful foreign policy is the one that achieves the desired goals through investing the available capacities and facilities and then takes the next step. 

Kharrazi stresses that considering that the leader is accountable for the decisions taken is unfair saying that the leadership supports the principles and foundations that are classified within the strategies, while the debate revolves around the methods and tactics. 

For example, the leader announces his support for a dialogue on specific basis of frameworks and specific conditions, but what is important in this is the implementation and performance.
 
** We did not head towards the East, but because we were banned we were forced to do so. 

Regarding the fact that Iran headed towards the East, he said that Iran did not head towards the East, but because it has been banned it has thus been forced to do so and to work in that region. Nonetheless, Kharrazi noted that the West because of Iran’s important geo-strategic position in the region will take a step forward by itself to improve the relations with Iran, since no step would succeed in the region if kept away from Iran. The West is now well aware of the extent of the regional and international energies enjoyed by Iran.

Therefore, in order to maintain these energies it will lean towards Iran. In such circumstances, if there were a chance and the two sides were to benefit well from it, we would witness a historical event that can be invested in the best way. 

** Should Iran head towards the West or the East? 

Kharrazi says that the East has industrial and economic strength that can never be ignored, but its political influence at the international level is very weak. The active and vigorous foreign policy that is built on special strategic foundations knows very well how to deal with globalization in the light of the changing international standards. The concept of power was changed from the concept of hard power to that of the soft power and the global challenge at the moment is the soft power. 

** Dealing or waiving is determined by the Leader, the Council, and the media 

Regarding the distinction between dealing and/or waiving, Iran’s former ambassador to France said that there are several sides that are in charge of overseeing and supervising the decisions taken, including, for example, the leadership, the Council, the media and the press. The government is not entitled to do what it wants, because there are nationalist and national sensitivities that do not allow us to sell our nationalist interests and our country cheaply. 

** The British government made a big mistake regarding Iran. 

On issues relating to the relations with London, Kharrazi said that Britain is the one that has cut ties with Iran. This step came because of the immaturity of the British administration and because it took its decision hastily at that time. But it can now invest the opportunity of the government of President Rohani and work to improve its ties with Tehran. The same goes for Canada and the United States. 

Kharrazi stressed that Europe has no other way but to return to Iran because of its geo-strategic and economic excellent position, since the sources of oil in the Northern Sea began to dry up while Iran is still full of these vigorous energies not to mention its special position in the Persian Gulf region and the Middle East. 

** Iran’s pivotal role on the regional and international levels. 

Kharrazi referred to Iran’s influence in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Turkey and in other countries in the region and added that this influence is not confined to the borders of Turkmenistan but extends to Kazakhstan, Mongolia and to a large part of China and Europe as well. 

He highlighted the cooperation between the United States and Iran to resolve the Iraqi crisis as requested by Washington and stressed that the Syrian crisis will not be solved without Iran because of its influence in that country. This is what happened in Afghanistan as well. 

** If Zarif was not an Iranian citizen, he would have been elevated to become the Assistant of the UN Secretary-General.

Iran’s former ambassador expressed his opinion about the president Rohani’s nominee for Foreign Affairs portfolio, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and said that Zarif has a unique personality in the diplomatic Iranian corps and is the best Iranian diplomat historically as recognized by the Secretary General of the United Nations. Hence, If Zarif was not an Iranian citizen he would have been elevated to become the Assistant of the UN Secretary-General thanks to his skillfulness. It is noteworthy that he refused the proposal to serve as the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.