People to Suffer from Sanctions and War (Interview with the former Hostage Taker, now a reformer)

Rooz Online: Interview with Abbas Abdi

Abbas Abdi is one of the three student leaders that took over the US embassy in Tehran in November of 1979. He has since become a moderate advocating ending the mistrust between the US and Iran and for that purpose even met one of his former hostages, Barry Rosen, then press attaché to the US embassy in Tehran in Paris in 1998. His change of views has also put him behind bars in Tehran while being on the editorial board of a liberal and pro-reform newspaper, Salam. At the time of his arrest, he was the head of a polling organization that the government had closed in October of 2002. Abdi is again making headlines, this time opposing Iran’s nuclear path.

Here are excerpts of Rooz’s interview with him. READ MORE

Q- Do you really believe that Iran’s nuclear issue is far more important than the presidential elections of June 2005 that brought the hardliners to the presidential palace?

A-Yes, I think so because its impact on the life of every Iranian is far greater than the changes in the presidency. By looking back, I see what great mistakes we ourselves made in the past.

Q- Like what?

A-It is now ten years since we have been implementing agreements that have not been officially approved by the parliament. I can cite three examples: the NPT which had expired and needed to be ratified again by the parliament but has not been, the charter of the Vienna based IAEA which has not been accepted by many other countries such as Egypt, and, the additional safeguard protocols to the IAEA that were approved by its board two years but not ratified in Iran. All are being enforced in Iran by the Iranian government that claims to defend the independence of the country. How can you do this? These protocols violate Iran’s independence as they give the West and the US control over Iranian affairs. Where is the Guardians Council which vetoes a bill allowing the law enforcement agencies to sell its obsolete equipment, but remains silent on these protocols that take away our sovereign rights? Joining the test ban treaty means denying ourselves the right to make the nuclear bomb. It is ironic that we do not even have normal diplomatic relations with the US but allow it to control our nuclear policy and facilities through the IAEA, which is controlled by the US. Normally when states join such treaties, they give up something in return for something else. They get some benefits. In our case, the problem is that we have accepted the limitations on our sovereignty without getting the benefits that go with such arrangements because we wish to remain outside the global framework. Even Westerners are surprised at the way we criticize the global system and yet put our signatures on documents that are the instruments of that very system to control the world.

Q-So our negotiating strategy is wrong, as Larijani has also said?

A-I am not talking about negotiating strategy. The principles are completely wrong, even though we have made some mistakes in our talks as well, which are in fact small compared to the principles that we talk about. The basis and the foundations on which these talks rest are completely wrong. Why has Iran denied itself the right to produce nuclear weapons? This was not done voluntarily. So if we have decided to forego this right because of international pressure then we must reap the benefits that go with such a decision in the international system. On one hand we are the loudest opponent of the international system, while on the other we bind ourselves to its most intrusive principles without getting the benefits from the whole system because of our initial or basic opposition. Take a look, we first announced that we do not accept the additional protocols to the IAEA, and then later we signed them, but started implementing them without having it approved by the due process of the land. All we are doing is succumbing to international pressure while airing empty resistance slogans.

Q-What about the religious proclamations that the nuclear bomb is haram, i.e. contrary to Islam?

A-That argument is not true. The Qoran does not say that. Furthermore, the nuclear bomb is advanced as a weapon of peace because with it, states are afraid to go to war. Look at the Americans and the Russians. Look at India and Pakistan that went into three wars before becoming nuclear, but are now working on peaceful mechanisms since. What we are doing is in fact creating distrust. Our nuclear activities have no economic justification. Look at the Bushehr plant, and then at the supporting industries around it, and then at comparative production costs between different sources of power generation in Iran.

Q-So what is your proposal, not to talk with the West?

A-If we want to enrich uranium, then we should leave the treaty, and tell the West that it is none of their business whether what we do makes sense or has economic justification or not. Then there would be no need to win their confidence and trust. But if we cannot do this, then we should move in the direction of creating confidence according to accepted norms. The question though remains that if we do not accept them because of their relations and principles, then why are we trying to win their confidence?

Q-Isn’t our image at stake now?

A-No. This is an issue dealing with interests and costs. If we reach a compromise on our own terms and in our interests then we should not interpret those as defeats or sell outs. We have to be clear in our capabilities. If we can do something, then we should, even make a bomb. I personally believe that Iran must follow two goals: not be militarily attacked, and, not be sanctioned by the UN Security Council. If we can make the bomb while attaining these two goals, then we should go ahead. Everything else is secondary.

Q-Some argue that we should have our nuclear capabilities even at a cost of war.

A-But is it really worth going to war? We must see what we will get. Don’t forget that war and sanctions will hurt people badly. Our red line not to be crossed in whatever we do should be war and sanctions.

Q-What if we can get a veto power on our side at the UN Security Council?

A-I think going to the Security Council is worse than a limited military action. Libya withstood a limited war, i.e. strikes by the US military, but it could not withstand the sanctions and blockade. Whether we can muster a veto or not, if the Security Council passes a resolution, then we will have to satisfy it in future, which means they control everything. In that case, a single veto can overrule the intentions of the others. So the US can veto the decision of others to give Iran a clean bill. This is what happened in the Libyan case. The US said it had no objections to lifting sanctions against Libya, but France objected and vetoed. So Libya had to satisfy France in addition to the others.

Q-Who should we talk to?

A-The IAEA if we are talking about nuclear issues. If we are talking about political issues, it has to be the US. Look at the North Korean talks with the US, China, Russia and South Korea, where the principal negotiations are between the US and North Korea. Iran’s adherence to the NPT and the Saadabad agreement are even more import than the UN Security Council resolution 598 that we accepted for the cease fire over the 8 year Iran-Iraq war. These two amount to accepting the international order. I cannot understand why we are circumventing the US. Is it a personal fuel? On adding new members to the negotiations, I do not think it will change anything as the balance of power will not change in our favor.

Q-Will the resolution of the nuclear issue solve our problems with the West?

A-No. The issue is that the US sees us as irresponsible trouble-makers in the region. That is why they are not content in confining us to the NPT. The only way to come out respectfully is to strengthen democracy and the legitimacy of the government at home. If that takes place, nobody can keep Iran within the bounds of the NPT. Even if we left it, we could not be held to its standards. But with the current structure and support that the regime enjoys, one may not expect more than what we get.

Q-There have been suggestions about holding a referendum on the nuclear issue.

A-This gives the impression that the negotiating party for the government are the Iranian people. If a regime has public legitimacy then it does not need a referendum. Will the Iranian people voluntarily forego their own right without getting something in return? Furthermore, a referendum requires an open discussion before it. Is that possible in Iran today? If that is the path they chose, then it should be noted that we have far more pressing domestic issues that should be put to referendum.

Q-But why did the reformers not raise these objections in the past?

A-If we had we would have immediately been labeled as agents of the West and foreigners. Event he sixth Majlis that comprised the moderates had been deprived of its real power and authority.

Q-Did president Khatami make a mistake in his nuclear policy?

A-Khatami stopped pressing long before the nuclear issue. He was subjected to a situation where he was afraid to take a photograph with some two hundred others, one of which was US president Bill Clinton. Now, the president proudly takes a photograph with a group that includes Sharon and Bush, and nobody even comments.