Giving Rouhani a Chance Will Keep Iran's Radicals in Check

Yousef Molaei, a professor of international law at Tehran University, recently spoke with Iranwire about the legal and policy challenges facing Iran in the months ahead. He emphasized that relentless pressure on Iran through economic sanctions may yet prompt the political establishment to move in a more radical direction. Molaei, who is known as a progressive academic concerned with democracy and human rights, said he believes increasing sanctions are perceived in Iran as punishment for voting for moderation with Hassan Rouhani's election. He said Iranians view the current regional context with great nuance and matury, and showed through their decision to vote en masse that they are mindful of what has befallen Syria and Iraq. We spoke Dr. Molaei about prospects for resolving the nuclear crisis, Rouhani's capacities at the negotiating table, and what the West and Iran misunderstand about one another.

During his tenure as lead nuclear negotiator, Mr. Rouhani managed to prevent the IAEA from sending Iran’s case to the Security Council for sanctions. Can this individual experience help him bring about a nuclear compromise as president?

The issues around the nuclear program have their own complexities,  the legal, political, and technical dimensions of which are intertwined, and cannot be reduced to a matter of propaganda. This case is negotiated and managed in the context of a wider political and international atmosphere. Certainly, individual experiences can be utilized by the individual who conducting the negotiation and pushing the case forward. But individual capabilities can only flourish and take effect on a suitable foundation. That is the atmosphere we need now, an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect among Iran and the P5+1 countries, where everyone strives for the case to move forward peacefully with consideration for Iran’s rights and respect for the other negotiating countries’ concerns. If have such a foundation to build upon then individual experiences will definitely be useful.

Mr. Rouhani has supporters across the spectrum of the Iranian political establishment, from the reformists to the left through to the conservatives the right. How helpful will this be to him in creating a consensus inside the country for solving the nuclear issue? Will this be an asset to him?

He can definitely use this. But going back to the point I made earlier, his biggest fortune is not in the fact that he can have the trust of both sides, nor his ability to move forward in the middle. His biggest fortune is that after the political developments that have taken place over the past 16 years,  society itself has been moving towards rationality and wisdom. This in and of itself will move things forward in moderation, without sloganeering, and without policies that create tension. This development in our society is Mr. Rouhani’s great fortune. Of course, the dealings he has with both factions will play a positive role for him and he can utilize them. But the most important factor is the growth of rationality and establishment of a mood that emphasizes that radicalism and extremism will not help national interests, and the need for us to change our policies and methods.

What do you mean when you refer to rationalism? What does that encompass?

When we talk about rationality, it means that we have to effectively consider the characteristics of the international community and to pay attention to international laws, the significance of resolutions and the mechanisms for approving them, and the need to enforce and respect them. When we say rationality, it means that we must carefully calculate the situation and circumstances and understand the concept of rights, not based on our own philosophical and ideological views, but based on the external realities within which rights are defined and balanced in international law and within the framework of existing standards. Seeing these realities and making them tangible in decision-making is rationality in foreign policy.

Are there any assumptions that lead Western countries to make miscalculations about Iran, or, conversely, do Iranians have any presuppositions that lead them to make poor decisions?

This is definitely the case in the existing international relations. The different sides to the international negotiations have different perceptions about each other. Those perceptions, which are formed by the different sides’ cultural, identity, ideological, and regional issues, cause the sides not to have realistic understandings about each other, judging each other and making decisions based on their own perceptions about each other. Western countries have definitely made some errors about Iran. On the other hand, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s government has had a perception about Western countries that has been out of touch with reality. This made the atmosphere difficult for policies that would work for our country’s best interests. But now I believe that the West has also learned that their view to Iran has not been a realistic one, because this election can clarify a lot of issues for them. Considering the problems the sanctions have imposed on the country, we, too, can make some adjustments in our views about the other side.

What kind of adjustments should the West make?

One of the biggest accomplishments of the Iranian people is that they now observe the regional context in a very nuanced way. While they want to be viewed with dignity and respect at the international level, they also understand their national interests and know when to show conduct that exhibits their growth, rationality, and realistic approach to external issues. Iranians remain mindful of the situations in Syria and Iraq.

What points did or do the Iranians neglect to observe?

The important thing is that when we become careless about international resolutions, policies, and rules, people’s daily lives are affected. The people of Iran understand many things very well and are in pursuit of respectful relations that would maintain the interests of all the players in the region, including Iran. Western analysts must consider the conduct of Iranian people in the nuclear case very carefully.

While the US government has welcomed the Iranian election, the Congress is moving towards more sanctions against Iran. What effects would more sanctions have on Mr. Rouhani’s agenda, considering that he has said he wishes to reduce tensions and solve the nuclear issue?

More sanctions would be very detrimental. It would be like getting punished for doing something right. The message the Iranian election sent was a message of reducing tensions, moderation, and a reduction of friction at regional and international levels. Sanctions work exactly in the opposite manner. They aim to put pressure on a nation so that the regime or the government would change its behavior. This is not an accurate perception of the Iranian election results. The Iranian election showed that Iranians have flexibility.

Is Iran ready to show flexibility for ending extremism and radical movements?

To the extent that it would not undermine Iran’s independence and sovereignty, the Iranian authorities will show flexibility, too, and their message is one of moderation aiming to show a new conduct and approach to the world. We took one step toward reducing tensions through the election.

What should the West do?

They should give a chance for the effects of the election to play out in practice, through the formation of the next cabinet and the start of the nuclear negotiations. If they decide to put more pressure on Iran because Iran has shown some flexibility, it will cause the arrangement of political powers to change inside Iran and there will be more radical movements.

The political structure in the United States is not homogeneous, either. The government is optimistic, but the Congress has radical views towards Iran. No matter what disagreements the Republicans and the Democrats have in Congress, when it comes to Iran they are united. Just like Iran, the different political groups in the US have different opponent and proponent viewpoints about different issues and there is no united voice coming out of Washington. What should be done to penetrate into a society with many voices?

My suggestion for avoiding the radical route would be to employ more public policy. This means that we must have an approach to influence public opinion in our favor. We must be able to address international public opinion and use it to try to expand our relations. This way we can show the realities inside Iran in relation to the developments that are taking place. Through individuals who are advocating peace, tension reduction, and war prevention, we can confront the radical currents and give Mr. Rouhani a chance to implement the positive aspects of the constructive developments in Iran and to gain trust in the nuclear case.

What do you think is the reason for this pressure?

I believe that the Israeli lobby in the US puts pressure on the Congress. We feel that Mr. Netanyahu’s government is not pleased with the developments taking place in Iran and continues to beat the drums of tension and distrust.

Mr. Rouhani said in the election debates that “the centrifuges must turn, but so should the wheels of people’s livelihoods,” and that “Iran can advance its nuclear program in such a way that it would not face sanctions.” How meaningful do you think these two statements were for ordinary people in the election?

More than paying attention to every single sentence or trying to seek meaning in those sentences, ordinary people were mindful of macro policies and a change in the direction of policies. We are trying to step away from a phase in which the country paid a very high price, and people welcomed any policy that would confront those earlier moves. Of course statements that said we can design our national interests in such a way so as not to give up our legitimate positions, nor expose people’s daily lives to overt difficulties, were reassuring to people.