Khamenei's Green Light to America

(This article by Akbar Ganji was published on April 24, 2015, in 'National Interest', with the Persian version below.) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke in detail about Iran's nuclear file on April 20. As usual, he reiterated his claims of distrust towards the U.S. government and his lack of optimism regarding the negotiations' outcomes. He stated that this approach is not a product of delusion but rather a historical experience that has taught him that American leaders are deceitful, liars, fraudulent, and treacherous. Khamenei defended the nuclear negotiations and called for finalizing the agreement. However, he views negotiation as a give-and-take process, not as dictation of what the U.S. wants. In the nuclear case, he offers many concessions and commitments in exchange for the complete lifting of sanctions as soon as a final agreement is announced. He stated that any agreement must be dignified, serve the interests of the nation and country, and not humiliate the Iranian people, with the lifting of all sanctions being a prerequisite for such an agreement. He said, 'What needs to happen is that the sanctions must be completely and simultaneously lifted on the day of the agreement.' He emphasized that if the lifting of sanctions is to be contingent upon another process, then why did they negotiate at all? The negotiations were meant to lift the sanctions; if they are to be delayed again, it is unacceptable. He recalled the proposal by Khatami's government in May 2003 regarding the nuclear program, which significantly limited the project but was rejected by the Bush administration. The Bush administration, buoyed by a quick victory in Iraq, was thinking of conquering Tehran. American military commanders stated, 'Everyone wants to go to Baghdad, but real men go to Tehran.' Dick Cheney said, 'We do not negotiate; we defeat them.' The Bush administration escalated threats against Iran, including bombing it with nuclear weapons. Max Fisher has also noted that the main reason for the extreme opposition of American hardliners to the nuclear agreement is the regime change in Iran through violence, and finalizing a diplomatic nuclear agreement reduces this possibility. Khamenei has reiterated these points in response to Obama’s letters. On April 19, 2015, Khamenei again reminded that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons due to 'humanitarian standards' and 'Islamic commitments.' On one hand, Americans talk about military options being on the table (including recent statements by the U.S. Secretary of Defense) and constantly threaten Iran with military aggression (including statements by Tom Cotton, a presidential candidate), while on the other hand, they demand that Iran relinquish its defensive capabilities. This paradoxical approach is 'foolish' and the Islamic Republic will not accept it. Iran does not have an aggressive policy and poses no military threat to any country in the region or 'distant places,' but if attacked, it will defend itself powerfully. The goal of the U.S.: regime change. Ayatollah Khamenei has always opposed negotiations with the U.S. government. In recent years, he has allowed negotiations only regarding the nuclear issue. He reiterated in this speech that 'we are not negotiating with the U.S. on any other issues (domestic, regional, or international) at the moment. The only topic of discussion and negotiation today is nuclear issues.' Given that he began the nuclear negotiations with distrust and skepticism, it is clear that his relationship with the U.S. has always been fundamentally unjustifiable and has been consistently denied. Throughout his 26 years of leadership, he has referred to U.S. government conspiracies for regime change in Iran in every speech. In his view, accusations such as moving towards building nuclear weapons, terrorism, human rights violations, etc., are all excuses of the government. Khamenei's recent speech had a key point. He views the nuclear negotiations as a new experience. An experience that, if it leads to a favorable outcome, could lead to negotiations between Iran and the U.S. on other issues and possibly improve Iran-U.S. relations. From the article's text, the U.S. is aiming for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. He states that the toughest sanctions in history were designed and passed to incite the Iranian people against the Islamic Republic. The nuclear excuse, which is to be taken from the U.S. through a final agreement, will be used as an excuse for another issue to achieve the goal of regime change. The key to relations with the U.S. is that Khamenei views the nuclear negotiations as a new experience. An experience that, if it leads to a favorable outcome, could pave the way for negotiations on other issues and possibly improve relations with the U.S. He said, 'Now, this [nuclear negotiations] will be an experience; if the other side refrains from its usual deviations, this will be an experience for us that, well, then we can negotiate with them on another issue; but if we see that the deviations we have always seen still exist and they are going down the wrong path, then of course our past experience will be reinforced.' As far as I understand, this was the key point he raised in this speech. On March 9, in the article 'Ayatollah Khamenei, Obstacle to Obama and Rouhani’s Dream?' I wrote that 'Obamacare' is the biggest domestic achievement of Obama's presidency, and establishing relations with Iran would be his greatest foreign policy achievement. If this goal is achieved, American history will record it in Obama's name. There, I explained that Obama is pursuing this goal. Hassan Rouhani, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, reformists, and Iran's Greens are also pursuing this goal. However, to achieve this goal, the U.S. government must act in a way that also brings Ayatollah Khamenei along with it. I wrote that a 'dignified agreement' through the rapid lifting of all sanctions is the way to change Khamenei's perspective and align him with Obama's goal. Now Khamenei himself has explicitly repeated the same claim and shown the way forward. The nuclear agreement between Iran and the U.S. has many enemies. Israel and Saudi Arabia are two examples of this claim, who will do anything to disrupt it. Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen is part of a project to disrupt the nuclear agreement by engaging Iran regionally. China, Russia, Turkey, and regional countries benefit from the conflict between Iran and the U.S. Domestic opponents of Obama are also doing everything to make the nuclear agreement impossible. Now consider this larger goal: establishing friendly relations between Iran and the U.S. The enemies of this goal are several times more than the enemies of the goal of the final nuclear agreement. An agreement that guarantees Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons has no excuse for the toughest sanctions in history, whose damage only affects the Iranian people. Removing the threat of war and lifting sanctions benefits regional security, global peace, and Iran's transition to a democratic system committed to freedom and human rights. From the article's text, Ben Rhodes - one of Obama's closest foreign policy advisors - referred to the nuclear agreement with Iran as 'ObamaCare' of our second term. If Obama seeks to achieve such a significant historical achievement, Ayatollah Khamenei has now clearly turned on his green light. A dignified nuclear agreement is a springboard towards establishing friendly relations. If, if, if Obama and Khamenei can overcome the enemies of the nuclear agreement, Iran and the U.S. could become strong allies and resolve important regional issues in favor of the 'national interests' of both countries and the region. Khamenei's speech on April 19, 2015, was also entirely conciliatory. His emphasis was on non-interference in others' affairs, not making the region insecure, and that Iran's military power is defensive to counter foreign aggression and considers the claim of Iran building nuclear weapons a 'fake myth.' The claim is not that as soon as a nuclear agreement is reached, friendly diplomatic relations will be established between Iran and the U.S. Rather, resolving the nuclear issue would pave the way for dialogue and moving towards improving relations, a reasonable and potentially effective policy. This is a difficult path and will not be resolved overnight, but undoubtedly taking steps in this direction will yield better results in the long run. The claim is that if the nuclear agreement is finalized, Khamenei's and Obama's hands will be more open to appeasing internal dissenters for establishing relations. An agreement that guarantees that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons has no excuse for the toughest sanctions in history, whose damage only affects the Iranian people. Removing the threat of war and lifting sanctions benefits regional security, global peace, and Iran's transition to a democratic system committed to freedom and human rights. The illegitimacy of U.S. concerns about lifting all sanctions. The U.S. government should not fear lifting sanctions for this larger goal because: 1. The United States has the ability to impose sanctions again, and even if most sanctions are lifted or suspended, their positive economic consequences for Iran will take several years. Therefore, the United States will not lose anything and will have the necessary opportunity to revert to the past and use diplomatic coercion. Obama said on April 17, 'My general considerations are that there are various ways to reduce sanctions or impose more sanctions if Iran violates the agreement, and part of the work of our negotiating team and the Iranian side and the 5+1 is to find a formula that alleviates our concerns and allows the other side to make the agreement acceptable within its domestic policy.' 2. It is now the U.S. that must test the value and credibility of Khamenei's proposal, and if the strategic and long-term interests of the U.S. lie in rebuilding these relations, efforts in this direction are worth the risk. However, John Boehner wishes that Western governments would not be able to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran. Republican presidential candidates oppose the nuclear agreement, and some of them talk about military action against Iran. It is even said that Hillary Clinton is also against the nuclear agreement. 3. The support and welcome of most domestic political forces for a positive American move in this direction is not a small asset, and the U.S. should not miss this opportunity. They seek a transition to democracy, not war (refer to the article 'We are not Christ walking on water'). Michael Mullen - former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - defended the nuclear agreement and wrote: 'If this agreement succeeds, it will be a historic opportunity for change, not only in Iran but in the Middle East.' The Iranian people are 'receptive to the West and thirsty for connection with the world.' 4. Let us not forget that domestically and possibly somewhat internationally, Iran has so far been more successful in the soft diplomatic war and in giving excessive concessions. Therefore, the blame for a return to the past will fall more on the 5+1 and primarily on the U.S. James Baker - former U.S. Secretary of State - has written about this: 'If the U.S. is seen as the reason for the failure of the agreement due to insufficient domestic support, it will be easier for our partners in the 1+5 to lift sanctions against Iran. We must understand that some of those countries are eager to resume their trade relations with Iran, just as Russia has agreed to sell missile defense systems to Iran.' In the event of a negotiation failure, Khamenei could continue his nuclear program stronger than before.