Separation of the Leader's Positions from Principlists in Nuclear Negotiations

The discussion about the results of Iran's nuclear negotiations with the 5+1 countries in Vienna last week was at the center of international media attention. The negotiations ultimately did not lead to a comprehensive agreement by the end of the deadline on December 3, resulting in an extension of the talks for another seven months. On Thursday, the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran announced his non-opposition to the extension of negotiations, stating that if the talks do not yield results, the United States will suffer the most and Israel will become more insecure. The Leader also referred to the Iranian negotiating team with terms such as "hardworking, serious, compassionate, strong, and logical," asserting that they are standing against what he described as "bullying." Prior to this positioning, the Kayhan newspaper, whose editor-in-chief is appointed by the Leader, harshly criticized Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who heads the Iranian negotiating team. On the other hand, in response to criticisms from Saeed Jalili, the former head of Iran's nuclear negotiating team during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presidency, Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council, praised the efforts of the current Iranian negotiating team, even though both are unsuccessful candidates in the 11th presidential election in Iran. Three guests on this program analyzed the Leader's positions, the institutions under his supervision, and the principlist spectrum regarding the nuclear negotiations. Mehdi Mahdavi Azad, a journalist and political analyst in Bonn, Germany; Mehdi Nourbakhsh, a professor of political science and international relations at Harrisburg University in the U.S.; and Amir Hossein Ganjbakhsh, one of the founders of the Coalition for a Secular Republic of Human Rights in Washington. Mr. Mahdavi Azad, what does the Leader's support for the Iranian nuclear negotiating team in front of the Basij commanders indicate about the positions of the Leader, the government, and the internal factions regarding the nuclear negotiations? The Leader used the terms "hardworking, serious, compassionate, strong, and logical" to describe the Iranian negotiating team. Mahdavi Azad: It seems that Mr. Khamenei has sent three main messages that cannot be denied. Externally, Mr. Khamenei has expressed his satisfaction and support for the agreement process. This is the first reaction from Mr. Khamenei to President Obama's remarks, emphasizing that the final decision will be made by the Leader of Iran. Especially since Mr. Khamenei stressed in his remarks that if a reasonable and logical agreement is reached and the demands are reasonable, he will support it. Mr. Khamenei attempted to calm down the radical and extremist principlists, especially the military security sector of the government, who had been making harsh criticisms, and even continue to do so, and tried to bring them along with him. In the second aspect, Mr. Khamenei tried to calm the radical and extremist principlists, especially the military security sector of the government, who had been making harsh criticisms, and even continue to do so, and tried to bring them along with him. The closed session on Saturday with Dr. Zarif in Parliament and the feedbacks that occurred, especially the reaction of Mr. Aladdin Boroujerdi, and the headlines that Fars and Mehr news agencies published, indicate that he has largely succeeded in this message and controlling the atmosphere of the opponents. The collective remarks of the Friday prayer leaders the day after Mr. Khamenei's statements regarding the nuclear file indicate that this message from Mr. Khamenei has even reached hardliners in Mashhad like Mr. Alamolhoda, as well as Mr. Jannati and that faction. In the third aspect, Mr. Khamenei continues to try to maintain a balance and keep part of the principlists who completely obey him behind him, with statements like if the negotiations fail, the U.S. will suffer more and we will not suffer, etc., positioning himself so that if the negotiations do not yield results, he will have his supporters. Mr. Nourbakhsh, the Kayhan newspaper, whose editor-in-chief is appointed by the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has criticized Foreign Minister Javad Zarif for what it called "shaking hands with a representative of a regime stained with the blood of millions of innocent people across the region," contrary to the Leader's previous remarks in front of the Basij. What does this separation of positions between Kayhan and the Leader of the Islamic Republic indicate? Mehdi Nourbakhsh: I think the radical groups are still exerting pressure to criticize the government. However, I completely agree with Mr. Mahdavi Azad that Iran is in a situation where both the price of oil in global markets has fallen significantly and the sanctions have taken their toll. Therefore, those who are decision-makers at the top are trying to calm the atmosphere that has been created over the past few years. What Mr. Khamenei is saying this time is that he has come to the field much more positively. In previous instances, he would say, well, negotiate, but I am not sure it will lead anywhere. But this time, Mr. Khamenei has come in much more positively. In the sense that I see no problem in agreeing to delay the negotiations. This, in my opinion, is very positive and the discussion is entirely correct. All groups that have interests and whose interests depend on these negotiations not reaching a conclusion are still making their efforts in various ways. However, this is not Mr. Khamenei's policy that these negotiations should fail under the current circumstances. At least what we see is that on the other side in Europe, you heard that the French government, which was more negative than anyone else regarding these negotiations, came out very positively after this last session. This is a signal for the Iranian government that European and American countries have reached the conclusion that we have reached a point where we can do something. I think this is something that will convince the Leader of the Islamic Republic and many of those at the top to take action. Mr. Ganjbakhsh, analyzing the statements of the Friday prayer leaders, including Ahmad Jannati, the Secretary of the Guardian Council, Ahmad Alamolhoda, and Ahmad Khatami, as Mr. Mahdavi Azad pointed out, and the commanders of the IRGC, what does this indicate about the separation of positions between the far-right press and the positions of the institutions under the supervision of the Leader of the Islamic Republic? We do not have something called the "right wing." These are the apparatus of the guardianship in the Islamic Republic, and certainly this apparatus of guardianship has different factions, some more radical, some less so. But they are all under the command of the Leader. Amir Hossein Ganjbakhsh: I wanted to talk about two or three points regarding this. We do not have something called the "right wing." These are the apparatus of the guardianship in the Islamic Republic, and certainly this apparatus of guardianship has different factions, some more radical, some less so. But they are all under the command of the Leader. The second point is that in this situation, the most important speech was made by Mr. Rouhani. To summarize Mr. Rouhani's speech the day after the negotiations, it is that we implemented the Leader's red lines. The negotiations did not yield results. This is my interpretation of Mr. Rouhani's speech, and it happened that way. If you pay attention, since last year's Geneva negotiations, which were going very well, after Mr. Khamenei's speech regarding the red lines and the issue of enrichment, which was how much it should be (the same issue that Mr. Zarif apparently was the main topic of discussion in the negotiations), these negotiations failed and were postponed in a sense. Of course, one can ask Mr. Rouhani here that if you were supposed to adhere to the Leader's red lines, then the people should not have paid the costs; they should have voted for you. They would have voted for Mr. Jalili, who for several years would have continued this charade, negotiations would have been conducted, and postponed. Mr. Khamenei's important speech should be seen in the context of continuing his foreign policy: "Peace never." Amir Hossein Ganjbakhsh: The same thing that he did again the day after that. He used the word "enemy" that we did not kneel before the enemy. And one point he raised is that this is a sensitivity for the countries in the region. That is, the West Bank must also be armed. That is, Palestinians in the West Bank must also be armed to eliminate "arrogance, colonialism, and Zionism." This is a fundamental point that I think has come after this and this will be the policy of Mr. Khamenei that will continue for the next six months. The fundamental problem in these negotiations, and in all negotiations over the past ten years, is that no freedom-loving Iranian has been convinced that uranium enrichment is beneficial for nuclear technology. We should not expect that foreigners will accept two parallel lines of enrichment and technology that will never meet and accept that Iran has spent so much money for nothing and for a technology that has no economic value and wants to use it peacefully. The main knot is here, and as long as this knot is not resolved, these negotiations will not yield results, and the red lines that Mr. Khamenei has set essentially lead to the failure of the negotiations. In the way that he currently thinks, well, in the next six months, he can continue this "never peace" policy that he is pursuing with the world. Perhaps his hope is that the current Congress in the U.S. will allow extremists in America to gain the upper hand to completely disrupt the negotiation process. Mr. Mahdavi Azad, you heard Mr. Amir Hossein Ganjbakhsh's comments and also Mr. Nourbakhsh's earlier remarks. Could what we are witnessing be a division of labor between the institutions under the Leader and the far-right press? That is, the institutions may not have exerted pressure on the government to present a united front regarding the Iranian government's positions in the negotiations with the 5+1, but the right-wing press continues to pressure the government to warn them not to show flexibility in the negotiations. There is no puppet show going on in Iran. We cannot believe that Mr. Jalili is doing the same thing as Shamkhani in the Supreme National Security Council. There is a world of difference between Jalili's approach and Shamkhani's or between Jalili's and Rouhani's approaches. Mahdi Mahdavi Azad: What Mr. Ganjbakhsh said is actually a very good entry point for participating in this discussion. If we accept Mr. Ganjbakhsh's statements that we do not have a right wing and that all are part of the guardianship apparatus, that means there is no difference between Ahmad Khatami and Shamkhani or between Shamkhani and Naghdi, and we think of Rouhani in the same way we think of Ahmad Jannati, then we have simplified the equations too much. There is no more discussion left. Mr. Khamenei either says yes or he says no. This simplification, in my opinion, is a very optimistic view of Iran's political equations. It overlooks the political realities of Iran. There is no puppet show going on in Iran. We cannot believe that Mr. Jalili is doing the same thing as Shamkhani in the Supreme National Security Council. There is a world of difference between Jalili's approach and Shamkhani's or between Jalili's and Rouhani's approaches. On the other hand, Mr. Ganjbakhsh does not answer this question either: how is it possible that one day before Mr. Khamenei's remarks, Mr. Shariatmadari attacks this negotiating team so fiercely, and the commander of the IRGC said two days before the extension of the negotiations that our negotiating team has acted ineptly? Mr. Ganjbakhsh does not answer this question either: does Mr. Khamenei know nothing about politics and tells his associates to go say something, and I will come and contradict it tomorrow? No. In my opinion, this is also a kind of conspiracy theory. Mahdi Mahdavi Azad: Mr. Khamenei in his speech on Thursday announced that our team is very strong. They have acted very powerfully. Mr. Jalili, the day the negotiations were extended, in one of his speeches in northern Iran, explicitly stated that this extension of the agreement means failure, and we should come out of the agreement. Mr. Naghdi says the same things. That is, Mr. Ganjbakhsh does not answer this question either: does Mr. Khamenei know nothing about politics and tells his associates to go say something, and I will come and contradict it tomorrow? No. In my opinion, this is also a kind of conspiracy theory. Ultimately, the approach that I strongly defend that explains this political diversity and decision-making diversity and does not lead one to daily repetition and allows us to analyze developments based on it is that the power institutions in Iran pursue their goals based on their capabilities.