“Balancing Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights: Challenges and Opportunities”, Global Network for Rights and Development (GNRD), February 16, 2015.
Coverage: “Balancing Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights: Challenges and Opportunities,” Iran Review, February 19, 2015.
Extremism is the ultimate winner in the controversy over Charlie Hebdo’s publication of the latest cartoon with the support of the French government and other Western powers. Regrettably, the latest provocation and blatant hypocrisy of the West on the issue of freedom of expression will further the cause of the terrorists and lend support to their claim that Western powers have waged an all-out war against Islam. Furthermore, terrorist groups such as ISIS, who regard themselves the vanguard of Muslims, Islamic values and Quranic teachings would certainly celebrate new recruitments in thousands.
“Extremism, Terrorism Ultimate Winners of Charlie Hebdo Episode,” Hossein Mousavian, IRNA, January 24, 2015.
“Certain media distort Iran stance on France events: Analyst,” interview with Hossein Mousavian, IRNA, January 18, 2015.
“Report recommends controversial American-Iranian policy changes,” Interview with Hossein Mousavian, Shriya Sekhsaria, The Daily Princetonian, October 7, 2014.
The US failure to secure a firm ceasefire in the Gaza, as a result of the objections from Egypt and Israel, reflects the new geopolitical reality in the region.
Whether Israel’s rejection of Washington’s diplomacy is a prevailing trend remains to be seen. But it is apparent, now more than ever, that the interests of the US and Israel have started to diverge at a quickening pace and maybe even conflict. The outcome of such an eventuality is that Israel would take the liberty of advancing its interests without any consideration for international laws and norms as well as the consequences of its acts for US interests.
Against this backdrop, you do not have to be a genius to realize that Israel’s current acts only result in the radicalization of the Palestinian movement, possibly the emergence of the third Intifada, and the strengthening of jihadi movements in the region as a whole.
Even the Arab states who side with Israel, either with their obvious acts and policies, or by remaining as mute spectators, must know that they are just adding fuel to the flame of jihadi extremism that will eventually come back to haunt them.
“Netanyahu’s Gaza war: Changing Aims but Predictable Consequences,” Hossein Mousavian and Shahir Shahidsaless, Iran Review, August 15, 2014.
The text of this article has been selected from: “Iran and the United States; the Failed Past and the Road to Peace”, authored by Seyed Hossein Mousavian with Shahir Shahidsaless, exclusively sent to Iran Review.Org by Seyed Hossein Mousavian.
The tragic events of September 11, 2001 could have opened a new chapter in Iran–US relations. Iran was among the first countries to denounce the 9/11 Twin Tower terror attacks in New York. Immediately following the condemnation, the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) of Iran actively began to work within the new paradigm that was created by the September 11 terrorist attack and the subsequent US declaration of a “war on terror.” We were also concerned with the extremist Salafis and the Taliban, whose ideologies we viewed as hostile towards Shia Iran and also dangerous to the broader region.
During a fall 2012 conference in Berlin, James Dobbins told me that Hamid Karzai was the United States’ favored candidate to lead the new Afghan government. “Iranians also supported us,” Dobbins said.
Dobbins highlighted the role of Javad Zarif in the success of the Bonn Conference and the establishment of the new Afghan government. According to a report by Michael Hirsh, in an interview Dobbins,“pointed out that Karzai was a Pashtun from the south, like the majority of the Afghan population.” Tajiks from the Northern Alliance, historically rivals to the Pashtuns, led by Yunus Qanooni, tenaciously demanded the majority share in the new government “since they were the people that had captured Kabul according to Dobbins.” Dobbins says “that by 4.00 a.m., they had reached a very critical moment. Nobody was able to change Qanooni’s mind. Zarif finally and authoritatively whispered in Qanooni’s ear that, ‘This is the best deal you can get.’ And Qanooni said, ‘OK.’”
Even after the creation of a new Afghan government at the Bonn Conference, talks continued. But suddenly, there came a veritable bombshell. President Bush, only a few weeks after the Bonn Conference, stunned us by including Iran in the “axis of evil” during his January 2002 State of the Union address. Talks continued but the Iranians’appetite for cooperation was diminished. Every person involved, from Khatami down, had the same feeling—betrayed! The word namaknashnas (a person one feeds, and later expresses betrayal rather than appreciation) was the word frequently used to characterize George Bush’s behavior.
“How Iran Won the Afghanistan Deal with the US in 2001,” Hossein Mousavian, Iran Review, June 24, 2014.
“The United States, Russia and the Middle East,” presentation at the John Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, December 5, 2013. (Video)
“Iran Says Give Peace a Chance in Syria,” Interview with Hossein Mousavian, Omid Memarian, The Daily Beast, September 5, 2013.
The Middle East is on fire and the constructive role of Turkey is essential. Ankara should try to revive the Zero Problems Policy with its neighbors. To achieve this urgent objective, Ankara should consider the following:
1) Turkey should not throw all its weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood based on the wrong assumption that the future of the region rests with this party.
2) The Arab Awakening should not lead Turkey to abandon its policy of non-interference.
3) Turkey should maintain a position of neutrality, enabling Ankara to play a credible role in regional crisis management.
4) It must determine which direction its foreign policy is heading. Iranian foreign policy following the 1979 revolution was based on ideology and national interest. Turkey, as a secular state, is essentially acting more ideologically than Iran on its foreign policy.
5) Turkey should not harbor ambitions of reviving the Ottoman past, as it would have grave consequences for Turkey and the region. Turkey’s recent policies have made some countries think Ankara is after reviving the former Ottoman hegemony in the region, believing that the “zero problems policy” was just a cover for Ankara’s “neo-Ottoman” ambitions.
6) The country should not forget its internal challenges. Turkey’s credibility in the region and the world took a beating this summer with Erdoğan’s decision to put down the demonstrations with riot police, tear gas and water cannons leading to the arrest and injury of hundreds of demonstrators in about 50 cities.
7) Turkey should attempt to cooperate with regional powers, mainly Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt, to manage the crisis arising from the Arab Awakening. Such a policy should be based on non-interference, mutual respect and peaceful settlement.
“Opinion: Turkey needs to rethink its regional policy,” Hossein Mousavian, Asharq Al Awsat, September 21, 2013.
Both Iran and the US consider the use of weapons of mass destruction a grave crime. Indeed, Iran was a major victim of chemical-weapons attacks during its 1980-1988 war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Iran can be a major partner to halt proliferation of WMDs in Syria, the Middle East, and beyond.
Iran maintains that the Security Council is the only body legally authorized to verify allegations concerning the use of such deadly weapons and to decide on the appropriate response. One promising avenue for US-Iran cooperation on Syria could be joint support for a fact-finding mission by the Security Council to identify the perpetrators. Obama has his “red line” on the use of chemical weapons. So does Ayatollah Khamenei.
“The US with Iran in Syria,” Hossein Mousavian, Project Syndicate, September 11, 2013.
