Opinion ‘What will define the Middle East is no more the Arab Spring,but a new nuclear geopolitics and Iran’s bigger role’

The Geneva deal is a very important turn in Iranian diplomacy,towards not only the United States but also Europe. It opens the way to a new re-writing of the political map of the Middle East,North Africa and South Asia. It also re-integrates Iran as a political entity and not only a security problem into the international community as a legitimate regional power. Though only a first step,the agreement has important implications. It could ease the diplomatic relations between the US and Iran,but it could also prepare the way for coordinated humanitarian relief and a political solution in Syria. Interestingly,this first nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 is actually a double-edged sword — it can open new options with regard to Iran’s regional role in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf and it’s a victory for the moderate government of Hassan Rouhani against the Iranian hardliners,and also of the Obama administration’s positive steps against the hawks in Washington. At the same time,it could be a very difficult journey for both Iran and the US,mainly because of the hardliners in either country.

But the important thing is that,in Iran,people are becoming not only more hopeful because of this deal,but they now have higher expectations of the Iranian government on issues such as the management of a suffering Iranian economy and a difficult and factionalised Iranian domestic politics. So if we look forward in the next six months,either there will be a weakening of the deal in Geneva and we’ll go back to where we started,or there will be a breakthrough in Iranian diplomacy and it can pave the way for more lasting progress and change. As a result of this,Iran can reintegrate itself as a country in the concert of nations and play the role of mediator in solving issues like Syria,Iraq,Afghanistan and many others.

A permanent deal will be a paradigm shift in the Middle East.

The paradigm shift in Middle Eastern politics will be multi-layered. One will be Iran coming back to its position of a big player in Middle East politics and the Persian Gulf region. The second will be a nuclear geopolitics in the ,which has two sides: if Iran continues as a nuclear power without making the bomb — while Israel and Pakistan are nuclear powers,Turkey,Saudi Arabia and Qatar also want to be nuclear powers — we are looking at a new nuclear geopolitics. That means we’re turning the page on a new concept of security in the . But we’re also talking about who’s going to provide these nuclear infrastructures for the other countries — because they can’t do it themselves. There’s no danger if everything is on the table,because with the NPT and the IAEA,we can be looking at a nuclear de-proliferation in the . Certainly,this too is going to create a new balance of power. What will define the is no more the Arab Spring,but the new nuclear geopolitics and a bigger role for Iran.

Iran has been a problem child in the eyes of its neighbours and the West since 1979. But leaving such a big country out of the community of nations has also been dangerous for the region?

It was high time for Iran and the US as well as for the Europeans,and not just the P5+1,to re-establish their relationship,especially because US role in the has been terribly weakened since the Arab Spring. Iran,not just because of its nuclear power but also because of its population,its educated middle class,its youth,and its very strong civil society — in fact,very rich human resources — and of course because of its gas and oil resources,has become a very strong partner in the making of the new . So,the US needs Iran to be able to balance power relations in the region and also strengthen its role in Southwest Asia.

I think the positive side to this nuclear deal is that it stopped the lobbies that wanted to get involved in a coup de force or in a military attack against Iran,which would have created a huge mess in the region. Somehow,if this dialogue achieves its goals,what’s very important is that it may even open the possibility of a future reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia and also maybe solve the Palestinian issue through dialogue. This is a re-ordering of the according to a new paradigm of avoiding ideological goals and excessive hostilities and replacing them with a broader regional understandings which would contribute to regional and international stability.

From Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s high-pitched abuse to Binyamin Netanyahu’s threats and now Saudi Arabia’s anger,do you think the rhetoric on both sides of the “Tehran divide” has been overplayed in the media?

The rhetoric,particularly the maximalist rhetoric,played a very important role in the making of this deal because it became so unrealistic and impractical — especially considering all the tensions and conflicts today,from Lebanon to Afghanistan — that it was practically impossible for the Europeans and Americans to follow this blind and sectarian rhetoric. Secondly,I think it’s very important to understand that after 35 years of disagreement,misunderstanding,mutual fear and the absence of diplomatic relations between the US and Iran,both countries have changed their ideological and maximalist postures. For example,there’s a turning of the page on ideological Iran when you come to its broader appeal to the region. On the other hand,in the US,even all the Republicans have a hard time following Netanyahu’s militaristic line of thought. I don’t think the Bush administration’s adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are repeatable.

With the US being perceived as a power in decline,Obama seems to have made the calculation that although American presence is necessary,the US cannot be everywhere,all the time. Therefore,the argument goes,the Geneva deal had a narrowing window.

Yes. Absolutely. It was the right time to realise that Iran is not governed only by irrational,fanatic Shiite clerics,that is also a country of open-minded people,a country with a new generation of diplomats like Mohammad Javad Zarif,a country where you can find moderate figures in politics and interesting civic actors. So the possibility of a dialogue with a less ideological and more open-minded Iranian diplomacy,as it was the case with the nuclear talks in Geneva,would certainly be more helpful for advancing a dialogue on Iranian domestic politics and the human rights issues and an opportunity not only to stop nuclear proliferation in the but also establish a dialogical geopolitics in which Iran could be an active partner. I think by playing this new role in the and the Persian Gulf,Iran might be more successful than Israel and Saudi Arabia in finding a solution to the dangerous slide into sectarian Shiite-Sunnite conflict.

In other words,it’s important to make Iran a stakeholder in the security of the region,and not keep it an outlier? Iran has already demonstrated its significance for securing Afghanistan post Nato withdrawal,and has had a history of facing off the Taliban.

First,I don’t think Iran needs a nuclear bomb to become a stakeholder in the security of the region. Iran has always been a stakeholder,given the size of its population,its very educated and even Westernised younger population. I insist that it’s the only country in the region with such a strong civil society — intellectuals,students,feminist groups. On that level,it’s very comparable to India.

Second,Iran is a country which is needed to solve the problems caused in West Asia by the Taliban and al-Qaeda,for the simple reason that the US,Pakistan and many other countries have been incapable of doing it. We should not forget that 35 years after the Islamic Revolution,young Iranian society represents one of the unique post- fundamentalist countries of the world. All the more reason to consider Iran a stakeholder and partner.

Third,I do not think it would be wrong to say that Iran is not only an important player in the but also a strategic partner in Asia. This fact is completely forgotten. Iran is an Asian power like Japan,China and India. Actually,when we talk about the new Asian geopolitics,we need to include Iran as the fourth partner in the game. And we have to expect,over the next decade,a more “Asian” diplomacy from Iran. I mean a more proactive attitude towards India in regard to economic and diplomatic relations. As you know,in the absence of the Americans,Iran established an important economic relationship with China. As for Japan,we had,a few months ago,a visit by Masahiko Komura,a former foreign minister to Iran,in order to mediate the dispute between Iran and the US. We know that Japan has a strong interest in ending the US-Iran spat,which has forced Tokyo to substantially reduce its imports of Iranian crude. That is to say,Iran wants to invest in its South Asian and East Asian diplomacy. It will certainly be very favourable for Iran’s own future.

Last but not least,if Iran can be an economic and diplomatic partner for India in future,India will also see its hands opened vis-a-vis China and the US. The distance between Tehran and Delhi is not long. Iran and India have been cultural partners for several centuries,not to say even longer. Therefore,it is time for Iran and India to look back on their common inter-cultural history and energise and re-actualise their shared historical memory. I see four points of affinity between India and Iran: the first has to do with medieval Iran and medieval India. There has always been a very strong affinity at the level of spirituality,language and inter-cultural dialogue. It should not be forgotten that Persian was the language of quite a large section of the ruling elite in India before English took over. Indian poets like Amir Khusrau,Ghalib and Iqbal remain the golden links between Persian culture and Indian society. The second is the matter of Muslims in India. Iran being an Islamic state and society,has always been very attentive towards India’s Muslims in general and vice-versa. The third point is that both Iran and India struggled against the British Empire for their national independence: there is a short distance between Gandhi and Mossadeq. But the fourth point is the Shiite community in India. The Indian Shiite community has always been very attentive to Iranian politics and Iran’s religious pulse. And Iran can also play an important role for Indian Shiites,who are a significant part of India today. As long as we are not looking at an ideological Iran,Iranians can play a very important role in the dialogue between India and Iran. To my knowledge,if we go beyond the contemporary misunderstandings of India by Iranians and misperceptions of Iran by Indians,there is no other culture in Asia as the Iranian culture in a position to claim such a dialogue.

You cannot judge a people by the regime they are ruled by.

When we talk about Iran,we need to keep in mind that we are talking about a history,a culture and a people. Iranians live today at three layers of civilisation: pre-Islamic Iran,Shiite Iran,and modern Iran. Every Iranian has internalised these three layers at the anthropological and ontological levels. These are like the same three layers of Indian civilisation: ancient,medieval and modern.

We need to remember that Iranians as a people have never felt any animosity with regard to religious minorities like Jews,Zoroastrians and Armenians. Iranian civil society has always been very open towards ethnic and religious minorities in Iran,especially because many of the contemporary Iranian civic actors come from these minorities themselves. Also,with the great demographic change in Iran since 20 years ago,the younger generation of Iranians has a very positive view of these differences. These differences have saved Iran from a handicapped future. They help Iran to be a stronger country in the region because of its diversity.

India is a friend of both Israel and Iran. If the Iranian regime doesn’t renege on its promises,and the US doesn’t impose sanctions,that is,if this deal leads to a permanent one that brings a real solution to the crisis and mitigates threat perceptions,India could,at least in theory,play a role mediating between the two,although its recent diplomacy has reverted to diffidence and over cautiousness.

India has always been unique. Not only because of its independent diplomacy in the 1950s and 60s,but India has had this tradition of dialogue with different nations. While one can see a huge self-confidence among Indian businessmen and politicians,India,at the same time,is a country that leaves its options open in investing and negotiating economically and politically in other countries. So,it’s very natural that India can be open at the same time to both Iran and Israel.

This mediation is very important. And I have always believed that India is the most appropriate mediator between the two. But this mediation has to start at the level of culture and people-to-people interaction,before it can happen at the diplomatic level. India can play a dialogical role between the two countries. A great number of Iranian Jews live today in Israel and they are very attentive towards Iranian politics and culture. Actually,many of these Iranian Jews are against any military attack on Iran. So,they too would be ready for this dialogue via India. Although India doesn’t have a significant Jewish population any more,it can play an important role in this regard because of its past cultural relations with Persia.

When we talk about the role Iran can play in pacifying the ,we have to understand our priorities. These are: Syria,Iraq and finding a role for Iran in the stability of Afghanistan. We should not forget that if Afghanistan returns to chaos,it’s going to affect not only Pakistan and India,but also Iran.

And if Iraq implodes,which looks increasingly likely…

Yes. If Iran can solve the sectarian issues in Iraq,between the Sunnis and Shias,it will help not only Iran and Iraq but Shiites across the region. So,as you can see,given any aspect of Middle Eastern politics,Iran can play a very important role. Add to this the fact that today’s Iran can also have a larger role in stopping terrorism in the .

The Supreme Leader’s backing him right now,as is the Iranian public,but how secure is Rouhani in real terms?

Rouhani is on a tightrope. That’s something everybody in Iran and outside can see clearly. He and his group have played it cleverly till now. They had asked for Ayatollah Khamenei’s backing,but at the same time they were able to bring the moderate hardliners to their side on the Geneva deal. The fact that there has not been a strong opposition from the majority of the Revolutionary Guards,coupled with Ayatollah Khamenei’s support for Rouhani,leaves him in a good position. But we never know what will come next. Many hardliners who had been in a very advantageous position since the sanctions don’t want to lose their power and position. So they are reacting very harshly against President Rouhani and his Foreign Minister Zarif.

But I also think the victory or defeat of the hardliners in Tehran is directly related to the victory or defeat of the hardliners in Washington. If American hardliners get their way and there are new sanctions,the hardliners in Iran will also get stronger. Obama knows that. Rouhani knows that. So they are on the same line of thought,but also on the same tightrope. What distinguishes Rouhani from Khatami,who too was pro-reconciliation and -dialogue,is that Rouhani is a much stronger politician. And he has the credibility of having been a nuclear programme insider. Having paid their prices,moderates know their role better,how far they can go and where they have to stop. And how they have to play their cards in relation to the hardliners.

The disaffection with Ahmadinejad also helped Rouhani in the longer run,something that didn’t work in 2009.

Certainly. Rouhani was always projected as the anti-Ahmadinejad president. Ahmadinejad was a complete failure for Iranian diplomacy and for the Iranian economy. He was more of an apocalyptic and eschatological president than one who tries to be pragmatic and rationalist. But the Rouhani government has its hands tied by the failures of Ahmadinejad’s government — especially the economic and financial deficits. A big issue is also corruption,which owes in part to Ahmadinejad’s time. On this,I wished we had an Anna Hazare who could use Gandhian strategies against corruption in Iran. But coming back to Rouhani,if he can keep to this rational,pragmatic path,in the next six months we can have a new nuclear deal.

You’d been imprisoned by the regime. How do you see Iran now and how does the regime see you?

Iran is my country and I am proud of being Iranian,therefore the sense of exile does not exist for me. I will return to Iran as soon as I feel that it’s possible. I have always kept my contacts with Iran,especially with Iranian society. I write a lot on Iran and my most recent book,Democracy in Iran,published in the UK,came out a few months ago. It’s important for me to be in touch with my fellow citizens and to participate in Iran’s cultural activities. There are many Iranian scholars and academics like me who live outside Iran and continue to stay in touch with the educated youngsters inside the country. Fortunately,inside Iran,you also have a great number of scholars and academics.

The large Iranian diaspora will certainly benefit from an entente and could play an important role in the making of Iran’s future. There are five million Iranians living outside Iran who are mostly well-educated and constitute Iran’s brain drain,particularly during the Ahmadinejad era. If they could live and work safely inside the country,most of them would return to Iran. But I,for one,will continue with my role as a mediator and cultural bridge-builder between Iranian culture and other cultures. I have lived in many places like France,the UK,Algeria,Canada and India and travelled to many countries. But though settled in Iran and North America for the past 20 years,I have always been very close to India. I have published more than eight books in India and on India. I always think that either I have been an Indian in a previous life or I will be one in my next. The last book I published in Iran was The Spirit of India,which was originally published in India and later translated into Persian. It’s important for Iranian intellectuals to have a fresh look at Indian culture and politics today,but it’s also important for Indians to take a new look at today’s Iran,which they don’t do,and go beyond their cultural stereotypes and historical misperceptions.