Hamshahri Diplomatic: After the termination of the Iran-Iraq war and the introduction of Iraq as the aggressor of the war, the Iranian government made no effort for receiving war compensation from Iraq. Even the removal of the Ba’thist regime of Iraq did not encourage Iran to make any serious effort in this regard. Can you provide any explanation for this matter?

 
Dr. Velayati: There are two different assessments about damages of the war on Iran. According to assessments made during President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s tenure, the imposed war damages were estimated as 1000 billion US dollars. However, according to another assessment carried out by the United Nations, these damages were estimated as 100 billion US dollars. There were two articles in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 in this regard. According to article 6 of the Resolution, the United Nations was supposed to identify the country which has started this war. Meanwhile, there is another article in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 which, despite being non–obligatory, encouraged other countries to contribute to the reconstruction of war damages in both Iran and Iraq. In fact, no country did practically help Iran in reconstructing these damages. After the termination of the war Abe Farrah, who had been commissioned by the United Nations to assess the war damages on Iran, declared that Iran’s total losses amount to 100 billion US dollars. However, Iran has so far received no compensation for these war damages. In order to receive compensations for losses and damages of the imposed war, Iran has no other choice but resorting to international organizations. In fact, these organizations are exclusive institutions for pursuing legal procedures in order to receive war compensations. Of course, introducing the Ba’thist government of Iraq as the initiator of the war by the United Nations had numerous legal consequences, one of which was the necessity of compensating war damages on Iran. However, the Iranian government is required to pursue the issue of war compensation by observing all political considerations. We have numerous bonds of friendship and relationship with the current government of Iraq; however, due to the losses and damages incurred on the Iranian nation during the war, they have the right to pursue the issue of war damages and war compensations through legal procedures
.

Hamshahri Diplomatic: During recent years, the Iraqi officials have criticized the 1975 Algiers Agreement under different pretexts and on various occasions. Even in some cases they, such as the overthrown of the Ba’thist Regime of Iraq, advocate reviewing the 1975 Algiers Agreement. What is the reaction of Iranian government in this regard?

Dr. Velayati: The 1975 Algiers Agreement is an international legal agreement and, as a result, no criticism of this agreement is acceptable. The then – governments of Iran and Iraq, that is to say the Pahlavi and Ba’thist regimes, signed the 1975 Algiers Agreement through legal channels of the day. In addition to being signed by the ministers of foreign affairs of both countries, the 1975 Algiers Agreement has been ratified in parliaments of both Iran and Iraq. Meanwhile, the Agreement was submitted to the United Nations and its text was distributed among the member states of this international organization. This agreement has passed through all its legal and international procedures and is considered as one of the most accredited agreements of the world. Therefore, there is no reason to talk about any reevaluation and reassessment of the 1975 Algiers Agreement. In fact, the 1975 Algiers Agreement is the basis for determining the borders between Iran and Iraq. According to the Agreement, the borders between Iran and Iraq were specified according to the 1913 Istanbul Agreement and its 1914 Additional Protocol. The territorial boundaries specified in the 1975 Algiers Agreement were the same as those that had been defined in the 1913 and 1914 agreements. The 1913 and 1914 agreements had been signed between Iran and the Ottoman Empire, which had control over Iraq. However, the marine border of the countries (Arvandroud) has been specified as the Talweg line. Usually, Talweg line is the boundary between countries that are divided by rivers. Based on the 1975 Algiers Agreement, Iran currently considers Talweg line as the border between Iran and Iraq. On various occasions, Iranian forces have arrested those individuals who have passed over the Talweg line (in Arvandroud). According to the 1975 Algiers Agreement, the territorial boundaries of Iran and Iraq are quite clear, too, and there is no ambiguity in this regard.

Hamshahri Diplomatic: During the past few years, the nuclear issue has always been considered as the most important issue in Iranian foreign policy. This issue has sometimes overshadowed other priorities in the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. What is your assessment of the nuclear issue?

Dr. Velayati: The nuclear issue is not the only tension that exists between Iran and the West. In fact, we should assess this issue within a broader context. Since the end of Iran–Iraq war until the rise of the nuclear issue, Iran’s relations with the West, or some western countries, have always been associated with tensions in one way or another. The West has always found a pretext for escalating its tensions with Iran. Considering the nuclear issue and other tensions that have been witnessed in the relationship between Iran and the West, one can conclude that westerners are opposed to a government which is based on religious democracy and Islamic principles which can be considered as a model by other Muslim nations and Islamic states throughout the world – an issue which is intolerable by the West. Iran has created great hopes among Islamic countries. We can witness these hopes in countries such as Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, and several other Islamic nations. Actually, the Iranian Islamic Revolution has been the source and origin of revival throughout the Islamic world. Many western countries consider the Iranian Islamic Revolution as an institution which is incompatible with their own national interests. Such an Islamic state, which has people’s votes as the source of its acceptability and Vali-e Faqih’s endorsement as the source of its legitimacy, is unacceptable for the West. They advocate and propagate “democracy without religion” and have proved their perseverance on such a belief. It is quite clear that such a belief is contrary to the will and determination of the Iranian nation.

The nuclear issue is, therefore, nothing but a mere pretext. Iran has started its nuclear program since 1986. However, the West have raised and aggrandized this issue during recent years. Despite the clear and transparent stance of the Islamic Republic of Iran and despite the fact that there is no clear evidence of Iran’s diversion from its peaceful nuclear program, the West is still claiming that Iran is trying to obtain nuclear weapons and pursue military nuclear programs. Even if the nuclear issue come to a conclusion, it seems impossible that some western countries stop their animosity and opposition toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. The most powerful countries of the world have their own peculiar rivals and enemies. Russia and China are two examples in this regard. The reaction of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) towards Russia’s policies in Ukraine, Georgia, Caucasus, and Central Asia, as well as the West’s behavior towards China’s policies in Xinxiang, Tibet, and other places indicate that the West stands against whatever sort of authority that does not comply with western criteria and priorities. In fact, the West adopts direct and indirect measures to neutralize the authority of such states. The former Soviet Union collapsed and Russia rose from the ashes of that collapsed empire. However, the West is still trying to further weaken the Russian government. Several years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former White House national security advisor, pointed out that Russia is still an extensive country. In other words, he advocated the further collapse of Russia. The West has been even invested significantly on separatist regions of Russia. These issues indicate that the western opposition and animosity is not just limited to Iran. They oppose every nation that is not included within the circle of international coalition of western powers. They express their animosity towards any country that does not comply with their wishes and demands. They have adopted such an outlook towards the Islamic Republic of Iran. At the same time, the Iranian nuclear issue per se is significantly important for western countries and they are seriously worried in this regard. Iran’s access to peaceful nuclear technology increases the regional power of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The West can not tolerate such a regional status for the Islamic Republic of Iran and is firmly opposed to this phenomenon. Iran’s development in various scientific and technological fields can increase its power and status in the region and throughout the world. An Iranian state which is based on religious democracy and enjoys advanced and effective technological power in international arena is not favorable to those who intend to practice their monopoly over the sources of global knowledge and technology. Considering the nuclear issue, I should argue that we have passed through the critical phase of this procedure. Even political figures, such as the US President Barak Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have, in recent months, pointed out that they accept Iran’s right of having peaceful nuclear sites and facilities, provided that they practice their full control and supervision over these sites and facilities in order to prevent Iran from developing military nuclear technology. Currently, Iran has between 8 to 10 thousands of centrifuges. Our nuclear technology is so advanced making us capable of providing more sophisticated centrifuges and enrich uranium at various levels under the supervision of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Like it or not, the western countries have to accept Iran as a nuclear power sooner or later. In short, I should reiterate that the issue of Iran’s access to peaceful nuclear technology is just one side of the coin. The other side which has seriously worried the West, is the extension of Iran’s influence throughout the region. The western officials have repeatedly pointed out that there would be no possible solution to the Middle East problems without Iran’s participation and presence. In other words, Iran’s participation and collaboration is quite necessary for solving the problems in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the whole Middle East region. This argumentation is an indirect reference to Iran’s regional influence. If Iran is capable of contributing to the solution of a large portion of regional problem, then it is, undoubtedly, a regional power. The Iranian peaceful nuclear capability can further develop Tehran’s influence in the region.

 
Hamshahri Diplomatic: During the George Bush administration, the international consensus against Iran was not so much extensive. However, following the arrival of Barak Obama to the White House, the consensus against Iranian policies has been further intensified. Meanwhile, the G20 Summit, which is scheduled for September 24 – 25, 2009, in Pittsburgh, the United States is supposed to adopt decisions about Iranian nuclear issue. Considering the fact that all evidences indicate that the G20 Summit will adopt decisions against Iran, in your opinion, what are the feasible approaches for the Iranian government?

 
Dr. Velayati: In the past, we have witnessed and experienced similar warnings and intimidations. During recent years, several western countries have opposed uranium enrichment activities in Iran. However, these obstacles and problems have so far not prevented Iran from moving in the path which it has adopted. At the same time, Iran has further developed its regional and international relations despite all these pressures. As an analyst of international relations, I believe that the Islamic Republic of Iran can finalize the nuclear issue through bilateral and multilateral relations. We will be faced with numerous problems and challenges, if we limit our relations with the world and the international community to the nuclear issue. In order to avoid such problems and challenges, we are required to further develop our relationships with our peripheral environment. We should develop our relationship with the world and the international community towards other potential areas such as economy and energy, which are less exposed to possible erosions. Tensions among states and their divergent interests are ingredients of the nature of their relationships. There are numerous ups and downs in different economic and political arenas of the contemporary world. Even those countries which are closely associated with each other in different international organizations are, every now and then, adopting some contradictory policies. These contradictory and rival policies are more frequent among those countries which perceive potential and practical threats from other countries. Last month, President Barak Obama went to Moscow with the hope of creating further closeness of stances between the United States and Russia. However, the two countries are still at odds over the US missile defense system in Eastern Europe, the US presence in Ukraine and Georgia, and the extension of NATO towards regions such as the Caucasus and Central Asia. There are also numerous challenges in the relationship between China and the western countries. Despite the fact that China is the greatest exporter to the United States, the Chinese authorities have severe differences with Washington and the West over issues such as Xinxiang and Tibet. We can easily witness such contradictions in the international arena. Despite their agreement with United Nations Security Council member – states on numerous issues and cases, Russia and China are not fully and comprehensively coordinated and compatible with those states. Each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has its own peculiar interests in specific parts of the world and expects other permanent members to respect and recognize these interests. An scrutiny of events and incidents that followed North Korea’s missile and nuclear teats indicate that despite the United Nations Security Council resolutions against North Korea and notwithstanding China’s collaboration with United Nations Security Council members in this regard, no practical measure i.e., military attack was adopted against Pyongyang since such military attacks are considered as contradictory to China’s interests in the region. Russia and China cooperate with other members of the United Nations Security Council. However, this cooperation is to the extent that just a resolution be adopted against Pyongyang or the already – existing sanctions get more intensified. Beijing and Moscow are opposed to any military attack against North Korea. Last year, the western countries intended to have the United Nations Security Council adopting a resolution against the Burmese government, which is considered as one of the isolated states in the world, but Russia and China vetoed that resolution. Therefore, we are always witnessing a set of contradictions in the international arena which are quite natural.

Hamshahri Diplomatic: The United States and some other western countries have pointed out that if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, they provide a nuclear umbrella for the regional states. Are these claims merely rhetoric or expressions for preventing nuclear and arms race in the region?

Dr. Velayati: During the George Bush administration, several regional Arab states advocated their access to peaceful nuclear energy, but the United States expressed serious opposition to their demands. However, the former US Secretary of States Condoleezza Rice said that Arab countries have enough oil and gas reservoirs and do not need peaceful nuclear projects. This is an indication of the fact that the United States, due to some considerations such as the security of the Zionist regime, is not even interested in the access of Arab states of the Middle East to the peaceful nuclear technology. On the other hand, tactical, offensive, and defensive nuclear potentials of the United States are spread throughout the world and, as a result, we can argue that the whole world is under Washington’s nuclear umbrella. Therefore, arguments such as providing nuclear umbrella for Iranian Arab neighbors are not logical. In fact, we can ask this question that which part of the world is not under the nuclear umbrella of the West and the United States. In his remarks in Prague and Cairo, Barak Obama implicitly pointed out that the United States had no problem with Iran’s access to peaceful nuclear technology. However, in order to provide more assurances for the regional Arab states, the US president expressed that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, the White House would extend its nuclear umbrella over those countries. I should reiterate that these statements of US officials are not practically justifiable, because the Islamic Republic of Iran is by no means pursuing military nuclear technology. There is no justification to provide nuclear defense against a nuclear reactor that is only producing electric energy. As a result, the statements made by the United State officials in this regard are by no means associated with any practical consequence. These statements are only uttered for assuring some regional Arab states that are worried of Iran’s further empowerment even through peaceful nuclear technology.