Rafsanjani: “Let’s negotiate”

Iran’s Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani is akin to that old advertising pitch for E.F. Hutton: when he speaks, people listen… or at least they should. It’s so much “easier” for the western MSM to quote the incendiary comments by Iran’s current President. Besides, if you want to support going to war with Iran, why bother to print the comments of someone who speaks rather plainly of how to avoid war?
For more years than I’m prepared to admit, I’ve been reading the speeches and Friday “sermons” by Iran’s Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani. When Rafsanjani speaks, I’ve listened and taken volumes of notes..
I have nearly all of Rafsanjani’s major speeches and Friday “sermons” since the early days of the Iranian Revolution. I have them in translation, thanks to what used to be the indispensible US Government “Foreign Broadcast Information Service” (now fledgling as the “Open Source Center”). I tracked Rafsanjani’s comments first as Parliamentary Speaker, as Khomeini’s designate in the latter stages of the war with Iraq, as President, as Chairman of Iran’s rather unique “Council for the Discernment of Expediency” (e.g., the “fixers”), and in a half dozen other roles, including top vote recipient in last November’s elections for Iran’s Assembly of Experts.
In 1985, I started analyzing and writing about what Hans Morgenthau would have seen as a “realist” streak in Rafsanjani. My first major oped was about Rafsanjani and his fellow “pragmatists” in 1989 – for the Christian Science Monitor. I later published a biographical sketch of him.
To be sure, Rafsanjani is very much of the Islamic Revolution in Iran; yet he’s also been a key articulator, at least since 1983, of the need for that revolution to adjust its “Islamic” message in light of the needs of Iran’s interests. Indeed, I’ve just learned that Iran’s Center for Strategic Research, a think tank of the Expediency Council and close to Rafsanjani will entitle its newest journal as, “National Interest.” For fellow interenational relations theorists out there, this too is news, as it should also be to those still thinking that it’s “ideology” alone that drives Iran’s foreign policy.
I kept reading Rafsanjani, even when his popularity waned badly inside Iran. He’s gone from being cast aside as too conservative by reformists to now being at the forefront of a multi-faction coalition of reformists, pragmatic “technocrats,” and “conservatives,” candidly formed to stop and reverse the damage caused by Iran’s current President Ahmadinejad.
As such, Rafsajanjani too has a phoenix-like quality. (Yet unlike Chalabi) Rafsanjani’s sources of power and support are more easily recognized. When Rafsajani or his lieutenants speak or make “grand bargain” offers, we indeed should be taking him very seriously. (Take notes Condi — you apparently chose to ignore Rafsanjani’s “grand bargain” in 2003, among the worst mistakes of your career!)
With that in mind, I offer the ending two sections of a political sermon delivered by Rafsanjani on Friday. In my view, AP mischaracterized the speech as essentially saying the same thing as current President Ahmadinejad. Read the text yourself: note especially the ending paragraphs.

Note on this translation:Ordinarily, I would have posted the translation from our taxpayer funded “Open Source Center” – (FBIS). Yet when I first started working on this post, I only had the BBC World Service version (funded by the British taxpayers), which, by the way, is usually identical to the OSC version. The decades long FBIS/OSC/BBC relationship is still not admitted publicly, perhaps to guard the BBC’s reputation, but it’s widely known. The subheadings below are by the BBC.

On divide and rule policy of West

Fifthly [we turn our attention to] the divisive policies of Global Arrogance against the world of Islam and particularly Iran and Shi’ism. This is very important. If I had had a chance I would have presented you with a history of this policy of divide and rule by the Arrogant Powers in the past two centuries. This [divide and rule] has always been the underlying feature of their policies, even the geographic divisions which they have implemented after the [Great War] in our region. It was about setting one religion, confession, tribe or country against another so that these groups stretch their hand of need towards their foreign masters in order to triumph over their rivals and always be dependent on them. This way, instead cooperation, these countries’ forces are there to neutralize each other. This is their official policy.
Arabs have a short saying, divide and rule [preceding words in Arabic, followed by Farsi translation]. This is a very ill-omened, inhumane and unethical policy that they [the West] used to have. They have now returned to this policy. There might be a number of reasons for that approach. First of all, the Islamic movement has gained a momentum after the victory and stability of the Islamic Revolution. This has seriously raised their [West] concern. Over 1.5 billion people with 57 or 58 independent states, holding the most strategic regions and energy resources of the world, have turned into a practical rival for them.

America’s plan for a unipolar world

They [West] do not want this great power to rise, although it has been humiliated and weakened for years. This has been their principle policy.
After the Soviet Union’s disintegration the Americans started thinking about making the world uni-polar. To do so, they decided to have a more influential presence in the Middle East which is the source of energy for the world. That is what Bush’s Greater Middle East Plan is all about. Especially after 11 September, Bush’s foreign policy has been mainly focused on this. He described some important countries in the region as the axis of evil, and his main target was Iran. That is, as I said, because he considers Iran as the new driving force for Islamic independence and fighting against blasphemy. That is why he emphasized more on this [Iran].
This plan failed. The explanation is long. They [America] first came talking about democracy. They said that all the countries in the Middle East should be democratic and the people should have the right to vote. After some time, they realized that they will lose their best friends in the region, because most of those countries have no elections. They [the leaders of America’s friends in region] either inherit the power or come to power by other [undemocratic] means. So, they gave up on this (democracy).

Ulema should stop Shi’i-Sunni division

The peak of this could be seen during Doha congress. Muslim ulema, the majority of whom were members of the Forum for the Proximity of Islamic Denominations, talked against each other in the congress. This is a cause for concern. Terrible fatwas were issued and bad things were said.
Those who care for the Islamic ummah are now thinking of preventing this ominous move. Some time ago, the eminent leader of the Islamic Revolution in a speech condemned the differences between Shi’is and Sunnis and invited them to unite. This is exactly what we used to do on the basis of the order of Imam [Khomeyni] from the outset of the revolution. We set up a unity week and we still celebrate it every year. The same policy has now been stressed by the eminent leader.
A group of caring members of the Union of the Ulema of Islamic World have now taken action and have contacted the Forum for the Proximity of Islamic Denominations. They also came to Iran and discussed the need for the caring ulema to stop the conspiracy.
Accordingly, it was decided that I should have a debate with Mr Qarzawi, who is one of the prominent Sunni ulema and the head of the union. He has always been supportive of the Islamic Revolution. But some intended to involve him in this issue [division of Shi’is and Sunnis]. We therefore had a live debate on Al-Jazeera TV.
Based on the reports that I have received from the other side those concerned are now happy and say that our debate was like water poured on fire. However, they stress that similar measures should continue.

(Via the delic. sidebar, Helena flagged the Aardvark’s blog on this debate, broadcast on al-Jazeera.)
On Muslims’ unity

I demand the great scholars, the writers and the media of the Shi’i, Sunni and other [Islamic] sects to pay attention to the greatness and importance of the matter. In the current situation, should the enemy be successful in planting the seed of division among different Islamic sects or even other religions, it will control us easily.
So, we have to maintain our unity. The extremists should be careful about what they say. Even a simple word can create a great problem for the Islamic world these days. They have to be cautious not to make the enemy happy. We should not say things that they [enemy] wish to hear from us and serve their interest.
Of course there are disagreements between all sects and religions. In Shi’ism itself you can see that our scholars disagree over some issues. For example, in the months of Muharram and Ramadan there is not a consensus over the moon crescent. Such issues exist. The scholars sometimes reach different conclusions. The Shi’i and Sunni scholars disagree on principles and many issues. But these disagreements are all acceptable. They [disagreements] can bring intellectual maturity. Disagreements can be caused when a theory is expressed. Should it [the theory] be wrong, it must be solved through dialogue. We should not turn them into a cause of division. The most important task for the Islamic Ummah is to be united and to cooperate in breaking the dangerous spell of the infidels’ control over the Islamic world.

US policies to divide Muslims in Iraq

Then they decided to achieve their objectives by the use of force. They started their work from Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they are now in this unpleasant situation. They wanted to fish something from the sea. Now they have themselves been caught in the net. They should now watch not to fall prey to other creatures like the fish in this big ocean of the Middle East. They are now stuck in a quagmire and entangled in a trap. They are trying to find a way out.
We see that there are ominous signs of difference between Shi’is and Sunnis. This is very bad. Those responsible for such differences may be the occupiers or some extremists, who are mainly members of takfiri movements [holding other Muslims to be infidel] and who actually perpetrate the crimes.
Radicals of both sides [Shi’is and Sunnis] have begun to fight each other. Shi’is are however only reciprocating. But takfiris, Ba’thists and some others are fighting for other reasons. The events that take place in Iraq do not make anyone happy. It is not good to see people being pulled out from their houses at night, beheaded and thrown out in the streets. The bin-men gather 50 to 60 dead bodies every morning from the streets. Some blow up mosques or holy shrines like the one in Samarra. Some blast bombs in marketplaces. Some even detonate bombs among pilgrims in Karbala, Kazimiyah or Najaf. You can see that all these are taking place.
These are all detestable deeds which adversely affect the dignity of Islam. The Americans are now using these events, for which they are responsible, to divide Shi’is and Sunnis.

Powers should abandon bullying, preconditions

The other issue which I would like to mention briefly is the Zahedan incident.

(note from s.h. – this refers to recent clash in Baluchistan, in southeastern Iran, which Iran has blamed in part on elements operating from Pakistan. Iran has reason to suspect US hands as well, in part as neoconservative outlets – AEI & WINEP for starters – have been hawking the idea that the US should be supporting, if not creating, ethnic and tribal rebels on Iran’s margins.)

This incident demonstrates how very few individuals, who have lost themselves, commit a terrorist act in such circumstances, create such a problem for their country, and kill their own people on the street. Of course this plot has its source abroad, we all know this and there are documents to prove it. We, all have to be vigilant and careful wherever we are. These days our enemies may think that they can achieve their objectives by making the country insecure, particularly around the borders. This is another version of their attempts to create divide.

And lastly, on the nuclear issue, unfortunately the bullies of the world do not abandon their behaviour. Following the report by the Secretary-general of the IAEA yesterday, they once again started a harsh approach accompanied with threats indicating that they are thinking about issuing another resolution. I tell them directly, they will not get results by going along this route. This approach will result in nothing other than creating problems for them, for the world and particularly for our region.

To be sure, Iranian leaders have yet again picked up on the theme complaining about American “bullying” tactics. They’re hardly alone; even the New York Times at the beginning of February could see it clearly.
Let’s negotiate
The right way is that you [West] give up your bullying preconditions and forget them and we all return to the negotiations table. Your main point is that you do not trust Iran and cannot make sure Tehran will not use the [nuclear] technology in military industries. We are ready to reassure you completely. All of us, all our officials and our leader [Ayatollah Khamene’i], are certain that if we enter talks under the right conditions, you will be convinced that Iran has no plan other than the peaceful implication of the technology, which is what you [West] consider to be our right. We have already proved this in practice on many occasions. We are not deluded and do not take any action that will benefit no-one. Using weapons of mass destruction is against Iran’s principles and our ideology rejects it.
Therefore, I think, if you continue your bullying approach, you will definitely create many problems for yourself, the world and the region. [Crowd chants God is great] Peace and God’s mercy be upon you.
Source: Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, in Persian 0835 gmt 23 Feb 07