The Two-Sided Position on Talks With the US

Rooz Online

While some close aides to Hassan Rowhani’s administration had announced that the supreme leader of the Islamic regime did not oppose president Rowhani’s telephone conversation with US president Barack Obama before departing New York, ayatollah Khamenei said last week that some of what had taken place in New York was “not appropriate.”

Speaking to cadets and officers at the Shahid Sattari war college, where he also awarded the graduates with their diplomas, ayatollah Khamenei last week said, “We support the government’s diplomatic momentum and give importance to diplomacy and support what took place during the latest trip even though some things that took place in New York were not appropriate from our perspective. We are optimistic for our dear government’s diplomatic legation but pessimistic about the Americans.”

And even though Khamenei did not specify what about the New York was “not appropriate” there seems to be universal agreement that what he had in mind was the telephone conversation between Rowhani and Obama.

During his Un General Assembly address Rowhani had said that if there was political will among American leaders and they would not heed to warring pressure groups, a framework can be found to manage the differences between the two countries.

But Iran’s supreme leader has not been as positive about the US government. “We are pessimistic about the Americans and do not trust them at all. The US government is unreliable and most self-centered, unreasonable, and reneges on its commitments. It is also in the hands of international Zionist networks and so is forced to work with the usurper regime (Israel) and not demonstrate any flexibility.”

Prior to these remarks Abbas Araghchi, the deputy foreign minister who was in New York with Rowhani had stressed that ayatollah Khamenei was not against talks between the US and Iran and that it was Mr. Rowhani himself who did not deep it right to meet president Obama. “There is a big contextual difference between a meeting and direct talks vs. a telephone conversation. It was not (in our) interest for Dr Rowhani to meet. When that was communicated other ideas were discussed which resulted in a telephone conversation between the two presidents. Mr. Obama called Dr Rowhani,” he said.

Prior to Khamenei’s remarks, some of his appointees had criticized Rowhani for directly speaking with Obama. Hossein Shariatmadari, for example, who is Khamenei’s appointee at the ultra-hardline Kayhan newspaper had written on the telephone conversation and had categorized it as the most “unfortunate” action and the “biggest advantage” given to the Americans. He even questioned Rowhani’s honesty in his account of the events in New York that lead to the telephone conversation.

Mohammad Ali Jaafari, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards force also called the telephone conversation between the two presidents a “tactical mistake” but qualified that by saying it was “repairable.”

Jaafari’s deputy echoed these remarks but also said that the world witnessed the humiliation of the United States on its own soil. “The Americans wanted to repair this humiliation with a telephone conversation. Had this telephone call conversation not taken place, Iran’s dignity at the UN would have remained untouched.”

Hamid Rasai, a Majlis member from the Jebhe Paydari hardline principlist group also criticized Rowhani-Obama’s telephone conversation and called the “defeat of the 34-year resistance” of the country against the US. “It is not clear on what criteria or argument Mr. Rowhani decided to accept the telephone call. Of course they continued their deception by claiming that the request for a telephone call came from Iran’s president.”