Differences Over the Geneva Agreement Are Not Substantive

As the interim Geneva agreement over Iran’s nuclear program enters its third month, criticism over it by a section of the conservatists and Principlists has been growing. Members of the Steadfast Front (conservative hardliners that include the Principlists) in the country’s parliament the Majlis, who have till now been loudly vocal in their criticism of the agreement in different forums and media, now, after President Hassan Rouhani told academicians last week that the critics of the Geneva agreement were a small group and “illiterate,” are calling for the opportunity to broadcast their criticism through the national state-run radio and television network as a response to the president. The television network has a long reach into the countryside.

The Steadfast Front (Jebhe Paydari) is an organization whose 20-man central council works under the supervision of a clerical circle which, after the death of ayatollah Khoshvaght, includes ultra-conservative ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and another cleric whose name has till now been withheld from public disclosure.

This group is the leading critic of the Geneva agreement. Following Rouhani’s call last week that academicians should voice their support for the agreement, a group of university professors have announced their readiness to participate in a debate with the opponents of the agreement. Saeed Leylaz, Ahmadi Shirzad, Amir Zamaniya, Mohsen Ranani, Hossein Raghfar, Hermidas Bavand, Fereshteh Momeni, Ali Sobhani and Mahmoud Sariolghalam are the academicians who have till now signed up to participate in the radio and television debate.

It is not clear whether the radio and television organization will actually organize such an event or not, but Rooz took the initiative to speak with critics Seyed Mehdi Mousavinejad who is a member of the Steadfast Front and with Saeed Leylaz, a journalist and analyst who supports the agreement.

Seyed Mehdi Mousavinejad, a member of the clerics faction in the Majlis and a member of the Principlists Group told Rooz that the national radio and television organization has till now not replied to a letter signed by 20 Majlis representatives who are members of the Steadfast Front and oppose the Geneva agreement. “In fairness, they must allow us to respond,” Mousavinejad said.

Asked about the basis of this request, he said, “Mr. Rouhani has a perspective and a view that is respected. We too have a perspective and a view which deserves to be heard. Objections and faults must be expressed to that people can judge. People are the best judges. He (the president) has said that the critics are illiterate, so we want the opportunity at the national radio and television network to express our views.”

When asked whether he had actually read the text of the agreement, despite his assertions that he had not seen the agreement, Mousavinejad said, “We have studied the text that has broadcast through various ways but not whatever has been agreed behind doors.”

Rooz asked about the specific provisions of the agreement with which he and others disagreed, but Mousavian did not come forth. Saeed Leylaz however, who supports the agreement, told Rooz, “I do not view the grounds for supporting or opposing the agreement to lie in the text of the accord and irrelevant to literacy or illiteracy. I also do not agree with interpretation that Mr. Dr Rouhani has presented. Nevertheless, I do believe that opponents have the right to express their views. But the issue is not supporting or opposing the Geneva agreement and what is being said has nothing to do with the agreement. The issue is that this agreement, like other issues, has turned into a tool for political infighting. We did exactly the same thing with more important issues such as the Basij, the Guards, the war, the Islamic Republic itself. These are very important concepts. If you go to Russia today you will see that even though the communist regime has been changed and that system is completely defunct and has been toppled and replaced with a completely different and even opposing system, but the concepts that existed then continue to be sacred. For example the great patriotic war (the name Russians use for the Second World War) is still called the same. The war veterans are still respected. In Iran, in contrast, we have repeatedly seen how sacred and respected notions become political tools that are used by different factions against each other. Political fights in Iran resemble a family argument in which everything is thrown in; having no children, television issues, and even objects such as vacuum cleaner, a tray etc.”

The other point about the opponents and proponents of the Geneva agreement, he said, is that this has nothing to do with literacy but with interests. “We must look to see who benefits from Mr. Rouhani’s presidential victory and the change in the political climate and economic direction of the country, and who is disadvantaged. The Geneva agreement is part of this change, not all of it. In reality we see an extensive network of embezzlement and corruption in Iran which is being dismantled. So it is natural that those who benefited from that system should be unhappy now. Conversely, those who did not benefit from it are happy now. This is how I look at the agreement which by itself has nothing bad for Iran.”

Leylaz went even further and said that while he did not think the agreement was bad and evil, but if it was, it had come about because of a geopolitical and strategic weakness which has been brought about by the very individuals who are leading the opposition and criticism to the Geneva agreement.

He then mentioned Picasso’s famed painting, the Guernica, to make a point. “Guernica is a town in Spain that was secretly bombarded by the Nazis during the Spanish civil war before the Second World War. The town was badly damaged. Picasso drew a painting to commemorate the event and says that during World War II, a Nazi officer in Paris goes to the place where the painting was being painted and asks Picasso whether the work was his. Picasso replied in the negative and said, “No it is your work. I am only painting it.” Similarly, if the Geneva agreement is bad or if Iran’s international position is negative, Leylaz says it is the work of the very same conservatists who are now creating all this noise and who are talking about Iran and Islam.

He believes that Iran’s geopolitical loss began in the second half of 1995 when Ahmadinejad’s administration disrupted the domestic investment process. “His work reduced the two and a half percent growth rate to a negative figure and launched an artificial and groundless radicalism internationally which had absolutely no benefit for Iran and in fact resulted in the widest and most unprecedented sanctions regime against the country. The sanctions were so huge that within a short period of a year and a half the Iran’s economy was completely paralyzed. No similar sanctions have existed in Iran since the French Revolution. It was because of this that they injected artificial radicalism into the political scene. Because of the contradictions in their views and policies, one day they would announce that Israel had to be wiped off the map of the world and another day they would say that they recognized the people of Israel. I remember that when Iran’s president was in Dubai he officially said that if Mr. Hosni Mubarak accepted to see him he would go to Egypt within 24 hours. I am very disappointed that our journalists and reporters willing to dig that interview and republish it and ask where was Iran’s national dignity and respect when he said that so that it has suddenly returned to those who are criticizing the Geneva agreement on national and dignity grounds. What did those loving letters that Mr. Ahmadinejad sent all over the world bring for Iran? And now that Iran’s nuclear negotiating team is trying to repair some of the damage done in those years, and give the Iranian economy a lift and some fuel to breathe so that we can attain a new balance of power with the West to resume our programs,” he said.

But Leylaz clarifies his view by saying he is not against the expression of criticism of the agreement. “Such criticism can even help us internationally. It is not important whether the opponents are real or what is behind it. What is important is that just as the Israelis use the Likud and the Labor Party gimmick and the Americans use the Democrats and Republicans on the international scene, we too can benefit from our dove and pigeon factions,” he continued.

I asked Mr. Leylaz about the secret nature of the agreement and that Majlis representatives claim that they had not seen the official text, and how could they oppose something that they had not seen. His response was, “Even if the core of the agreement required that the United States dissolve itself, they would still complain. They do not look at the issue in the context of Iran-US relations or what could the benefits of this be to Iran. They only see what they have given up.”

On the call for a debate with the critics of the agreement through the national radio and television network, and whether his readiness to participate was also for a political purpose, Leylaz said, “This is a domestic debate. The international impact of this opposition and support is not bad and helps Iran’s negotiators in their talks. Furthermore, they also indicate that our society is alive. As a reformist, I cannot support the notion of silencing opponents. But we do reserve the right to respond to everything. These individuals are not against the Geneva agreement; they are critics of the government. The Geneva agreement is only a tool for this criticism. We support any properly organized and managed debate on principle.”