THE ex-Iranian president and current chairman of Iran’s Expediency Council, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, has spoken up about the crisis that the US is seeking to impose on Iran.
He stated on Al Arabiya TV: ‘It has become evident today that a psychological war is being waged on Iran, and in this psychological war, there is naturally talk of a siege through the Security Council, as well as other talk that either denies or confirms a possible campaign against Iran.
‘Will the other side succeed in fulfilling its goals? A lot is being said in this respect. We are facing threats and challenges, but I imagine that past experiences will not impart on the aggressors the courage to attack Iran, because Iran has always proven that it is highly capable of resisting any aggression, and they will suffer losses the way they have in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all the other places, including Lebanon, in which they tried their luck at aggression.
‘I do not wish to deny this possibility, but I feel that the materialisation of these threats would stem from ignorance by America or some other party.’
He continued: ‘When the imperious major powers find themselves in a predicament and at a dead end, they could pursue irrational initiatives, but these initiatives do not always follow the same line and could follow several lines.
‘I believe that the Americans, the British, their allies, and NATO have reached the point where they need to leave Iraq and Afghanistan and are in a dilemma and facing problems in their own countries, where elections and public opinions indicated a state of dissatisfaction.
‘Perhaps the worst way for them to break out of this dilemma would be to launch another aggression, and we believe this would be suicide – a suicide that would create problems for us and them, but the result would be a real defeat for the aggressors in our area, which will too face some new catastrophes.’
The Iranian leader continued: ‘It would be unreasonable for me to divulge our confrontation tactics if I knew of them. Iran is definitely ready to confront this scenario and has its plans.
‘Our past experiences could offer them a lesson – when the former Iraqi regime declared war on us, everyone, from the East to the West, and even some of the region’s countries, were supporting the former regime, Saddam Hussein’s regime, in its war on Iran, but what was the outcome?
‘America was ultimately forced to wage war on us in the Persian Gulf and it attacked some oil installations and oil tankers, but it did not achieve anything, and we forced it through the United Nations and Security Council to admit that Iraq had initiated the aggression and is the aggressor, and that Iran deserves to be compensated for this war.
‘That was what we sought to achieve and prove during the eight-year war on Iran, and although they were not willing to concede this, they were ultimately forced to do so. That war no doubt created a lot of problems for us, but in the end, they were forced to acknowledge their defeat.
Rafsanjani continued to deny that in the event of a US attack, Iran would attack the Gulf states.
He said: ‘I have already said that we cannot divulge our future plans and options, but you can find examples in the previous war, in which we refrained from doing so even though Kuwait and some other countries were supporting Saddam Hussein and allowing the enemy to use their airports and positions, but we refrained from launching an attack at the time even though it would have been very easy for us to do.
‘They are not our enemies, no, the enemy is the aggressor, and if it launches a military campaign against Iran, we will teach it a lesson.
‘But we too expect our neighbouring countries and Muslim countries to be as considerate and not to allow their lands to be used in any possible campaign.
Rafsanjani added: ‘I believe that Arab and Muslim countries have no interest in avoiding accord with Iran.
‘It is in the interest of us all that we stand together and that there be communication and cooperation.
There is no doubt that the colonialist powers that ruled the region in the past, including Iran in the days of the shah, and controlled this region believe that our unity is not in their interest, and they therefore work on spreading divisions.
‘I can see this clearly, and it has been proven by past experiences. The Arabs have a short saying regarding the colonialist policy of divide and conquer, well, this policy was implemented in our region and all regions during the colonialism era that lasted over a century, and they continue to implement this policy, keeping in mind here their past experiences.
Rafsanjani continued that the attempts to divide Sunnis from Shias ‘is a living example of the divide-and-conquer policy adopted by the colonialists.
Religious differences exist between Shi’ites and Sunnis, between Iran and other countries, and even between Sunni sects who differ over religious issues. This is all right, and we can coexist peacefully despite these differences.
‘Furthermore, the Sunnis living in Iran are treated well, and we are coexisting with Sunni countries and have proven that our commitment is to Islam as a whole and not to a particular sect or group.
‘During this period – the three decades since the Islamic revolution – did anyone ever see us take an initiative considered hostile to our brothers the Sunnis?
Rafsanjani added: ‘In Palestine for example, we provide support for the mujahideen there, are they Shi’ites? No, they are Sunnis, fanatic Sunnis, in Hamas in particular, but because of their jihad and resistance, we support them.
‘Furthermore, when we offered support in Bosnia and Hercegovina and Kosovo, were they Shi’ites? No they were not. In Afghanistan, when we supported the mujahideen in their jihad, we supported all factions, Sunni and Shi’ite, to the best of our ability. In Iraq and in the days of the Saddam Hussein regime, many of our Sunni brothers fled to Iran just as the brothers the Shi’ites had.
‘In Lebanon, too, we offered help at a time when Israel had invaded Lebanese lands, and we supported everyone who resisted the Israeli occupation in Lebanon.’
Rafsanjani then spoke about the Iranian revolution.
‘The initial goals of the Islamic revolution were outlined in three principles: independence, freedom, and the Islamic republic, all of which I believe we realised to the full extent.
‘In terms of independence, you know that Iran is a fully independent country, but when we launched the Iranian Islamic revolution, the army, Savat (secret police), oil, the planning and programming directorate, the police, and the entire country and its institutions were run by the Americans and American consultants oversaw everything, and the American and British ambassadors used to issue orders to the ruling shah of Iran.
‘This is no longer the case, for we expelled those and achieved freedom, the second principle.
‘We were living in a state of repulsive and deadly oppression in the days of the defunct shah and the assistance he received from foreigners. . .
‘The Iranian people freed themselves of the shah’s control, broke the chokehold and hegemony of tyranny, and founded a constitutional system according to their beliefs and Islamic shari’ah.
‘Everything in Iran happens through elections and general referendum. . .
‘There are of course some weaknesses in terms of freedom of expression in this country, but the developments we achieved and the distance we have come are unparalleled in our region or other countries, and we have excelled over others in liberties.
‘As for the third principle, the Islamic republic, we have established a republic in this country, but the Islamic aspect is of course difficult to accomplish in an absolute and complete manner, and we must make additional progress and take further steps in this area. We have made a lot of progress with respect to infrastructure and domestic needs, and the armed forces and defensive force are at the required level.
Dealing with Iraq Rafsanjani agreed that it would be better to find an acceptable exit for the Americans.
He said: ‘Yes, this is how it is, and we are willing to help achieve this – we even agreed to negotiate with America, and it seems talks in this regard will be held between Iran and America in Iraq next week.
‘The truth is, if they ask Iran, in its capacity as a neighbour and friend of the Iraqi people, and others, like Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, and other neighbouring countries to work together, then we can achieve security in Iraq and the region.’
He added that there could be a settlement between the Americans and the Iranians.
‘Yes, I believe this is possible, but on the condition that America demonstrate good will and seek to negotiate in order to solve the region’s problems, and not to impose its arrogant opinions and goals.
‘In the past, when I was the president of the republic, I was willing to hold conditional negotiations with America, but I said that America must first prove its good intentions and release frozen Iranian assets in America as a sign of good will.
‘The Americans, however, did not demonstrate good will, and I believe that if America admits it is unable to achieve its goals in our region, then it will be possible for us to enter into such negotiations, but if it insists on its obstinacy, arrogance, threats, and terrorisation and wants to solve problems through threats, then there can be no agreement.
‘I believe all issues can be resolved through good will and sincere intentions, and through the recognition of the just rights of all the region’s countries.’