In 2003 when the Iranian nuclear crisis has emerged, the president Mohammad Khatami was in charge and the responsible negotiator for nuclear crisis case was Hassan Rowhani. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took over the administration in 2005, the responsible negotiator for the case has changed and Rowhani was replaced by Ali Larijani. Different groups interpret the current status of nuclear crisis case dealt by two different governments and persons in the light of their own political views. However, it is required to briefly mention the differences between these two terms, before analyzing the public opinion and different views about who the responsible authority is.

President Khatami was known as the smiling face of Iran in the Western world and due to the reformist and liberal foreign policies pursued in his term; hopes about the integration of Iran to international society and the eventuation of demanded reforms had increased. The negotiator of the term Rowhani also behaved in a milder mood and made concessions, as a result of the Khatami’s Foreign policy characteristics. Even though it was chosen to sign agreements with the Troika of the EU (Germany, Britain and France), nothing concrete was obtained; and after the change of the government, the course of the crisis was totally changed. One of the different particularities of Ahmadinejad’s term was the observed differences between the statements and attitudes of the president and the negotiator Larijani. While Ali Larijani’s approach was more diplomatic and tranquil, Ahmadinejad’s aggressive and exaggerated statements sometimes lead the crisis to gridlock. Even though the fundamental ideas they defend were parallel, difference in their approaches caused trouble and paved the way for strained relations. To sum up, during Khatami’s term Iran made many concessions without obtaining the promised privileges whereas during Ahmadinejad’s term Iran portrayed a resistant and harsh state avoiding making concessions.

After summarizing the differences briefly, it will be easy to understand who Iranian public blames for the crisis and who they think is doing the right move. The view of Iranian public opinion can be evaluated under four different selections[1]:

1. The ones holding Khatami responsible for the current situation of nuclear crisis
2. The ones holding Ahmadinejad responsible for the current situation of nuclear crisis
3. The ones holding both Khatami and Ahmadinejad responsible for the current situation of nuclear crisis
4. The ones holding none of the presidents responsible for the current situation of nuclear crisis

The ones holding Khatami responsible for the current situation of nuclear crisis, as might have been expected, can be identified as the conservative wing and section that supports this wing. According to this group, concessions of Khatami are the main reason turning the case into crisis, because if Iran did not make those broad concessions about the absolute rights of Iran related with nuclear activities, the expectations of the Western world would be limited and the West would not have the courage to be audacious. From their point of view, the unlimited concessions made by Khatami, including the voluntarily application of the additional protocol[2] and further voluntarily suspension of the nuclear activities, paved the way for the US and Europe to increase the number of their demands day by day.

Accordingly, in order to counterbalance the mistakes of the previous government, Ahmadinejad, the successor of the crisis, felt obliged to quit the mild and conciliatory attitude and also suspend the given concessions. It is said that the reaction of the West is quite natural, because privileges given without reciprocity were obtained back and this made the Western world frustrated.

The ones holding the government of Ahmadinejad responsible for the current situation of the nuclear crisis, needless to say, can be identified as the previous reformist government and their followers. From the point of view of this group, the aggressive attitude of the current government affected the relations with the West negatively and dragged the country to an irresolvable situation. They perceive the current policy as an approach boosting the sensitivity of the West day by day and deepening the world’s already existing mistrust and lack of confidence in Iran.

The observed changes in the attitude of European countries after the statements of Ahmadinejad[3] are also considered as another failure of the current government. The point the reformist wing constantly calls attention to is; the success of Americans in handing over the issue to UN Security Council during Ahmadinejad’s term, while they, despite the US endeavors for years, could not succeed before Ahmadinejad. Reformists believe that the current government and its wrong policies are the reasons why there have been three different decisions against Iran made by UNSC. They also think that it is required to rely on the policies of the previous government in order to recover the mistakes and solve the nuclear crisis.

The ones holding both the governments of Khatami and Ahmadinejad responsible for the current situation of nuclear crisis note that the governments have made serious strategic mistakes; and they criticize their policies. According to some figures from conservative wing, the lack of coordination and cooperation between the authorities of the previous and current governments caused the emergence of the existing situation. In other words, broad concessions made in the past (stepping back in the nuclear program) and harsh and aggressive attitude of the state today (great lead forward in the nuclear program) are essential reasons turning the program into a deep crisis. The required thing to do was to display a logical and consistent attitude about the program. At this point, they refer the stance of Supreme Leader Ali Khameini as the best stance Iran must have. Namely, they support continually speaking out that the nuclear program is totally for the peaceful purposes and stressing its bona fide, on the other hand, being aware of the fact that stepping back from the program is a betrayal to the country. Hence, they hold both governments who do not pursue such a policy responsible for the current situation. This group believes that countries targeting Islamic regime of Iran, Israel and the US, had the opportunity for lobbying against Iran in Security Council and winning adherents after the processes.  

Lastly, it is necessary to mention the existence of the group holding none of these governments responsible for the current crisis. The contenders of this view are the ones who look at the nuclear case through the official framework of the system[4]. For them, external factors are responsible for the current situation of the case. They think neither the previous nor the current government is culpable; Israel and the US must be blamed for crisis because their original problem is about the Islamic regime of Iran, not nuclear program. Because of this, now they focus on their goal after gaining such an invaluable chance. They generally perceive the approaches of Khatami and Ahmadinejad as complementary policies of the system. When the system sought for ways for cooperation with international platform and aimed to depict its bona fide, policy of Khatami was designed and applied. However, when it was observed that the West was far away from being able to respond to bona fide and pursued a policy based on double standard, harsh policies of Ahmadinejad were called upon. Therefore, this group supports the view that none of the governments can be held responsible for the crisis because they believe that both different policies were pursued to fulfill the different requirements of the terms by the system.

Anyhow, according to the last group, nuclear crisis is just a means of the West to confront Iran. On this account, even making unlimited concessions cannot solve the real problem and in the future Western world will carry on trying to confront Iran and demanding more under different cloaks. For this reason, with a consistent stance in the crisis while the support of public was obtained, Iran needs to play its cards wisely and face the US to solve the essential problem.

Evaluation

Generally speaking, four aforementioned different viewpoints have rights and wrongs. Albeit the different approaches, the initial goal of both Khatami and Ahmadinejad were the same fundamentally. Nuclear program was Iran’s national honor and Iran would not make concessions. While Khatami chose to pursue a policy based on clemency, Ahmadinejad chose to pursue an aggressive policy. Actually, the point of view of the lastly mentioned system can be identified as a more realistic approach. It is a known fact that the real crisis is about the Islamic regime, not about the nuclear program. Hence, maybe it would take much longer for the case to reach the current status during Khatami or Iran would step back and the West would intend to confront Iran about another matter. As a matter of fact, the American authorities in the past had explicitly declared that their primary concern was about the regime and had made attempts in this context.

Thus, the necessary and prior act for Iran is to continue the Iran-US dialogue which began after a long process and try to solve all the existing problems. Otherwise, behaving stubbornly towards each other just deepens the problems and creates brand new conflicts.   

Iran perceives that in case the country makes concessions, it will later lead to incessancy. In order for the coercive diplomacy implemented by the Western world against Iran to be successful, there have to be some conditions. One of them is if you expect the target country to fulfill your demand, the mentioned country shall be convinced that the demand is limited and no further demands will follow it later. As it can be seen, Iran does not believe in that. So, the consequence will be either stepping back or finding alternative ways, or going to the bitter end which might possibly turn into a scenario which is harmful to everyone.

It will be easier to find a midway if the West prefers to demand the limitations of the actions rather then preventing them, and if Iran makes some concessions after obtaining some privileges and gives up defending the program blindly to exalt her national honor. However, to find the mentioned midway, preparing a common ground is prior; this can only be achieved by enhancing the dialogue between the US and Iran.

It is required to remind the rivalry between the conservative and reformist in Iran, the allegations of both sides and the forthcoming elections. In case reformists win the elections, the course of the crisis might change. Yet it is too early to predict. Improvements and the policies will determine the future of the crisis. Anyway, it is unnecessary to be totally hopeful in case the crisis cannot be overcome between the US and Iran. Maybe, if reformists take over the administration, the dialogue that began during the period of conservatives among two states can be enhanced and sides can reach consensus related to certain issues.

In conclusion, if Iranian public opinion desires to protect their rights and overcome the problem with the least damage possible, the government –no matter which wing- has to pursue a sensitive and balanced policy. Perhaps, it would be the most reasonable thing to hold a referendum about the crisis before making crucial and critical decisions that are capable of changing the current position of the country. 

International Strategic Research Organization

Center for Middle East Studies

celalifer@yahoo.com

[Translated by Arda BİLGEN from Turkish]