Reza Zabid
Iran’s Ambassador to Spain
Alberto Rubio
He is proud of the “direct role I had in the negotiations for the reestablishment of relations with Saudi Arabia,” when he was Director General for East Asia of the Iranian Foreign Ministry. Now, as ambassador in Madrid, he is convinced that “Spain is in the best position” to serve as a bridge, helping to overcome some disagreements with the European Union “because the country is closest to oriental culture.”
How this proposal is made concrete?
In an article that I published at the beginning of the Spanish Presidency of the EU, I offered Iran’s support to Spain to carry out this initiative. This is a great capacity that is being offered to Spain. Even after its Presidency, Spain will be able to play this role. It would be a great mark if Spain, as a defender of dialogue, could contribute to addressing the problems that may exist on both sides.
In general, bilateral relations between Iran and Spain have been good, despite the fact that the pandemic represented a notable slowdown. How can we recover the fluidity that existed before in bilateral political contacts?
It’s true. The last ministerial visit to Iran was in 2018. But contact continues apace at other levels, the latest being the visit of MFA Vice Minister for Foreign Political Affairs, Ali Baqeri Kani, visit to Spain. The two sides had a constructive and very positive exchange. And, in any case, both Foreign Ministers maintain their dialogue via telephone contacts. Meeting on the sideline of international event is in our agenda.
Borrell and his negotiating team, is another way that one may feel the Spanish diplomatic mood, where this mentality has helped, in this way or another, a better understanding between Iran and the EU. Recent visit of the EU official for the Persian Gulf, Luigi Di Maio, to Iran is a good example of this Spanish mood, where if not had been for Spain’s Presidency, the treatment could have been somehow different. That said, there is a good level of diplomatic contacts between both countries, although of course we always seek for better and strengthened contact with Spain.
Can it be said that Spain is, therefore, your best ally in the EU?
From my point of view, that is right. It may be undiplomatic to say that clearly, but yes. That`s why we say the EU has 26 member states plus 1, Spain. The fact that we have had diplomatic relations for more than 400 years means something.
The 2017 agreement on economic cooperation is apparently paralyzed. Only one meeting of the Oil, Gas and Petrochemical group has been held so far (2018). Do you hope to resume that roadmap soon?
Legally speaking, the agreement has expired. What we are working on is its renovation, although that has not been an impediment to economic relations between both countries. Despite the illegitimate unilateral American sanctions, we can say that the volume of commercial trade between both countries is acceptable; although that does not mean that both parties are happy with the existing level. We must keep in mind that for the time being, oil does not count in our commercial relations, and that is a lot.
If our friends in Spain come to the conclusion that today there are no legitimate sanctions against Iran, there would be high opportunities in our economic relations for both sides.
But doesn’t that depend much more on the EU, even the United States, than on Spain?
I think the best solution to overcome this situation is to resort to realism. Unilateral sanctions are illegitimate and we understand Spain’s European commitments. But even with those limitations and obstacles, we believe much more can be done bilaterally.
On July 20, the European Union adopted new measures against Iran for its military support for Russia in the war against Ukraine. Do these measures endanger the 2015 Nuclear Agreement?
After the nuclear deal, and up to this moment, the EU has not imposed any nuclear sanctions against Iran. That does not mean that it has fulfilled its commitments under the deal, it simply has not been able to carry them out in practice.
That said, the window for economic cooperation is fully open. In reality, the non-nuclear sanctions are very small in scope and are not 100% economical.
At what point are we then? Europe may be willing to return to the negotiation, but without the United States there is no possibility of putting the agreement back on track?
The question should be asked of the western part. So far that it is related to us, we are and we have ever been for negations and a well guaranteed agreement. Contact with Mr. Borrell and his team continues and even with Americans indirectly off course.
But the reality is that the United States has hijacked and continues to hostage the foreign relations, namely foreign economic cooperations, of European countries with Iran.
If we look at economic relations in the era before the Islamic revolution, we see that almost 70% of our Iran`s foreign trade was with the United States. There is a document in our National Archive, prior to the Revolution, that talks necessity of extending an expiring trade agreement between Iran and the European Commission at that time, more than 50 years ago. Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked the Ministry of Commerce if it agreed to renew it. The Commerce department responded that “since we have a broad relationship with the United States, why shall we continue committing ourselves to the EC”? The revolution reversed that entire relationship in favor of the EU. Therefore, the United States’ logic regarding relations with Iran is very simple: if Iran does not have relations with US, then nobody should benefit from trade relations with Iran; a clear reference to the EU.
Now, to what extent the EU want to follow this American logic, is up to them. We are willing to help, but the remaining depends on the EU; namely to think of the interest of European companies.
Does Iran support Russia in its war against Ukraine? Do you sell them drones?
This is a part of US propaganda campaign against Iran. But you can see things more accurately. Iran is an independent country and when it makes a decision it officially announces it and acts accordingly. For example, if Iran decides to shower an American military base in its neighborhood with missiles, it carries it out with public announcement. If Iran supports Venezuela or Syria against the United States interventions, it does so publicly and officially. They are examples of our foreign policy behaviors. Therefore, had Iran wanted to support Russia in Ukraine, we would have officially announced it.
Our position on the War in Ukraine is very clear. Although we consider NATO expansion as the root cause of the war, but before it started we did everything we could to avoid it. Then we announced several times that war is not the solution and clearly underlined our respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine. We have always expressed our readiness to contribute to ending the war.
The US accusation is superficial, I would say even ridiculous. They said Iranian drones were going to change the course of the war! What statement is that? With this argument, they try to fool people to ignore the whole history of Soviet and Russia military technology. Do you mean that the Russians don’t have that capability? On the other hand, this statement that Iranian drones could change the war means that the entire western air defense, if not to say the whole military technology, is ineffective against a handful of simple drones! We are simply facing a propaganda machine.
So, are not your drones operating in Ukraine?
From the very beginning of this allegation, we expressed officially and publicly, our readiness to meet and directly talk to Ukrainians and receive the evidence for verification. Despite full coordination of a friendly third party, first they canceled and refrained to meet. On second occasion, we met with the Ukrainian side who showed us some blur photos, claiming to be drones. But that’s as if someone show you a blur photo of a Samsung mobile and tell you ‘it’s yours’! Samsung is everywhere.
But reality is not that. We have always publicly acknowledged that we have a good relationship with Russia, including in the military sphere. That’s not a secret. And it is true that before the war we gave them some copies of our drones. But Russia promised not to use them in war. Therefore, time and time again, we have asked everyone, including the Ukrainian side, to show us whatever tangible evidence they may have so that we go and ask the Russians about their promise. But, until now, no one has offered that verifiable evidence.
How is the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia progressing? Something new?
I should gladly say that one of the best jobs I have done during my three decades of diplomatic service is the direct role I played in the negotiations to reestablish relations with Saudi Arabia. I feel very proud of it. The agreement is progressing very well. Both embassies are reopened and we have exchanged ambassadors, who are already doing their work. Although a short time has passed, we have even exchanged several delegations between both countries. Two days ago our ambassador in Riyadh delivered a message from our president addressed to the king and the crown prince on promoting cooperation between both countries.
In what field do you propose this cooperation?
We do not have any limitations for relations with Saudi Arabia. It`s a great neighbor of ours. We are going to see very notable advances in our relationships. Work is already underway on the agenda of both countries on official visits by both heads of state. And we believe that bilateral economic relations will also advance very quickly.
How will this new reality influence the Middle East?
Iran and Saudi Arabia are two big players in the region. Experience throughout this short time since the restoration has shown that the mere reestablishment of our diplomatic relation has improved the general environment in the region. We believe that, when the opportunity is given for the high ranking officials of both countries to meet in person, this will have practical effects on other issues in the region, although the Beijing agreement has nothing to do with regional issues. It is a bilateral agreement but, of course, it can have effects on other matters. The countries of a region always have common interests. Peace and stability are the first common interest.
Do you think that an possible victory by Donald Trump or the Republican Party in the 2024 presidential elections would make things worse?
In the last 40 years we have had experiences with both Republican and Democratic administrations in the US. We have been through Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and others. We have always been able to manage our affairs, while the positions of the United States have always oscillated from infinity to one side and to the other. One day they regretted of being culprit in the 1953 coup against the democratic government of Iran; another day they claimed no coup d’état has ever happened in Iran! One day Obama wrote several letters to our supreme leader to express that he wanted a good relationship with Iran. But short after we reached the nuclear deal, Trump appeared on television signing the document to withdraw from the multilateral UN approved nuclear deal. Time has clearly proved that despite all these contradictory US positions, Iran has been able to manage its affairs but the US credibility is evidently damaged.
The fact is that Trump could come back.
He can, although his politics are crazy both inside and outside the US. But it will not be decisive for us. In the worst conditions we would reach a situation in which both parties would be losers. We wouldn’t be happy with that, but as I mentioned, time has proved that we can manage it.
Issues like Mahsa Amini case do not help promote Iran’s image abroad. Is there no other way to address social demands in a better way?
First of all we have to separate reality from propaganda. Opposing anything about Iran has become a money-making industry for some. So, If someone wants to seek the truth, they must be very careful not to get trapped by that industry.
As for the Western view, and I’m not just talking about the hijab issue, we accept that everyone can have their opinion on anything, but the problem is with the application of the double standard. They talked about the hijab in Iran, while at this very moment France prohibits female students from wearing the hijab at school, depriving them from this rights. It is the same country that has been at the forefront of accusations against Islamic countries, especially Iran, on issues of women’s freedom. Why this treatment? According to European and Western values, people are supposed to be free for choosing, among others, their way of dressing. However, a flagrant double standard applied; in Iran people must be free but in France for example, they must follow the governmental rules on dressing, on freedom of expression, etc!
We believe that, in view of this double standard, there is an attempt to convert human rights into instruments of political pressure. From “Critical Dialogue” to “Comprehensive Dialogue”, we have experienced different way of dialogue with the EU on human rights. When it comes to Human Rights, we have our own argument and complains. So, if the idea is to reach a common & constructive understanding, there must be open, honest, and realistic discussions on human rights, far from politics and political considerations. A major example is sanctions which are the exact opposite of human rights. You cannot place embargoes on an entire nation and then, raise the flag of human rights and claim defending the same people on which you have imposed sanctions. Hundreds of people have died in Iran, including children suffering from epidermolysis bullosa (butterfly skin disease), because of shortage of some special European made medications due to sanctions. So, dose human rights matters here or not!?
I think if you look at the issue far from the propaganda focus, Iran’s treatment of hijab matter is clearly manipulated. I don’t want to say that it can’t be improved. We may always challenge a policy of procedure. But social process in all countries follows a well known pattern where debates are raised but finally concludes in the Parliament, which is the one that approves the laws, whether we like them or not. That is democracy. Not all decisions made by parliaments in Europe are welcomed either, but that is the reality.
I would like to return the same question an unfortunate but ongoing issue in Europe. There are 2 billion Muslims in the world. One of the most important values of these people is being desecrated under the protection of the Swedish government. When that person wants to burn a Koran in Sweden, not only does the police protect him but they justify this action under the “freedom of expression”. The most we have seen is a ‘ tweet ‘ from Mr. Borrell, in which he does not even condemn the desecration of the Koran, while different international legal elements, including UN resolutions, condemn the spread of hatred and even this very act. Imagine the mess that would have arisen if a Western value had been desecrated in a Muslim country. I ask then: can’t this situation be managed better?
To my understanding the best solution is dialogue; it is neither enough nor useful for sides just to condemn one or the other. Practically speaking, the European side implicitly says “these are our values and others must accept & follow”. That means the values of others do not matter, irrespective of their roots in a great civilization or religion! As if UN bodies have not repeatedly acknowledged diversity of cultures and values. What we propose is that jurists, parliamentarians and academics from both sides sit down and talk. Maybe we can learn from each other. Ignoring things and taking refuge in condemning is not going to have any results.
