Recent remarks by Henry Kissinger, an American diplomat, political scientist and a former National Security Advisor, on Iran and its nuclear program reveal what the unyielding US hardliners are doing to interfere with nuclear talks.

The following is the full translation of an opinion piece on why US strategists should act more wisely in dealing with Iran. The piece by Fereydoon Majlesi, an international affairs analyst, appeared in Sharq daily on February 18:

After one and a half years of intensive talks over Iran’s nuclear program, the deadline for determining the scope of Iran’s nuclear activities and the removal of sanctions is approaching and hopes are growing for the settlement of the [long-standing] standoff and the lifting of sanctions, but hardliners and war hawks – at home and abroad – have joined the [anti-Iran] chorus, with the Israeli regime and its regional allies stepping up their destructive activities and adding fuel to the fire.

One such individual is Henry Kissinger, a former US national security advisor, who has said that if Iran’s demand for having an infrastructure of thousands of centrifuges is accepted, it would be almost impossible to deny other countries such a right, adding such an arrangement would very likely prompt other countries in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, “to match Iran’s threshold capability”.

I do not expect a seasoned, veteran politician like Kissinger to employ such indiscreet reasoning. It seems as if Saudi Arabia or any other countries were deprived of the enrichment right, or that Western countries are seeking to monopolize the enrichment right for the club of friendly nations.

I am not an expert in nuclear technology, but the logic Kissinger is using in support of Netanyahu and his Republican friends in the US Congress reminds me of a wolf which is drinking water upstream and blaming the lamb downstream for literally muddying the water. The problem here is that a sober guy is sitting among a crowd of drunkards.

… handed them an excuse, and with the help of “friends” like China and Russia, a gift of sanctions came Iran’s way from the UN Security Council.

Perhaps Kissinger knows that Saudi Arabia, which has created and harbored Alqaeda, the Taliban and ISIS, is one of them [Westerners]; thus, they are not concerned about its atomic bombs because the bomb of ignorance is much more dangerous. Moreover, the Pakistani government, which is the agent of Saudi Arabia to fulfill Riyadh’s desires, possesses atomic bombs.

For years, Saudi Arabia has been dreaming about its own empire and Islamic caliphate and has based its policies on overcoming two major obstacles: the Dari language and Shiism. Haven’t the Western sides seen a big number of roadside, mosque and hotel bombings? [Uranium] Enrichment is not an issue [for Saudi Arabia]; Riyadh has Pakistan’s atomic bombs at its disposal. So what are they concerned about?

Let’s assume that a person has made a comment eight years ago, describing a global decision as a “worthless piece of paper” [a reference to remarks by former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who mocked UN Security Council sanctions against Iran as pieces of paper of no value]. What do the West and Arabs think of a nation which seeks to exercise its conventional rights and freedom to do business and lead its own life?

What has Iran done wrong? Has it occupied other nations’ territories? Has it imprisoned people in their houses and destroyed their properties under the pretext of meeting its own demands? Has it murdered six million Jews? Has it massacred people in Hamburg at the end of war to take revenge? Has it dropped an A-bomb on a city? Has it killed 20-30 million people in Siberia, Poland, Afghanistan, East Europe and Central Asia in quest of its domineering goals? Has it shed the blood of people in Algeria, the black continent, Indochina, India? Has it plundered their wealth?

What has happened that people like Kissinger are scrambling to make the whole world rally behind them and threaten this nation which accounts for simply one percent of the global populace and territory? Has Iran killed Western scientists in their homes or on the street?

Has Iran used any malware to disrupt their computer systems, industries and economies? Why is it that when you face a similar threat you cry foul that the law has been flouted? Why is it that the West does not submit to a fair, reasonable and explicit solution? Why do they try to make a nation – which is hopeful and moderate – desperate and full of hatred of them? Why do they stir resentment? Why are they searching for the evil?

The evil acts and wicked, destructive reactions are abundant. Rationality, moderation, peace, calm, coexistence, business and life are what we lack. Kissinger should know that moderate [Iranian] statesmen – who build on rationality, fairness and moderation as well as on a popular mandate – are holding talks with his respective government, and they expect nothing in return expect fair, legal and respectful treatment.

These people have opened their facilities to inspectors in line with international rules and regulations. You need to remember that missiles you provided [to Saddam’s Iraq] rained down on them [the Iranians] in a prolonged war, and that they had every right to arm themselves in self-defense.

A balanced and wise behavior will result in a balanced and wise response. Kissinger had better advise US senators to treat the negotiating team in a way that does not defy rationality and fairness and not do anything which could play into the hands of radical opponents.

You need to remind them of the proverbial phrase which says, “The one who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind”.

Talks, at any level and with any intention, need a strategy to succeed. Calculations by parties to the talks help map out their strategies that set red lines and turn into negotiating tactics at a lower, operational level. The way each party identifies, analyzes and affects the calculations of the other party plays a decisive role in how talks proceed and what their outputs are.

Those sitting across from each other at the negotiating table try their utmost to develop a maximal understanding of each other’s calculations and tip – through diverse tools at their disposal – these calculations in their own favor, or disrupt them.

Kayhan daily on February 21 ran an opinion piece by Mohammad Sarfi about the seven miscalculations surrounding nuclear talks between Iran and P5+1 with the columnist saying that the Americans have made most of such miscalculations. The following is a partial translation of the piece which outlines those miscalculations:

1. Sanctions have brought Iran to the negotiating table: […] The phony war between the White House and the US Congress over new Iran sanctions have been designed and implemented based on such an assumption. Unlike what the Americans believe, basically the Islamic Republic of Iran has never opposed the question of talks; rather, Tehran has even welcomed it. Washington should not forget that in the past it would not agree to anything less than a complete shutdown of Iran’s nuclear program. That talks are underway is not because of sanctions, but because Iran has hold on to its rights and rightful stance.

2. Iran will continue to sit at the negotiating table for good: […] If the purpose of the talks is to reach a deal, they could not be extended multiple times, but if they aim to pass time and freeze activities, parties involved can continue talks on an open-ended basis!

3. A breakdown in talks is catastrophic: […] Suspension of talks would translate into the end of the honeymoon the Americans had after the Geneva deal. Given the unsatisfactory condition of the two sides in the Geneva deal, the Americans are like customers who go to a restaurant, order and eat food expecting the restaurant owner to foot the bill; who will suffer if the eatery is shut down?

4. Iran’s hands are tied: […] For 36 years, the Americans have had such an impression of Iran on different fronts; they have seen the opposite of what they thought, though. […] Iran’s hands are not tied; rather, it can have a hand in developments beyond its borders and play an influential role [in regional events].

5. A final deal can solve Iran’s problems: It is not just the West who has such an assessment of a possible nuclear deal; there are some groups inside the country who have turned a blind eye to realities trying to paint a false picture of the future of a final nuclear deal. […]

Those analysts who build on economic realities to make realistic comments have time and again said that even if we wake up to a day of no sanctions, there will be no immediate effect on the country’s state of economy. […]

Iran’s economic structure is in need of a surgery and the removal of sanctions will be like a painkiller which delays the surgery.

6. An everlasting alliance sits across the table: Some think that those facing Iran across the negotiating table are part of a strong alliance. But the ground realities say something else. Russia has been targeted by US and European sanctions. […]

Although China may sound silent, its bone of contention with the US is no less than Russia’s. At this situation when tensions are rising, it is immature to think that the party across the negotiating table has a consistent agenda to push.

7. Trial instead of negotiations: […] Again and again the Westerners have said openly that these talks are the acid test for Iran to see if it wants to be a normal country or continue to be a revolutionary nation. They [wrongly] think that the fact that Iran has sat around the negotiating table means it has abandoned the ideals of the Islamic Revolution. […]

Attempts to place unrelated topics – such as human rights, regional questions and the Islamic Republic’s missile capability – on the table stem from the very same miscalculations by the United States. […]