by Jasmin Ramsey

Related to my earlier post on surprising statements from what’s believed to be Iranian president Hassan Rouhani’s English Twitter account is Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s condemnation of foreign military intervention Syria, which Omid Memarian suggests I should have emphasized more. The Iranian Student News [...]]]> via LobeLog

by Jasmin Ramsey

Related to my earlier post on surprising statements from what’s believed to be Iranian president Hassan Rouhani’s English Twitter account is Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s condemnation of foreign military intervention Syria, which Omid Memarian suggests I should have emphasized more. The Iranian Student News Agency reports that during a telephone call with his German counterpart, Zarif welcomed the completion of the UN’s inspection of sites where chemical weapons were allegedly used, advised against making hasty decisions on the issue and strongly condemned any outside military force in Syria, saying that it would only make the situation worse.

But my question persists: why has Rouhani not made these statements himself as of yet? It could very well be that when push comes to shove, he will. LobeLog contributor Wayne White tells me that “quite possibly Rouhani simply wanted his government to be on the record as reiterating Iran’s opposition to chemical weapons use while at the same time planning not to accept that his Syrian ally used them and preparing to condemn anyone using force against the Assad regime for doing so.” But Rouhani’s chosen words on his English Twitter account could also be, as Suzanne Maloney noted to me, indicative of a “a more moderate course on Iran’s foreign policy and even on the sensitive issue of Syria”. This may be the case even if he submits to pressure for him to take a harsher stance.

And here’s another interesting angle to this story. The perceptive Laura Rozen reports that the visit of the UN’s Under Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman to Tehran at this time is a sign of intensifying UN diplomacy on Syria:

Feltman, in his meetings in Iran, discussed “the worsening situation on the ground in Syria, including the U.N.’s grave concerns about the potential use of chemical weapons and how the U.N. can work together with Iran and other states to end the bloodshed and suffering of the Syrian people,” [UN spokesman Farhan] Haq said.

“Unclear as yet is if, in exchange for Iran not overreacting to any U.S. action in Syria, the U.S. will acquiesce to Iran attending Geneva2, or indeed, given Feltman’s reported discussions in Iran, whether it had already done so. Both Russia and the UN’s [Lakhdar] Brahimi have repeatedly stated that Iran should be able to attend,” writes Rozen.

Adding to my fascination with all this is the fact Omani Sultan Qaboos bin Said al-Said was also in Tehran this week. As this Economist editorial notes, the sultan has a history of serving as a messenger between Iran and the US and could be one on Syria:

Al-Hayat, a pan-Arab newspaper, quoted sources in Iran as saying that the trip was “not normal and does not fall under normal protocol”. Bahar, a publication linked to Iran’s newly-empowered reformist bloc, reported that the sultan was visiting as a precursor to future talks between America and Iran to negotiate a deal on greater nuclear transparency in exchange for sanctions relief. Fararu, a reformist-leaning website, has suggested that a new back channel might be established between the two countries, to pave the way for discussions over Iran’s disputed nuclear programme as well as the crisis in Syria.

Photo: Iranian FM Javad Zarifi meets with UN political affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman in Tehran. Credit: Mona Hoobehfekr

by Jasmin Ramsey

*This post has been updated.

Jim refuses to join Twitter, but today Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani provided him with another reason to reconsider:

Iran gives notice to international community to use all its might to prevent use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world, esp. in #Syria

— [...]]]> via LobeLog

by Jasmin Ramsey

*This post has been updated.

Jim refuses to join Twitter, but today Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani provided him with another reason to reconsider:

Iran gives notice to international community to use all its might to prevent use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world, esp. in #Syria

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 27, 2013

An Iranian official criticizing the use of chemical weapons, which Iraq’s Saddam Hussein used (with US assistance) to kill hundreds or even thousands of Iranians during the bloody Iran-Iraq war, is nothing new. What’s shocking is that Iran’s president seems to be endorsing force to prevent chemical weapons-use at a time when the US is positioning itself to strike Iran’s only regional ally, Syria. And as Golnaz Esfandiari reminds us, he made a similar statement on Saturday.

Iran expert Suzanne Maloney tells me that while we shouldn’t interpret too much from one statement, Rouhani’s words could indicate a “remarkable shift in the official posture of the Iranian government on the role of the international community” and “even on the sensitive issue of Syria” — but let’s backtrack for a moment.

For starters, it doesn’t appear like Rouhani tweeted this message by his mistake. Look at the tweets preceding it:

Iran suffered chemical weapons attacks by Iraqi forces during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war 2/2

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 27, 2013

We completely & strongly condemn use of chemical weapons in #Syria because Islamic Republic of Iran is itself victim of chemical weapons 1/2

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 27, 2013

And consider his most recent tweet as of now, which appeared one hour after his “notice” to the international community:

In response to questions abt other accounts in @HassanRouhani‘s name; this is the only English-language Twitter account.

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) August 27, 2013

Nothing has since been removed, revised, or added to Rouhani’s English Twitter account. His Persian account doesn’t feature these tweets.

What’s even more fascinating about all this is that at least according to news reports, Iran’s position on intervention in Syria has been what it was when the disgraced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was president: don’t do it. State-run and semi-official Iranian news sites are dominated with statements from Iranian officials warning against an outside military attack.

Rouhani also refrained from naming Syria’s rebels as the aggressors when he acknowledged chemical weapons-use in Syria on Saturday — the same day that Iran announced Syria would allow weapons inspectors into the site of the alleged attack. Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif did reportedly blame the rebels, which he called “terrorists”, for using the weapons in “escalating the crisis”, so why did Rouhani hold back?

While cautioning against reading too much into all this so soon, Maloney, a former State Department policy advisor, told me on the phone that all this made her recall Hashemi Rafsanjani’s first term when he “managed to persuade the leadership of the Islamic Republic to remain neutral to the UN-backed international military campaign to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.”

She continued, “This is obviously very different because of the alliance of Iran and Syria and if so, would be an even more dramatic gesture, but it appears that Rouhani is trying to track a more moderate course on Iran’s foreign policy and even on the sensitive issue of Syria.”

“The conventional wisdom is that Rouhani would not have enough wiggle room on Syria, that he would be forced to accede to a hardline position that Iran’s security forces advocate — whether or not the revelation of alleged chemical weapons usage alters that or if Rouhani is taking this opportunity to signal a different approach than what we’ve seen from Tehran over the years, we’ll have to see,” said Maloney, who can also be found on Twitter (I’m nudging Jim).

Maloney added that whatever was discussed in the conversation between Zarif and UN Undersecretary Jeffrey Feltman during his surprise visit to Tehran this week could also be indicative of why Rouhani has made these unusual statements. Though we shouldn’t rush to conclusions, Rouhani’s words are not “terribly subtle,” she said.

(Interestingly, while serving as US ambassador to Lebanon when its Prime Minister Rafic Harriri was killed, Feltman accused the Assads of being behind the assassination.)

There have been varying interpretations among analysts here about how Iran would respond to intervention in Syria, ranging from: it will almost certainly have a negative impact on the nuclear negotiations to, Iran has too much to lose on that front to sacrifice its own interests for its ally.

That debate may be concluded in the near future, but all this brings to mind Farideh’s post from July 2012, where she took a hard look at Iran’s Syria policy. At that time, she noted that Iran seemed to be toeing the Russian line on Syria: “The Iranian government is undoubtedly aware that Syria is in a mess. But in the coming months expect Iran’s response to be more reactive than proactive despite proclamations and posturing that suggest otherwise.”

Is her conclusion, written more than a year ago, still applicable today?

Update: Iranian journalist Omid Memarian tells me that Rouhani’s comments could be focused on the rebels. In other words, perhaps Rouhani is saying that the international community should use all its “might” to stop chemical weapons use by the rebels. If that’s true, Maloney’s suggestion that Iran could be changing its stance on the international community still rings true.

Update II: Some have questioned whether the Twitter account linked to here is operated by Hassan Rouhani or his staff. I base my take on the following: 1) he has never denied that it’s his account; 2) it seems to be in line with Rouhani’s official statements and his talks and appearances etc.; 3) Twitter is prohibited in Iran, which makes public acknowledgement problematic; 4) my Iranian contacts who are usually in-the-know about these things say they can’t see any reason to doubt it.