Iranian Ambassador Sabouri: "No to the Clash of Civilizations: the Palestinians decide their fate in a referendum"

It has been exactly 45 years: a crucial 1979 for Iran and the entire Middle East. On Feb. 11, the revolution led by Imam Khomeini came to fruition and, less than two months later, 98 percent of the people voted in the referendum for the Islamic Republic. "Neither East nor West," was how Khomeini, a political and religious leader, set his terms to the Cold War world. A horizon that today, in the face of the crisis of Anglo-American unipolarity, is "multipolar."
 

Iran, just from this glowing 2024, has fully joined the BRICS, the countries not aligned with Washington's dictates. At the center of it all is the issue of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, the escalation of which is turning into a regional war, with all the global risks that this entails. Starting with the human lives it engulfs but also the naked energy, economic and commercial interests it threatens to disrupt, including our daily lives of production, consumption and exorbitant costs of living.
 

We met with H.E. Mohammad Reza Sabouri, Iran's Ambassador to Italy since 2022, to try to understand Iran's position both with respect to the ongoing conflict and on the new international phase related to the multipolar transition that does not affect us directly but involves the rest of the world that the West has always considered a land of conquest. And which today dissents.
 

H.E. Ambassador, thank you for accepting this interview. In the light of the events of October 7, 2023, the 'Israeli-Palestinian' issue has returned to the forefront of Western public debate. This is an issue that has been dragging on since well before 2023 and is absolutely unacceptable, at least to anyone who has retained a modicum of common sense in the world. What is at stake in this conflict, which has been going on since at least 1948, and how could it be resolved?
 

In my view, the Western media and authorities' emphasis on Oct. 7 is an attempt to divert public opinion from the real root of this decades-long crisis. In the domestic and international media, the Israeli regime insists on the Oct. 7 Hamas operation to justify the genocide and crimes against humanity committed in the Palestinian territories in the name of the right to self-defense. I believe the root of the Palestinian crisis goes back more than 100 years, when Palestine was handed over first to the British and then to the Israelis. How can you take away a people's land of their fathers by force and then expect their silence?
Why have all the solutions and resolutions proposed for the Palestinian crisis failed?
The answer is obvious: because we have never asked the opinion of the Palestinian people , ignoring them in political equations.

 In this context, the Islamic Republic of Iran has a very clear and direct position. Can you explain what it is and how do the other regional and global powers involved in this issue act instead?
 

As you pointed out, the Islamic Republic of Iran's position has been completely clear from the very beginning. We believe in a solution based on a referendum involving the people who have always inhabited this land, namely the Palestinians, inside and outside the occupied territories. I do not judge the positions of other countries, but I am persuaded that any solution that does not take into consideration the will of the original inhabitants of this land will be ineffective.

In the current world geopolitical landscape, we are witnessing a clash between those who defend the unipolar global order that arose after the end of the Cold War and those who instead aspire to the emergence of a multipolar world.
 

Since the beginning of the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been a debate around the kind of system that should govern international relations: this is not a new issue. It is not merely an academic debate, as the answer to this question influences the fate of all countries as actors in the international system. From the very beginning, the theory of the unipolar system, promoted first and foremost by the Americans, has been seriously confronted with opposing views; in Europe, even the idea has been put forward that globalization, due to the speed of change and the momentum of evolutionary processes, has caused the international system to remain in a state of transition.
 

What kind of actor is Tehran in this context?
 

Our position was and is clear from the beginning: we are against the unipolar system and in favor of the multipolar system.
 

Meanwhile, we should consider some aspects: first, the fact that the nature of power has changed, although there is still a kind of oscillation between the fourth aspect of power, that is, discursive power on the one hand and intelligent power on the other.
 

Second is the change in the type and number of actors: in addition to the great powers, regional actors have also come into the picture. In fact, in addition to governments there are other players such as multinational corporations, parties, and the media; in a sense we are witnessing a kind of erosion of the role of governments.
 

Third, the nature of interaction among actors has changed such that the "competition-cooperation space" dominates relations among them in a "balanced international system," and the importance of virtual networks in a space of "increasing transparency" has prioritized processes over structures.

The Israeli-Palestinian issue is more important than ever, as Islamic civilization is a pole of the new multipolar world under construction and Iran is a key part of it. In case of Western escalation, is Iran the real target?
 

I do not interpret the ongoing crisis in the occupied Palestinian territories as a clash of civilizations, although in recent months I have heard this kind of narrative in some politicians. The 'object of debate here is not the question of Islamic civilization versus Western civilization.
 

As I said, the point is the real root of the Palestinian crisis, which is the fact that you are ignoring the rights of the Palestinian people and denying their right to determine their own destiny. I would not reduce the issue to the perspective of the clash of civilizations.
 

On whether Iran is a target or not in case of escalation, it should be remembered that the Iranian Islamic Revolution has had its enemies from the very beginning, and the root of this enmity lies in Iran's effort to become an independent country and to oppose American hegemony. This belief has spread to many other nations where it has been welcomed, so over time different ways have been tried to deal with it: from the war imposed by the Iraqi Baathist regime to 'inducing unrest in the country.

EU High Representative Borrell even spoke of "garden" and "jungle" in reference to supposed Western superiority over the rest of the world.  Those who really know Iran know that it is a traditional, developed and welcoming country. What is the diplomatic significance of Borrell's words?
 

Statements like this are reminiscent of colonialist and racist literature. We urge those who raise and spread these views to review the history of African and Asian countries, as well as and their relations with European countries, lest it be forgotten that the reason for the backwardness of many of these countries lies in the policies adopted by European powers.
 

Historically, at least in recent centuries, this garden has encroached on the jungle. Unfortunately, it is under the influence of this atmosphere that we see more than 25,000 people martyred in Gaza by the Zionist regime in the protracted silence of Western governments.

In practice, human rights are a tool in the hands of the West to pursue its foreign policy in pursuit of domination and, in other words, to maintain control of the garden over the jungle.

Source