The murder of Hamas’s leaders Ismail Haniyeh, the guest in Iranian capital on the presentation of the newly elected President Masoud Pezeshkian is a spark on fire, which can cause a huge fire in the Middle East. Western leaders and their media and otherwise claim that the decades of the Iran – Israel are the potential cause of war in the region with inconsistable consequences. Ambassador of Iran in Serbia, Mr. Rashid Hassan Pour Baei confirmed that the Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatolah Ali Khamenei, raised the “red flag of revenge”, and emphasizes that Iran will decide quality, quantity and time of the answer, respecting all the principles of international politics and the indispensable interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Explaining Iran views to the latest global geopolitical movements, Mr. Rashid Hassanpour Baei emphasized that BRICKS membership is a new great chance to balance the power in the world, but also achieving aspirations of those countries who want to preserve their territorial integrity, national identity and sovereignty, such as Iran and Serbia.
Despite the brutal war that Israel is waging against Palestine, which some of the world’s leading powers have labeled as genocidal, the hostility between Iran and Israel is cited as one of the main sources of instability in the Middle East. Does the assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh confirm this thesis?
As for the brutal war that some countries perceive as genocide while others, for certain reasons, have avoided labeling it as such, this in itself is a great tragedy. So far, 40,000 Palestinians have been killed, more than 100,000 people have been wounded, Gaza has been razed to the ground, yet many countries refuse to recognize this genocide. It has been proven that Israel has been carrying out its intention to destroy the entire Palestinian people over the last 80 years, which means that the Israelis have learned nothing from history. It’s enough to read a little bit of history to see that this is impossible. However, these same countries take an active stance on genocide in other cases, while remaining completely indifferent in the case of Palestine. Their double standards in this case are completely obvious, as genocide is genocide, no matter where it occurs. Israel is absolutely blind to the Palestinian tragedy and is not at all willing to recognize Palestine as an independent state in the United Nations. Any attempt to reduce the crisis in the Middle East solely to the conflict between Iran and Israel shows a lack of understanding or an underestimation of the problem, as it is not only a regional but also a global issue. You know that solving the Palestinian question is a major topic in the United Nations and other international organizations. Many countries know where the problem “lies,” but they are unwilling to take responsibility for solving it. Most countries deal only with the consequences of the problem and are not interested in the causes that led to the crisis. As long as the Palestinian issue remains unresolved, and as long as the standards that have been accepted are not applied, there will be no solution to the crisis, because Israel believes that its survival depends on creating conflicts, tensions, and war. The solution to the problem lies in giving Palestinians the right to have their own land. No one is paying attention to this main cause of the conflict and its resolution, and that is the “crown” of the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the issue of Palestine.
Given that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has raised the “red flag of revenge” and ordered an attack on Israel in retaliation, do you expect the U.S. to get involved in a potential war on Israel’s side, and could this be a “spark” for conflicts of unimaginable proportions not only in the Middle East but globally?
The fact that the Iranian Supreme Leader ordered an attack is absolutely in line with the UN Charter, according to Article 51 of which countries have the legitimate right to defend themselves. The Israelis not only assassinated our guest, which is a clear terrorist act, and that too during the inauguration of our new president, which in itself is the greatest crime, but they also simultaneously threatened our territorial integrity and national sovereignty. It is our legitimate right to defend ourselves against this. We have done it once before, but that was not enough to restrain Israel. It is obvious that Israel understands no language other than the language of force. Neither the language of dialogue, nor the language of diplomacy, nor the UN Security Council Resolutions. The only language they understand is the force of their arms and military power, very likely due to the nuclear warhead they possess. Our response to such a demonstration of force will be rational and in accordance with international law and all its norms. Unfortunately, all the rules set out in the UN Charter are just dead letters on paper for Israel and its partners. The most important thing is that the United States fully supports Israel. The Israelis take such advantage of this relationship that they bring the U.S. to a fait accompli. Literally, the Israelis start the “train,” and then the Americans jump on board. And so, whether they know it or not, they are with Israel anyway. Even assuming they were not informed, they should somehow sanction such behavior by Israel, not support and protect it. However, the U.S. has “washed its hands” of this heinous terrorist act, and accordingly, we reserve the right to defend ourselves. As for the quality and quantity of that response, and the timing of its implementation, that is entirely up to our decision. We have always said and warned that our region has such potential for conflicts that it is slowly getting out of control and turning into a global conflict. Even last time, we responded very calculatedly, taking that fact into account. Before that, no one believed that the Islamic Republic of Iran had such military power and capability, but Israel has not learned this lesson either. Therefore, we must now resort to an effective response, but a very precise and responsible one. In other words, we do not want the conflict to escalate, which is a very difficult task. They ask us to show restraint, but no one tells Israel to stop the crime and terrorism. Israel cannot resolve the problem with Haniyeh on the sovereign territory of Iran. It is neither reasonable nor logical to kill someone with whom you have a problem on someone else’s territory. Donald Trump did the same with General Soleimani on the territory of Iraq. Our position is that this was not done accidentally but quite consciously and deliberately. Make no mistake, Israel intends to provoke a broader conflict that will drag America into a war against Iran. But the Islamic Republic of Iran is on the front line of defending the region from injustice, from crimes, and from everything that Israel is doing. Because the time when Israel could do whatever it wanted and get away with it is over; first, the people of the Middle East have awakened, second, the international community no longer allows it, and third, “new” world powers have emerged. In short, the geopolitical situation has changed, and so has the balance of power.
Do you expect a change in Hamas’ attitude toward Iran after the assassination of their leader, given that the assassination occurred in Tehran after the inauguration of your newly elected president, and what is Iran’s stance toward Hezbollah since Israel escalated airstrikes on Lebanon?
It is absolutely impossible that Hamas will change its attitude toward Iran because of Haniyeh’s assassination. It is quite clear that Iran provides strong support to Hamas and other resistance forces, so I am convinced that this terrorist act by Israel will further unite all forces on that front. Therefore, not only will there be no division, but the cohesive force will become much stronger. And everything that has happened after Haniyeh’s assassination confirms this claim. After Haniyeh, the current military commander of Hamas in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, the commander of military operations against Israel, a military-intelligence “giant” who is everything in Hamas, took over. His appointment as Haniyeh’s successor has created even more favorable conditions for resistance and the fight against Israel. If someone says they will kill Sinwar too, we tell them that even the assassination of any resistance leader has not achieved anything. Simply put, the people are born and new heroes come forward. You were under the Turks for 500 years, yet the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and the Serbs are still here. As for Hamas, we absolutely support their fight against aggression because Israel entered Lebanon whenever it wanted, but now the situation is no longer the same, and Iran fully supports Hezbollah in that regard.
Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, the Palestinians have received mostly verbal support from Muslim countries and the Islamic world. Do you expect that Haniyeh’s assassination, as a “red line” after several assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah political leaders, which sparked protests in Turkey, will unite Muslim countries in the fight against Israel?
Here I will give my personal opinion. Haniyeh’s assassination will certainly have an impact on the rapprochement of the Islamic world, but I do not see that this influence will necessarily be desirable. Today, the foreign ministers of Islamic countries are supposed to meet in Jeddah, and my assessment is that they should at least reach a minimal consensus and call for diplomatic measures, but I do not believe that there will be a decisive stance to act uniformly against Israel. However, we must be satisfied even with such minimal consensus because each country has its individual interests. We must not forget what Iran’s positions were before and after the Islamic Revolution to understand how many different positions exist within just one country, let alone among different countries. Before the revolution, we had relations with Israel, but this paradigm completely changed after the revolution. This is not the case with other countries. Turkey, for example, is much closer to us, but countries make decisions based on their positions and interests, which we do not want to question, but it is certain that we want all these countries to unite around a unified position on Israel because only then can we achieve a solution. It is necessary for all Islamic countries to support Palestine in its legitimate defense against aggression by organizing a unified resistance against Israel. Only when Palestine becomes a free and independent country can peace return to this region.
The intensity of the conflict between Iran and Israel, which many see as a “shadow war,” has largely depended on geopolitical factors. Does the basis of “blood hostility” lie in the rejection of U.S. imperialism and its ally Israel after the 1979 revolution when Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic Revolution, overthrew the monarchist Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?
I have touched on this earlier and said that the Islamic Revolution was a new turning point for Iran, but that in no way means that the Iranian people did not want to defend the rights of the Palestinian people before the revolution. However, there was discord on this issue between the people and the authorities. After the revolution, the people and the government reached a common position on the issue of Palestine, and to this day, that is the core of Iran’s stance. It is wrong to think that this is solely about our animosity toward Israel; no, it is about the fight against hegemony, against the injustice suffered by a people; that is where the basis of Iran’s position lies. This is not about mutual enmity between Iran and Israel but about a much broader platform.
The war for oil resources in Gaza has further exacerbated relations between Iran and Israel, and primarily Persian Tehran has meanwhile succeeded in bringing Shiite and Sunni interests closer together, thereby gaining the favor of Saudi Arabia as the second regional power in the Middle East. What message does this send to the hypocritical West and its leaders?
From the very beginning, we have been seeking the unification of all Muslim countries, regardless of which religious school they belong to. On this path, we have witnessed many ups and downs, and the most frequent factors influencing them have come from outside. This means that the interference of other countries has had a decisive impact on preventing the necessary unity of the countries in the region. And that has further complicated the whole situation, which is why solving this issue requires additional time. Two years ago, we managed to restore full diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, based on a newly established mutual understanding. This is indeed a major and positive change because both countries can provide greater stability and unity to the region. And that is our policy towards other countries as well. We have also initiated the process of normalizing relations with Egypt, and we expect this to be the beginning of entering a new era in the region, with the divisions that have existed becoming as small as possible.
In the new geopolitical redistribution of the world, which is unfolding under the guise of globalization, Iran became a member of the political-economic group of states known as BRICS, led by Russia and China, on January 1, 2024. What does this mean for Iran in relation to the U.S. and NATO?
To better define this, we must take a strategic look and review the current developments in the world. I am speaking about a new perspective that has opened up with the establishment of BRICS. The order that prevailed after the Cold War is changing, and the emerging one is based on multipolarity, which gives all countries the right to a sovereign stance and the right to be a player on the international stage. This multilateralism can have various aspects and can allow all countries to revise the international order and create a fairer one than the existing one, based on their demands. This can be bilateral, within various groupings, or multilateral. China, for example, has its own definition of the world order and at the same time has the ability and power to defend that view. China operates either independently, bilaterally with Russia and Iran, within regional organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, or in an international format such as BRICS. So, China is actually active on four levels. This is the dynamism that has begun. On the other side of the coin are the hegemonic countries, whose power is becoming more balanced. We see this with the dollar, whose influence, like the economic-political influence of the U.S. in the world, is weakening day by day. That is to say, China is slowly taking over the leading role from the U.S. in various fields, and Iran is becoming an active player in organizing those countries that are striving for a just world and demanding the revision of the existing order. This will not happen overnight, as BRICS is not a project but a process that faces much resistance but will certainly reach its intended goal. I hope that this transitional period will pass peacefully and safely.
How does Iran perceive the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, what outcome do you expect, and what could be the future of NATO and the EU after this conflict ends?
The Islamic Republic of Iran, as should be the case with all countries in the world, respects the territorial integrity and sovereignty of states, which is why we respect Serbia’s integrity and do not recognize Kosovo’s independence. In the same way, we support Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but when it comes to the war in Ukraine, we demand that the root of the problem be analyzed instead of dealing with the consequences. We must ask why Russia invaded Ukraine. Looking at history, we see that if you isolate a country, belittle it, ignore its interests, and threaten its security, that country will resort to war. My personal impression is that this is exactly what happened with Russia. In the end, all world wars have been the result of the belittling and isolation of other countries. If the German people had not been isolated and belittled after World War I, I am sure that Hitler would not have emerged. If the West and NATO had been a little smarter, if they had approached the problem of Russia and Ukraine more cautiously, the conflict would surely not have occurred. War is a matter of honor because neither Russia nor Ukraine wants to back down, and the West is trying with all its might to defend Ukraine while imposing all possible sanctions against Russia, but they have not succeeded in bringing it to its knees, just as Iran has been under sanctions for 44 years, but sanctions cannot solve the problem.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated that the Middle East is “on the brink of escalation” and that “it is the last moment for everyone to step back from that brink,” while Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, called on the Security Council to impose “all possible sanctions on Iran before it is too late.” Is Iran’s nuclear program still an obsession for Israel and its protector, the U.S., for which many top Iranian scientists have been assassinated?
It is absolutely undeniable that the U.S. and NATO are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, but I think that their concern about our nuclear program is much less than their concern about Iran’s global policies and its political approach to the world. At this moment, both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, but there is no front against them in that sense. So the West is most concerned about Iran’s policies at the regional and global levels, because we primarily question the existence of hegemony in the world, do not accept their dominance and rule in our region, and no longer want to be dependent on them and be their satellite. If we were to fulfill everything that suits them, we would be completely free and have everything we want. However, that was possible before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, but it is certainly not possible now. In the end, Iran does not have nuclear weapons because that goes against the basic principles of Iranian and Islamic doctrine, while America and Israel do have them, and in hundreds of warheads. So what are these double standards if they have them, why shouldn’t other countries be able to possess such weapons? We are against them being the masters of the whole world.
Given that Iran is a country of great national culture and tradition, do you think that the shifting balance of power from the West to the rising countries gathered around BRICS will guarantee the national and cultural identity and sovereignty of countries that want to resist the destruction of these civilizational values?
In fact, that is the equation. That is precisely why this shift in balance is happening, in order to preserve the national identities and value systems of individual countries. It is a collective effort of those countries that have long been under various forms of domination, and are now in the process of moving towards gaining their own position in the world. This is a serious reaction to the globalization we have been talking about, with the aim of defending our cultural, national, and civilizational values. One country alone cannot always be right, yet the collective West thinks that all of us must blindly accept it. Let each of us be our own master in our own land; no one needs the West as a boss.
Iran, like any other country, has numerous internal problems in this unstable time, and one of the more prominent issues is the frequent protests of women dissatisfied with religious restrictions, which have led to a crisis of international legitimacy for the government. How does your state defend itself against increasing external pressures and so-called “color revolutions”?
Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which was carried out on religious foundations with the support of the Iranian people, Iranian democracy is actually a religious democracy. This is a new experience that faces various challenges, but the majority of these challenges come from outside. The West does not want this experience to be successful, even though they say they respect the choice of the people. But this was the choice of our people because 98 percent of our people chose the Islamic Republic in the 1979 referendum. That percentage has not decreased even now, but we do not deny criticism and are ready to face it. As for women, it is a cultural phenomenon that we must resolve internally within our own state. Any external attempt to intervene in this challenge will provoke a counter-effect. In that case, the problem shifts from the cultural to the political domain, and reactions in that case can be harsh. We have witnessed such scenes in Iran, but our state has the capacity to resolve issues in a cultured and acceptable manner for all.
Your Excellency, the Serb people are very grateful to the Islamic Republic of Iran for not recognizing the so-called independent Kosovo! How do you assess the bilateral relations between our countries, and what would you propose in terms of improving the overall political, economic, and cultural relations between Iran and Serbia?
The relations between Iran and Serbia have a good history. There are no dark “spots” on these relations, and the atmosphere in our relations has always been positive. Our relations were excellent until the breakup of Yugoslavia. When the war began, there was a brief lull, but now our friendship is on the rise again, and at a great pace. The root of these good relations lies in similar positions, in the desire of both countries for an independent foreign policy. We have many similarities in culture, and there is no reason why we shouldn’t have them in all other areas as well.
The overall developments in recent years are proof of this claim. Regardless of all the events that others have imposed on us, nothing has hindered that friendship. Last year, the then-President of the Serbian Parliament, Mr. Orlić, visited Iran. A few months before that, the First Lady of Serbia, Tamara Vučić, visited our country. We also hold various political consultations, exchange delegations, and the value of our economic exchange has doubled compared to the previous year. Everything indicates that the future of our relations is bright and has a trend of development. Two recent events, the tragic death of President Raisi and then the inauguration of the new president, showed the best relationship between Serbia and Iran. Prime Minister Vučević and seven ministers of the Serbian Government signed the book of condolences, and immediately after the victory of the new president, President Vučić personally congratulated him by phone! We are soon expecting President Vučić’s visit to Iran, as well as the start of negotiations on signing a free trade agreement, which should be a major turning point in terms of exchange. All in all, we have a brilliant future ahead of us!
Finally, Mr. Ambassador, how do you feel in the Serbian capital, do you feel a change in the pace of life in Belgrade compared to Tehran, and are you satisfied with the hospitality of the Serbs?
After Germany, Russia, Ireland, the Czech Republic, and China, this is my last mission abroad before retiring. I must admit that in Serbia I have experienced the greatest sense of closeness, whether in approach to officials or ordinary people. I have not felt great nostalgia for Iran because I feel at home here, and so do all other Iranians in Serbia. The fact that your people feel the same way in Iran only confirms that we are very similar peoples in certain areas. I see no limitation for this to continue. When the EU imposed restrictions on Iran, Serbia did not follow suit, just as it did not join the Human Rights Resolution against Iran. And we are under enormous pressure because of Kosovo. Mutual understanding is the solid foundation of our future.
