Hassan Rouhani remarks exposes Iranian regime ‘crisis and deadlock’: Interview

NCRI - The Sunday’s remarks by Hassan Rouhani, has exposed the Iranian regime’s 'weakness and internal conflicts' in the clerical regime, Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the NCRI Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview.

Mr Mohaddessin's scathing assessment of the Iranian regime comes after Hassan Rouhani addressed the Iranian Economy Conference in Tehran on January 4.

Below is the full text of the English translation of the interview:

Q: Remarks by Hassan Rouhani, the president of the clerical dictatorship in Iran at a conference in Tehran has prompted analysis and various comments at both the national and international level, what is your view on that?

Mohammad Mohaddessin: Hassan Rouhani’s remarks offered a comprehensive picture of the crisis that the regime is engulfed in and the internal power struggle that has crippled the clerical regime. Once you carefully consider what is said and what is not being said in his speech, the regime’s fatal deadlock becomes evident.
Hassan Rouhani clearly acknowledges that after 16 months assuming the presidency not only has he been unable to solve any of the regime’s problems, but also none of the promises he made during the so-called “election period” have been realized and the situation has become more critical from every angle.

Of course, Rouhani who during the 35 year rule of the clerical regime, has been a part of the Iranian regime’s machinery of war, repression and killings, has never claimed he would improve the situation of human rights or social and political freedoms, and in this regard the situation has become worse in his tenure. His record of over 1200 executions since taking office is much higher than other regime appointed presidents over the past 25 years.

Rouhani claimed that he would resolve the problem of a dismal economy and the nuclear deadlock, and now in this speech, he admits that he has failed in both areas.

Question: So, in your view, referendum in this regime has no meaning?

Mohammad Mohaddessin: In Iran, only one referendum has meaning, a referendum to change the despised and worn regime of Velayat-e faqih and establish a pluralistic republic based on people’s votes, a referendum not in the framework of this regime, but under the supervision of the United Nations. Within the framework of the Velayat-e faqih regime neither election nor referendum has any meaning and will be used as tools for further repression and consolidation of the religious, fascist rule in Iran. If the regime stops torture and executions even for one day, the Iranian youth and women will dismantle its dictatorship. A referendum under the supervision of the UN would also mean the end of the regime.

Q: In your view, what could be the message of this speech to the international counterparts?

Mohammad Mohaddessin: I think Rouhani’s speech above all else, shows weakness of clerical regime and its severe internal conflicts, which take away any possibility of agreement or reform in the regime. At the same time, it shows that what brought the clerical regime to this point at the negotiating table was neither compromise nor concession, but a firm policy and no shortcomings regarding nuclear sanctions. If this policy continued with the same trend, it would have definitely been more effective in stopping the regime's nuclear program and in forcing the regime to abandon its ongoing nuclear bomb production program.

Q. So why has he resorted to the slogan of referendum?

Mohammad Mohaddessin: Look, the clerical regime is suffering from a crippling power struggle within. This power struggle reflects the impasse that the regime finds itself in and its confrontation with the people. As the economic crises flare up, this power struggle will exacerbate. This was the case when the Vienna nuclear talks failed. In this ongoing power struggle since one and a half years ago, Khamenei and his faction have increasingly attempted to limit the authority of the regime’s President Rouhani and turn him into a puppet that simply obeys orders.

In the realm of foreign policy he only makes the calls in minor matters. He even lacks the authority to shake hands with the U.S. President. In the nuclear negotiations all of the decisions are made by Khamenei with the government and the Foreign Ministry just carrying out his orders. Likewise, the Middle East policy is entirely in the hands of the Qods Force; Rouhani and his government just provide logistics for the atrocities of the Qods Force in Iraq and Syria.

Relatively, the only realm in which he was supposed to have the authority to make the decisions was the economy; and he is now saying that he even has no authority there. Examine what he says: “It is not that the Executive Branch is controlling everything; it isn’t even controlling the economy. There are also others who are active in the economy. Can the government make any decision with regard to the economy? There are places where we need legislation. We have to go to the parliament. Can we make the decision on the annual budget? It is the parliament that makes the final call. It is not even the parliament alone; the Guardians Council has to ratify. Thus the government, the parliament, the Guardians Council and the Judiciary they all need to cooperate with us.”

Thus, even the slogan of referendum is not a realistic policy for Rouhani since he knows all too well that such a thing is impossible under this regime. It is just a political maneuver against Khamenei’s faction in the hope of extracting concessions.

Q. What has been Rouhani’s achievement in the economy?

Rouhani himself has played the key role in creating this economic crisis. Look at next year’s budget (20 March 2015 to 20 March 2016) that Rouhani has presented to the parliament. While the oil income has been slashed by 45%, the official budget for the Revolutionary Guards has increased by 30%. The budget that has been officially allocated to countries such as Syria and Iraq is twice the budget allocated to all of the country’s universities with two million students. Set aside the fact that the true budget spent on Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq are never accounted for in country’s official budget.

You may argue that Rouhani does not determine these budgets. This is exactly the impasse of this regime and its inability to undergo any reform. If Rouhani wanted to live up to his slogan of moderation, then he should have told people the truth. He should have told them that this government has wasted the assets of the nation in wars and suppression, in Syria and Iraq and Yemen, and in the nuclear weapons program. He should come out and say that the tyranny, suppression and slaughter have caused a brain drain and also resulted in capital leaving the country. He should say that it is the regime of Velayat-e faqih that is causing all these problems. But talking about any of these would undermine him because he is part and parcel of this regime and part of the problem.

Q. So you are saying that referendum has no meaning in this regime?

Mohammad Mohaddessin: There is only one referendum in Iran that has any meaning and that is the referendum to change the ominous and worn out regime of Velayat-e faqih and to establish a pluralistic republic based on people’s votes; a referendum not in the framework of this regime, but a referendum by the United Nations. In the framework of the Velayat-e faqih regime neither elections nor referendums have any meaning. These are just tools for oppression and bolstering the dominion of the religious fascism.

This regime is even incapable of abandoning torture and execution for a single day since its tyrannical system will be overthrown by the Iranian youth and women, let alone acquiesce to a real referendum conducted under UN supervision.

Q. In your view, what may international parties surmise from these statements?

Mohammad Mohaddessin: In my view, this speech demonstrated the feebleness of the clerical regime and the extent of its internal schism that makes impossible any chance for a reform or agreement.

Meanwhile, this speech shows that up to this point, what has brought the clerical regime to the negotiating table and talks is not conciliation with this regime or offering concessions to it, but a resolute and firm policy regarding the sanctions. Had this policy continued, it would have surely been more effective in compelling the regime to forgo its nuclear program for production of the atomic bomb.
Naturally, going forward, it will be a policy of firmness that can contain regime’s nuclear threat and not a policy of appeasement and further concessions.