Rajab Safarov visited Iran scores of times being included into different Russian delegations, however, he gained a great notoriety in Iran of late when at his press-conference in RIA "Novosti" held in Moscow he spoke about USA secret plans concerning a change of regime in Iran. This allegation caused a great agitation in the Iranian society and drew attention to the origin - "Iran.ru" informational agency registered recently in Russia. However, a more detailed elucidation of the issue concentrated around Iran in "Hamshahri" Tehran newspaper didn't enjoy a unanimous appraisal in the circles dealing with the problems of Central Asia. "Varorud" newspaper and its site propose a variant of organized polemics being not devoid of sense in the opinion of the editorial-board, as the positions on this issue may be mostly variegated. Designing on this premise the editorial-board considers it to be wise to publish that part of interview with Rajab Safarov which relates to the problems of Iran, Central Asia and the attitude towards them on the part of two superpowers - Russia and the United States.
-What do you think about Ayatolla Mishab Yazdi's utterance commenting on the well-known allegation of Yours?
- At that press-conference I spoke about the new steps undertaken by Americans and pursuing the purpose of changing the power in Iran. It's no secret. You wrote about it not once yourselves. We condemn the actions of this sort. Not a single country has a right to plan any actions, adverse ones into the bargain, against another country, and, of course, no one can be entitled to the pronounced intentions of the type as "we want to change the leadership of this country". Such drives are incompatible with the international law, the very ethos of UNO and interstate relations. I delivered myself of a kind of supposition in order to make Russia exercise its influence upon America and make it give up such intentions. It was told that Americans had been already entertaining their designs in practice undertaking something. Evidently, the effectuation of the evolved programs might have poured already in some results in Iran. Further on, I remarked, insomuch as the major part of the Iranian leadership enjoy the positions liable to elective office and belong to those persons who are esteemed and trusted by the people, these high rank officials can't act contrary to the latter's will. Their resorting to collusion is impossible. However, as Americans allege, some militaries are more likely to undertake the actions of this sort and namely they should be exercised influence upon.
At that time we didn't speak about spies and corruptibility of Iranian politicians. We didn't say to have precise information. We said only that there are certain documents requiring thorough consideration. However, it was stated certainly that in their aspirations to change the power in Iran Americans had passed from words to deeds. I deem that Ayatolla Misbah Yazdi made his statements during Friday namaz in Tehran in order to caution the representatives of different Iranian authorities from reckless actions. However, it's quite possible that we expounded our ideas not in a quite proper manner.
- How can the interestedness of Central Asian countries in consolidation of their ties with America be accounted for?
- After the collapse of the USSR CIS countries confronted numerous difficulties. In the Soviet times the economic, political and social systems were based on the links with Russia and the republics were governed from the unified center. When these countries had gained independence they had to settle all their affairs self-sufficiently. The degree of their interdependence remained high. For example, a production of one automobile was preconditioned by close cooperation of 400-500 outfits located in different republics of the Soviet Union. After the latters had become independent and there appeared national currencies economic activity was violated. Commercial and economic cooperation practically stopped. Russia itself was faced with enormous hardships. It was unable to render a proper economic and political support to the newly-born states. Under these circumstances they threw themselves into the arms of the West and received, as a rule, insignificant, but, in some cases, effective help. In the outcome the influence of the Wes became rather tangible in CIS countries, especially in Central Asia. Russia was somehow disturbed with the intensified presence of Iran in these countries, as Iran collaboration with Central Asian Muslim states may lower the level of their interrelations with Russia. I am convinced: today's tendency of Central Asian states turning their face to America can't be permanent. Americans want to bribe them. On the other hand, the countries in question desire to ensure their security at the cost of American presence. We can take Saudi Arabia as an example. American presence is one of the factors of security for the governors of this country. Other states and political groupings couldn't have helped them. In Central Asia a similar situation can be observed. To my mind, when Putin had assumed a power of USA positions in Central Asia slackened to some extent in comparison with what they had been.
However, after the USA had started the war with terrorism Russia couldn't have helped taking part in it, thereupon it was unable to impede American arrival in Central Asia as the world might gather the impression that Russia were displeased that the war against terrorists was waged in Afghanistan. Now the USA wants to have their constant base there. But Putin stands for a certainly determined period of time in regard to American sojourn in Central Asia. It stands to reason that Russia can't be a strange observer of American presence in the region because by equality it is in the zone of its strategic interests.
I believe that Russia - and it will happen in the nearest time - will return to the region having hereby a clear-cut program of its actions and it won't permit the USA free sojourn in Central Asia. By the way, it responds to the interests of Iran as well.
- The existence of new Central Asian states is beset with hardships. Do they consider it necessary to collaborate with one another?
- After separation the countries of Central Asia could not have managed to provide a proper living standard for their peoples. I presume, their international ties should be much wider. They must lift customs bars to run free trade and to effectively carry out their economy programs. However, there are different laws in these countries and subsistence levels of their peoples are in great discrepancy. Russia exercises efforts to form a closer alliance with Central Asian states. For example, steps are undertaken for a formation of a financial-economic association. I am inclined to think that in the course of the nearest two-three years an alliance between these states will be created in this or that form and in the outcome the influence of Russia in Central Asian countries will be reinforced.
In the past there was a popular opinion that with the West coming all the problems of these countries might be settled. Now nobody sticks to this opinion any more. Years passed and the West confines itself only with words. Let us take Uzbekistan, for example. If Russia refuses to buy its cotton it won't manage to find another partner in the world market being equally imposing. Central Asian countries understood that it is better for them to cooperate with Russian and neighboring states than to rely on the West which not always comprehends their real plight.
- But shouldn't we apprehend of the situation analogical to the one which existed in the Soviet Union and which may be entailed by the further rapprochement of CIS countries with Russia?
- I don't think the USSR may regenerate. Something like the European Community in its remote variant may arise on the basis of economic cooperation, but not more. But even this comparison is not very proper. The Soviet Union has been already a part of history. The states gained independence and they won't give it up as liberty is a sweet fruit. Russia has no desire to take away this independence from these countries and there is no need in it for Russia itself. In Russia they got used to the fact that Central Asian countries form a kind of a symbolic frontier of their state. Here a wide scope of activity opens before Russia and Iran for close interaction though certain steps in the field of culture and religion still evoke a sort of anxiety with Russia as this factor makes the countries in question retire from it to a longer distance.
- At the last conference-meeting of Caspian states it was stressed that contradictions were removed and soon final concord might be attained. But one can gather the impression that everything goes differently. In what way does the situation shape now?
- You see, the issue concerned with the status of the Caspian Sea is one of the most complicated and confused political problems of contemporaneity. It seems to me that in so far as "the Caspian issue" is concerned, Russia and other Caspian countries admit a sort of injustice towards Iran. In the Soviet times the Caspian Sea was considered to belong both to the Soviet Union and Iran. No special agreement on division was ever signed as a similar situation associated with the USSR disintegration was improbable. According to logical equity everyone agreed that the sea was to be divided in 50%:50% proportion. However, when one of the parties quits a political arena and its place is taken by several other newly-born states all the problems should be in charge of this party; moreover, Russia assumed all the liabilities of the former Soviet Union. From the very beginning Iran should have moved a proposal that its 50% of acquatoria remained at its disposal and the newly formed countries might claim their share only within the frames of the rest 50% which had belonged to the former Soviet Union. Then seeing that the process of division is beset with grave difficulties and definition of state frontiers creates a good deal of problems Iran might forward a motion in a more sparing version. Tehran might assert that wishing to render aid to new independent Caspian states and to ensure peace and stability in the region it refused from its 50% proportion on a voluntary basis out of good will and proposed that the Caspian Sea were divided equally between all the states.
- At present a crucial crisis has arisen. Russia alleges that Iran takes an unconstructive position as 20% share doesn't respond to any logic. The divisional lines defined by the countries which signed the mentioned agreements don't afford to give Iran its 20% proportion. What is to be done in this situation?
- The proportion of Russia itself makes up a little bit more than 19%. The last conference-meeting of the working group in Moscow was of no effect. The next meting bound to be held in Ashkhabad hardly seems to be of any result as well. I think Iran may win an advantageous position if it does two things. Of course, one should bear in mind that Russia won't be able to annul the already signed bilateral agreements under any terms. So, what is to be undertaken in this case? Iran can begin negotiations with Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, for example, on announcing a zone of five or ten miles from either sides of its sea frontier in the acquatoria as a joint space, i.e. the latter might be used by both states. Neither Azerbaijan nor Turkmenistan have either technical or material availabilities of being present in this zone and utilizing its oil and gas deposits.
Iran seems to be able to unfold there an intensified activity.
- And can one be sure of Western countries not to come to this zone on the invitation of these states?
- Respective guarantees might be given on certain terms by Russia. It is influential enough to persuade Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to give a permission for any activity in the zone in question only to the state companies of their own. The second thing which is quite possible is a suggestion of Russia for Iran on its mostly active participation in international oil and gas projects in the Caspian Sea. In "Zarrit" joint company the share of Russia is equal to 50%.
Other countries have almost proportional shares. Under certain terms Russia is ready to transfer its share to Iran. Herewith Russia might cooperate with other states at the expense of the rest part, as 4-5% shares are adequate for other countries. At present Iran wants to have 20% proportion of the Caspian acquatoria defined by state frontiers. This may be of no sense at all. As sea resources are mostly important. If a law status of the Caspian Sea is qualified a necessity in bilateral agreements will, naturally , fall apart automatically.
- Western countries, and the USA first and foremost, exert pressure upon Russia caused by its collaboration with Iran in nuclear sphere. Up to what limits can Russia resist pressure on the part of Washington?
- Russia sustains a strong pressure on the part of the West caused by its collaboration with Iran in the field of power engineering, in particular, to the issue of AES construction in Busher. When great powers don't want independent states like Iran to implement its economy projects under the assistance of other countries they may use any pretexts to hinder it. In the given case the USA do its best to present the cooperation between Russia and Iran in power engineering as a precarious enterprise. The principle claims of the USA accounting for the pressure exerted upon Russia by the West lie in their assertions that the purposes pursued by the aid rendered by Russia are dubious. In its turn Russia considers this reasoning as groundless, it qualifies such allegations as a subterfuge resorted to by the West in order to supersede Russia from the Iranian market.
The tendency of electric power production at atomic electrostation is observed all over the world. It is both cheaper and safer. Western countries don't want Iran to do it, to express it more precisely, they don't with Iran to do it with the help of Russia. Therefore, they forward baseless accusations. In Russia they stick to the opinion that once leaving Iran they won't have been able to return there anew. It happened so in Central Asian countries. To some extent Russia retired from these countries, foreign states came there at once having stationed their bases. And Russia couldn't enjoy former influence already. When Russians had deserted Afghanistan they didn't manage to return there any more. But America, I am sure, won't ever leave it. These examples make Russia to display judiciousness.
Resisting the West Russia suffered losses to the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. Many programs beneficial for Russia were not implemented. It was excluded from some projects and was not invited to a number of others. Busher AES problem is a question of Russia's prestige and influence being of a political slant. The losses sustained by Russia through this cooperation exceed the profit from this project. However, Russia is not going to curtail the construction of Busher AES. Such a step would mean a loss of billions of dollars because it would lose the main thing - the trust of the whole world.
- Will Russia render resistance in case of potential armed action aimed at destruction of the electrostation?
- A probability of delivering a blow upon Busher AES on the part of the USA and Israel, for example, does exist. Russian experts suggested Moscow's ensurance of reliable antiair defense of the object before commissioning Busher AES into exploitation. Moscow answered that Tehran hadn't applied on that issue. I consider it would be reasonable for Iran to apply to Moscow with this request.
It is obvious that foreign troops, even American ones, can' t carry into effect a terrestrial invasion into Iran. Bringing American troops to the Iranian territory through Iraq is hardly probable as in this case Iraqi Shiites will come to the surface and the USA will lose Iraq for ever. A utilization of the territory of Azerbaijan for his purpose is hardly imaginable; firstly, Azerbaijan won't admit it out of the considerations of its own security; secondly, if such thing still happens fanatically patriotic one should bear in mind that Western and Eastern Azerbaijan reserved a special request to settle things with the Republic of Azerbaijan in this situation on a self-sufficient basis. Intrusion through Armenia is next to impossible because this country remains a strategic partner of Russia and it supports good-neighborly relations with Iran. Apart from it, Armenia is very far from USA and the West and its security is ensured with the help of Russia and Iran.
There remains Afghanistan. Khamid Karzay's power is purely symbolic and it is actually valid only in Kabul. In case American troops move along the territory of Afghanistan in the direction of Iran Talibs will descend from the mountainous again and the pro-American government of Karzay will be overthrown at once. And then Americans will be compelled to begin everything in Afghanistan from zero. And they have neither resources nor with for it.
Thus, delivering a blow upon AES from air remains as the only variant. Americans schemed to throw bombs upon Busher AES and nuclear objects in Natanz and Arak before their being commissioned. It wouldn't be called a war but pointed strikes upon concrete Iranian targets. Such actions will inflict tangible damage upon Iran, and Russia consequently, from economic and political angles. It seems to me that in this connection Tehran should appeal to Moscow with a request to create a reliable antiair defense of the objects in question on the most modern level. To my mind, Russia may agree with Iran on this occasion, for example, it can warn Israel that in case Tel-Aviv undertakes an armed action Russia would opt not to stay aside, insomuch as a drive of this kind of strike against Russia too being aimed at its economic interests in Iran. If Iran enters this motion Russia should give a weighty reasonable answer. It would be fairly logical
- The issue concerning power vehicles in Central Asia and their delivery to the world market seems to be rather important. The shortest way seems to lie through the territory of Iran, however, quite recently there commenced the construction of Baku-Djeikhan pipeline. What's your opinion on that score? Will an implementation of this project be proceeded? Or will they choose another road for deliveries, say, through Iran or Afghanistan?
- From the very beginning Russia didn't approve of Baku-Djeikhan pipeline construction. By means of that pipeline which is to be laid along several countries America intends to weaken the influence of Russia upon CIS countries, first of all. The project in question doesn't respond to any logic either from the point of view of security ensurance or from that one of technique and production. It is simply unprofitable. In order to achieve economic efficacy one would to pump monthly 50 million of raw petroleum. Russia is naturally concerned that power vehicles were conveyed through Iran. It is explicable from any point of view. I don't think such unreasonable projects would be proceeded.
- In the period when CIS countries were gaining independence there were a lot of talks about the struggle between Iran and Turkey for the influence in Central Asia. Did this struggle really take place and does it take place now? Has its feature changed?
- After the USSR collapse the struggle between these two countries was perceived too evidently because both of them wanted to extend their sway in the region. The West wished, of course, to pursue the purposes of its own with the help of Turkey. Being a Muslim state Turkey is a member of NATO; it won't breed impediments for the North-Atlantic bloc extension to the Orient. Apart from it, this country was always a reputed rival of Iran in the region.
The sway of Iran in Central Asian countries may extend only in the most natural way. In Tajikistan, for instance, they speak the language of the Iranian group. Iran might easily consolidate its influence in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. However, a part of the political leadership of these countries were displeased with the presence of Islamic states. In the rivalry between Iran and Turkey Russia took the side of Iran.
It wanted Iran to be present in Central Asian countries and render them aid in economy and culture, but not in religion. Being disturbed with the problem of its own Muslim peoples Russia didn't wish Iran to extend its religious activity, as in Moscow they supposed that it might complicate the situation in Russia itself. This disturbance retains.
- Some experts presume that the pressure exerted upon Iran in Central Asia on the part of America is related with its policy in reference to the Near Eastern problem. To what extent does it conform with reality?
- The USA constantly allege to Russia that one of the reasons accounting for instability in the Caucasus is the presence of Iran. The West persists to affirm that Iran collaborates with such radical groupings as "HAMAS", "Hezbolah" and etc. being reputed as extremistic ones in the West. And America proceeds with assertions of instability in the Caucasus generated by Moscow and Tehran collaboration. In response Russia retorts there are no proofs of it. When terroristic acts occur in Russia Iran condemns them openly being the first to express compassion and to offer help. The president of Iran was the first among the leaders of Islamic states who got in touch with the president of Russia and expressed his regret on the occasion of cruelty and lawlessness in the Caucasus. To my mind, such stance deserves the highest appraisal.
I suppose, the politics and plans of Iran concerned with the Near East are something more than its policy in Central Asia. Russia stands for Iran extending its collaboration with Central Asian states. In Iran they understand, of course, perfectly well that its presence in these countries is indissolubly linked with Russia's interests. Nonetheless, the policy conducted by Iran in the region doesn't respond to the interests of all the countries. Iran equips libraries, builds roads, allows credits and does many other things being of vital importance for these states.
- How do the political events inside Iran affect its policy in Central Asia?
- I am convinced that the Islamic revolution in Iran has been the important historic event of the XX-th century. It eventuated into the change of political philosophy in the World. There was created a really functioning model implemented in conformity with the laws of its own. But at the same time today differs from yesterday and the changes which have taken place must be obligatorily born in mind by the present leadership. 24 years have passed since the Iranian revolution. The government of president Khotami is considered as a reformative one both in the West and Russia. And the main thing is that these reforms are conducted without any revolutions.