🎥 Zarif: We are fighting each other over the definition of national interests; intellectual society needs a fundamental dialogue

🎥 Zarif: We are fighting each other over the definition of national interests; intellectual society needs a fundamental dialogue

Pointing to the lack of a common and native definition of national interests among political and academic elites, Zarif stated: We all constantly talk about national interests, but if two people sit next to one another and want to formulate its objective components, they reach a sustainable agreement. We started an earlier effort and invited professors and experts to explain this concept in detail; because there is still a dispute over this fundamental distinction, whether we are dealing with a single national interest or systems of national interests. Our intellectual and executive society desperately needs a thorough speaker to clarify what national interests precisely mean.

I told Kissinger, whenever America chooses between the government and the cause, Iran also chooses. Referring to the prevalence of deviant dualism in the country's intellectual and media circles, the former foreign minister stated: In my opinion, historical failures have taken over Iran, which are rooted in Henry Kissinger's famous thesis and have become the source of much of our suffering and misguided decisions; because theories and theoretical frameworks shape our objective methods and behaviors. This mistaken proposition was the claim that "Iran must finally choose between becoming a nation-state or remaining as an ideal and a goal."

Recalling his candid conversation with Kissinger, he added: In the final years of his life, at a meeting in New York, I told him directly that this statement of yours is a clear fallacy; because whenever the United States of America is ready to choose between being a "country" or an "ideal", Iran will also make such a choice. The existence of the ideal and adherence to identity principles are not the opposite of national interests, but rather one of the pillars of shaping and formulating national interests. We became more Catholic than the Pope and more realistic than Morgenthau; identity is the pillar of national interests.

Criticizing the false dichotomy between national interests and idealism in local circles, Zarif noted: The big mistake occurred when national interests were defined solely in opposition to idealism. This approach is the result of an overly harsh attitude; an approach that cannot even be called authentic realism.

The former foreign minister emphasized: Even Hans Morgenthau, who is known as the founder and father of the classical realism school in international relations, considers the preservation of "national and cultural identity" as one of the unchanging pillars of nations' national interests. However, unfortunately, in our intellectual sphere, the expressions "more Catholic than the Pope" and more realistic than Morgenthau himself have become more realistic, and by ignoring identity dimensions, they present a partial and caricatured concept of national interests.