For Iran’s Proud Hardliners, Cameron Remarks Kindle Old Colonial Ghosts

Even by the histrionic standards of Iranian political culture, the recent editorial by Kayhan editor Hossein Shariatmadari, addressed to President Hassan Rouhani, was excessively ripe. “Rubi’s heart is awash with blood,” Shariatmadari wrote, borrowing a line from a Hafez poem that relays deep anger and sorrow. The cause of his grief was British Prime Minister David Cameron’s UN General Assembly address in which he dared to criticize Iran for its role in fomenting violence in the Middle East.

In recent days Iran’s hardliners – an unworldly bunch unaccustomed or indifferent to realpolitik – have led a full-blown campaign demanding that Tehran walk away from its gradually improving relationship with the United Kingdom. They allege that Cameron’s remarks reveal a British hostility to Iran that cannot be overcome by diplomacy, and that Iran’s only real choice is to shun Britain permanently; how this might impact Iran’s decimated economy does not enter the debate.

Shariatmadari wrote that he expected Rouhani to deliver a crushing rebuke to Cameron in his own speech to the General Assembly, and noted with disappointment that the president failed to make this happen. The hardliner mouthpiece termed Cameron’s remarks insulting and rude, and added that Britain is America’s lapdog, beset by formidable economic problems and on the verge of dissolution. Cameron himself, Shariatmadari averred, is a ‘low life,’ and until he formally apologizes to the Iranian people, Iran should reject Britain’s presence on the P5+1 group negotiating team.

As is typical in the essentially coordinated world of Iranian hardline media, other outlets echoed Kayhan’s line. “The insulting and offensive remarks by David Cameron show clearly that the bullying and the interventionist approach of British statesmen towards Iran—which goes back more than a century—is still in force,” wrote Javan, affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards. And under the headline “Fox’s Punch” the newspaper Vatan-e Emrouz demanded that the Rouhani administration finally learn its lesson when dealing with Britain.

Equally, conservative politicians that back Rouhani and take a pragmatic approach towards nuclear negotiations adopted a piqued tone. “A scared child who shouts and sometimes curses” said Ali Larijani, the Speaker of Parliament, as he described Cameron. “A few days ago part of your country was about to secede. You no longer have an empire to order us around,” he said. “Why do you adopt such a tone?”

The hardliner media have also coined the term “Zarif-Gate”, which is in reference to recent statements made by Zarif in an interview at the American Council on Foreign Relations.  “Iran started a process with the aim of changing the foreign policy environment of the government in this country,” Zarif told Margaret Warner, chief foreign correspondent of PBS NewsHour. “Now if, in spite of our efforts to be accommodating, we fail, then the Iranian people have an opportunity to respond (...) when we have the next parliamentary election.”

“Last time around when we tried, we were accommodating to the international community in negotiating our nuclear and then our attempts at openness were rebuffed by the European Union and -- because the European Union was not doing this alone and somebody sitting in the White House and in the State Department prevented any agreement, like some people who now do not want to see any agreement, no matter what the parameters are, at that time, people basically rewarded us for our failure by electing a different type of president to office in Iran which went on for a good eight years and gave me early retirement,” he said to the laughter of the audience.

Back from the Dead

“So now that I'm back from the dead,” he continued. “It is important for us to be careful about the type of message the international community, and particularly the West, is sending to Iran, whether it be accommodating Iran, an attempt by Iran to be open, to be forward-looking, receive positive answers, a positive response, or whether it would be rebuffed again. And I think the Iranian people will respond to this over the ballot box.”

Hardliners felt these statements were undiplomatic and demonstrated what the government really intended. Two weeks ago, Ayatollah Jannati, chairman of the influential Guardian Council of the Constitution, quoted a government official who had allegedly said that once a nuclear agreement was reached, Rouhani supporters would focus on winning the next parliamentary election so they could release Green Movement leaders under house arrest.

Although government officials have yet to acknowledge the remarks, the episode is poignant in highlighting how deeply pessimistic hardliners are in regards to reaching a nuclear accord. And, what is more, Cameron and Zarif’s statements have done nothing but give hardliners another justification for not trusting the Iranian president.

Some MPs plan to question Zarif when he returns from New York and expressed doubts about reopening the British embassy in Tehran. And, though, a government spokesman recently said the British embassy could be opened without parliamentary approval, it would still put pressure on the cabinet thereby prolonging its closure.

While hardliners have negatively portrayed Rouhani’s trip to the UN, the reformist media has tried to give it a more positive spin. In a Shahrvand editorial, a government-owned newspaper, political analyst Sadegh Zibakalam wrote that Cameron’s statements were insignificant and intended for domestic consumption but an editorial in the Etemad newspaper wrote, “Rouhani and Cameron only spoke for a few minutes—it being the first meeting between the leaders of the two countries in 36 years—so you should expect mutual understanding and not that all our differences be resolved at once. After years of negotiations between Iran and the U.S. (...) there are still a mountain of differences over the nuclear program.”

While an editorial in the Iran newspaper criticized hardliners by saying they knew nothing about negotiations and diplomacy and sarcastically reminded its readers of what happened to former President Ahmadinejad when he went to New York. “Impartial observers remember how it was not long ago that during the annual sessions of the United Nations, European officials refused to meet him, his speeches got boycotted and [Iranian] diplomats were forced to take pictures with groups like the Ku Klux Clan rather than investors and other notable economic officials.”

Although these comments may bring back painful memories for Iranian hardliners, they will do little to curtail their frustration and anger at Rouhani and his government. Having tried and failed to find fault in Rouhani’s speech at the UN, hardliners have reverted back to one of their longest-held traditions: stressing and criticising the words of other international leaders.