Tehran: Massoumah Ebtekar has been very active in public and political life of Iran since she was a teenager. Throughout the years, her political thinking has changed considerably.

In 1979, she was the spokesperson of the student movement, which stormed the US embassy in Tehran. By 199, she became the first female Vice President in Iran.

Today, she is a prominent figure in the reformists' camp in her country. She is a well-educated politician, and an articulate woman who has been taking part in different conferences, and whose work in the environment field has been recognised internationally.

In an exclusive interview with Gulf News, Ebtekar spoke of different issues, including the “evolution'' of her political thinking and recent parliamentary elections.

Gulf News: If we go back to 1979, you took part in the student movement that stormed the US embassy, and later you decided to write down your memories from those days in a book. Why you wanted to keep these memories alive?

Massoumah Ebtekar: There was a message behind that event. That was an event that actually evolved from the aspirations of young Iranian students fearful that history would be repeated again and the Americans would undermine the Islamic Revolution. They were very fearful, and they decided to take this, not as an active revenge, not as active violence, but as a message to the world that the Islamic Revolution of Iran wishes to be independent, to stand on its feet, (and) to express the aspiration of the Iranian people, as this is a county with a very long history of colonialism and imperialism. We had monarchy for a very long time in the country; we had a very little opportunity for freedom, for democracy, for independence. And students felt if they don't take a very drastic action again Iran would be subject to a very difficult period of colonialism and would not be independent in the sense that Iranian people could decide for their future. The students took action for that reason. But it took longer than they expected initially. And it was not understood properly by the Western media, which immediately branded it as an active violence and active terrorism. They called the students militants, whereas students were intellectuals and many of them became leaders of the reform movement. They became reformists. I decided, and I always thought that getting the message across is more important: why did we do this, why did this happen and why have relations between Iran and the US taking such a bad course; and to explain exactly why this happened. So I wrote my memories.

I wrote it in English and for non-Iranian audience, because I thought the outside world is unfamiliar with the whole event. They don't know what happened. They have a very bad image of Iran. So, I wrote them, but the American publishers declined, they didn't publish it. Until I found a Canadian publisher, but that was when I was appointed as vice-president. And it was very difficult at that time, because as a government official, writing your memories about taking over the US embassy. I conferred with president (Mohammad) Khatami and others, and I told them this is an eye opener, this tells the world what we thought, and what we think, and why this action was done. So they all agreed that it would be a good idea, and the Canadian publisher published the book in Canada, simultaneously it was translated to Farsi, and it was also published in Tehran, and also a couple of months, we had an Arabic translation in Beirut, Dar Al Hadi, also published the Arabic translation of the book ... I still have a lot of reactions to the book after so many years. It was published in 2001.

It is now sold in the US?

It is sold in the US, I think. But the publisher is Canadian.

How do you explain this major shift in your political thinking between 1979 and 1997?

I think it is just a natural evolution of start of political theory. The Iranian students who took the American embassy, they had high aspirations for the Islamic Republic, and this was based on revolutionary ideals that Imam Khomeini had that what we need in Iran is an Islamic Republic, not an Islamic State.

That means we need the frame of Islam, but within the context of a democratic system, because no viable political system can evolve in the world without a democratic base.

So, we need that democratic base, and we also need the Islamic values and the Islamic teachings. The making of the Islamic Republic was a noble experience in itself, because we didn't had many political processes in the world that could integrate religion, and then Islam in its true sense, with democracy. So, the students believe in that at that time, they believe that in order to preserve this value, this ideal, we need to take over the American Embassy. Many of the students went to the academia; many of them went back to the US to continue their studies (smiles) ... some of them were martyred in the war (Iran-Iraq war). And many of them turned to politics. Majority of these students came back with a reformist approach, in order to preserve the ideas and values, the authentic ideas and values of Islam, of the revolution of the Imam, we need constant reform, and I think this is also part of our religious beliefs, as Muslims, that we need constantly to reform ourselves, we need to purify ourselves, our thoughts, our practices, otherwise, we will fall of course, we will lose the original direction. So the reform movement was based upon that understanding that if Islamic Republic distances itself from democratic values, we are going to lose our popular backing, and that means that the government after sometime, the state, is not going to be directly supported and connected with the people in the true sense of the word ... I think it is a natural evolution.
If we have to deal today with the United States, which is unfortunately still taking an arrogant stand towards Iran, we have to deal with it in a rational manner. And to be able to preserve our national interests and to be able to preserve our national integrity, our security.

Talking about the reformists and conservatives, I heard that their base is very big, and the results of the recent elections show that they managed only to win around one-third of the seats (so far. Many ordinary Iranians are saying the reformists lack unity, proper planning and collective work. What is your response?

I agree because the reformists are a wide spectrum of different groups. Actually, the coalition that we had in this elections (was) with about 30 different political parties. But they are common in the belief that they all believe in the agenda that President Khatami put forward. I think the thought, the paradigm of political evolution that Khatami put forward is the major (and) the common agenda for all the reformists. This is true. Although, we do have other groups who made a great mistake by not joining the coalition this time. It is very necessary for them to make a collective effort and to learn this lesson. I think this is a lesson for groups like, the group of (former parliament speaker Mahdi) Karoubi, who didn't join the coalition, they should learn from this lesson, and join efforts and all come together. The reformists should unite. I think this is an important slogan that the reformists should unite together. As you mentioned, we believe polls indicate that there is a huge popularity, particularly now that the conservative government had not been unable to deliver on issues like economy, inflation, and improvement of life, living standards or employment. The current government has been unable to deliver, it is very clear; there is no need to analyze these issues for ordinary people. They feel it every time they go shopping. How much they have to pay, or how much the rent is increasing, or anytime they need a job for the young people. So this is a clear indication there is a lot of resentment with the policies of the current government ... but unfortunately the election process in the first stage, the wide spread of disqualification of the reformists, then in the second stage, the unfair campaign that occurred, and in the third phase the counting of the votes, we think there were lot of discrepancies, there were lots of issues, in spite of all these difficulties (and ) very serious obstacles to the reformists, they won one-third of the seats. I think this is a clear indication of their strength and I think it is a clear indication of the fact that they are a liable political group in today's society. Another problem we have is that the voter turnout is not as high as expected in the large cities. The general voter turnout has been quite high, but the voter turnout in the large cities is no longer as much as we have expected, and most of the reformists' supporters come from the large cities, the educated, and elite. So that is also a challenge for the reformists and they realise they have to work harder, but it is a very difficult process.

A member of the conservative coalition actually denied that they excluded big numbers of the reformist candidates, and said only few famous faces of them, giving the number of 15, were excluded. What is your response?

That is totally untrue. The reason is that the major disqualifications that occurred in the first phase were very wide-spread. Many people lost their spirit of taking part in the election after the massive disqualifications in the first phase. Because yes, some of them were again qualified, but the process itself, it is a very expensive process in terms of the effects that it has on the mentality of both, the voters and the candidates. Being disqualified once, then again applying, protesting to that, and then again been disqualified and then again applying again, protesting, and then again finally being qualified a week before the elections, being qualified 48 hours before the elections. What does this mean? What could a candidate do? Preparations for the elections for the conservatives who knew they have the qualifications began couple months ago, may be even more. But for the reformists, who didn't know whether they will be ultimately be qualified or at least they thought they would be qualified and suddenly many of them were disqualified. So it made the process very difficult. Many reformists' figures in the provinces were totally excluded, they were disqualified and many of governors from president (Khatami's government), very successful governors...and popular among the people were excluded. Many of the reformists in smaller cities, not only the first reformists' candidates, but up to three to four layers of reformists' candidates were totally excluded. So this means that the number is much higher. There were many famous figures among them, yes, figures who were known as the friends of president Khatami ... it is much wider than only 15 people, and the reformists could only compete for I think a 120 or so seats. The rest of 290 seats, there was no competition. It was clear from the beginning that they conservatives will win there, because practically there were no other players in the game. It is one player game and one team-game.

Do you think the reformists will do better in next year's presidential elections?

I am sure that the reformists will do better. I think we have done better already in this parliament compared with the previous parliament. We have one-third of the seats now ... it seems the situation is better. In addition, the reality is that in this parliament there are a lot of conservatives coming in, who are also very critical of the current government. So, it seems there might be a new alignment in this parliament: supporters of the government, critiques of the government. And the supporters of the government are clear who they are. But among the conservatives, themselves, there will be a division, there has been already ... they had their own broad coalition of conservatives belong to those who did not support the policies of the current government.
A large number have entered the parliament. In many dimensions, particularly in economic issues, they will form a coalition with the reformists. And that would be a strong majority, and that is important, and that is different from the previous parliament. There is a lot of reason for hope. I think we will have a multi political parliament with different political trends in the parliament and this is by itself is a good news. It is not the best. It is not what we expected. But I think there is a lot of reason for hope, in particular, we understand the widespread of the support that exist for the reformists and particularly for the presidential elections, but we are just hoping that a figure like Khatami himself would come again to the scene and would create the necessary favour for them to come back to the political scene.

During all these developments, how do you envision the political relations with the US in the future, and do you fear the US would take a military action against Iran because of its nuclear program?

I think that the nuclear issue is taking its course in the form of the sanctions unfortunately. Iran is always very strong in its position that the nuclear issue is peaceful issue, it is for peaceful energy purposes, and I think that the world hasn't taken a correct course on that issue with Iran. Iran is not a major threat in the region, and the US is a major reason why that sanction was taken against Iran. Otherwise, other countries, European countries, were very reluctant. The reason is that they see the reality of Iran, as an emerging energy player, emerging political player, the influence that Iran has in the politics of this region, it is very clear. I doubt seriously that people, even the neo-con ideologies in Washington would make such a drastic mistake to think about a military attack on Iran, because as I mentioned the influence that Iran has in the region. Take for example, the influence in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon, in Palestine, in many other countries in the region, and in dealings that Iran has with the countries in the Gulf the Asian countries. Iran is a major player in the region and it is very different from Afghanistan, very different from Iraq's Saddam. I think that the military option is only a threat; it is not a serious card that they are playing. Because I think the resignation of Admiral Fallon was a clear indication of the fact that it is not possible at this time.

But do you see yourself or any other Iranian official sitting with an American official talking?

I think this is the logical, rational approach today. We need to revisit the previous policies that existed. The Americans need to change their rhetoric. They need to change their arrogant attitude they always had towards Iran. They need to realize Iran is a major player, to appreciate Iran's major influence in the region, and to come to the negotiation table with Iran, try to find the commonalities, the common interest that we may have in the region. I am sure that there are many issues on which Iran and the United States could work together. Iraq is one issue, Afghanistan is another issue, and energy is another issue. The two countries could work for peace and prosperity in this region. They could work together against terrorism, against drugs trafficking, against many of the issues that we have common positions on. So I think that it is very necessary for the Americans to rethink their policies, to realise that they have not been advancing. And moreover, I think is very important (for the Americans to realise) that their pressures, interfering in Iranian politics, the sanctions, the economic pressures, this has not been helpful for the democratic process in Iran, as well. Because anytime that we have these pressures, pressures on the democratic process has been brought, and ultimately, the reformists had suffered.

This is an ongoing issue, I think that the US doesn't like the reformists come to power in Iran, because in that case they don't have any pretext for continuing this ongoing confrontation. Now we have a pretext for a confrontation with Iran, but once reformists would come to power, there would be no reason for them to continue with this rhetoric, with this constant threat of a military attack. The reformists would have taken that card from, that opportunity from them. But unfortunately, they are a minority, they can speak loud, explain the situation for the people and the world, but just also hope for the better in terms of relations between the US and Iran.

And the upcoming presidential elections would bring a president in power in the US that would be able to deal with Iran on a more rational bases than the current president because I think that the wording that Bush used in putting Iran in the axis of evil, this brought a major blow to the reform, moderates of Iran. I think they did it intentionally, they realized that this would give Iran more credibility at the international level, and they somehow took a decision that put Iran in a more radical position.

Do you think the image of Iranian women is somehow distorted outside Iran?

I think it is distorted very much along with the general image which Iran has, because Iranian women are very visible. You see, as a reporter, I am sure you have seen them in different social, economic and different spheres of life. (They are ) very active, (and) now more and more educated. That doesn't mean they don't have challenges. They still have a lot of challenges, they still have a lot of legal modifications that could be made on the bases of the sharia (Islamic laws) ... there is a lot of opportunities that are not also given to women. Particularly this government, the conservatives, they don't believe in the social and political role that women could play in bringing about positive changes. They tend to more or less believe in the necessities of coning woman to her home and her family. This is what they ultimately aspire.

And the other reason for them is that they think upbringing their children and educating future generations is more important than taking part in politics and social development. The reformists believe genuinely and they give the opportunity, Khatami, for women to sit in the cabinet for the first time, and this is still going on, we still have a woman now in the cabinet.

So and many women at the time of President Khatami came to decision-making circles, committees, as managers, as executive directors. But now we are facing a set back in that context. That those opportunities are no longer given to women like before, while the current administration and people behind it don't believe essentially in the power that women could bring about for the society and the political and social development of the country.

By Jumana Al Tamimi, Gulf and Middle East Editor

Articles from the author

No change without democracy says reformist