>> Joining us now is Negar Mortazavi who is
a diplomatic correspondent for the Independent.
I actually learned about you by watching Democracy
Now!
And I'm grateful that you took the time to
join us today.
Thank you Negar.
>> My pleasure, thanks for having me.
>> So, I wanted to kinda get your thoughts
on how Donald Trump handled his speech today.
Because there was a lot of fear and a lot
of anxiety that the United States would respond
to Iran's missile attacks against US bases
with more aggression.
But it seems like he's backing down, at least
that's my read of it.
But I wanted to get your take.
>> I agree with you.
It seems like we won't see an escalation today
or an imminent war, at least for now, because
of the way I believe the retaliation was designed
by Iran.
It seems like they made it precisely in a
way or even tipped off Iraqi forces to make
sure there will be no casualties.
And we see that there are no casualties, American
or others.
But then, basically use this as a warning
going to Tehran to show the US the Iranians
have been saying, either Iranians experts
are also telling me that they are capable
and willing to attack American bases from
Iranian soil.
Publicly, they're not going to hide behind
other forces or proxies.
They're going to do this and stand behind
it.
And I think the way it was designed with no
casualty, basically, the red line that President
Trump he drew over the summer as well, with
that no casualty, they've offered an exit
route out of this situation, which everyone
was really worried that might escalate.
And they offered this exit ramp, and President
Trump took it.
Basically, without that casualty, it seem
like it was a one off, an attack for an attack,
but not blood for blood.
>> Mm-hm.
>> But also Iranians see this as a deterrence.
>> So, Ayatollah Khamenei said something about
how, look, this is retaliation, but this isn't
nearly enough, he somewhat implied that there's
more coming.
And I wanted to get your thoughts on that,
because often times you hear a lot of tough
talk in order to deter any other, or further,
aggression.
But there's a lot of frustration and anger
about US provocation.
It's not as though what happened to Soleimani
was the only provocation.
This has been happening under the Trump administration
from the moment he pulled out of that Iran
nuclear deal.
So, what are your thoughts about further retaliation
from Iran?
>> So, we have to remember this proxy war
between Iran and the US has been ongoing.
And that is not going to stop.
That is going to continue, this is not a cease
fire to do that.
But the retaliation for targeting Qasem Soleimani
which Iranians really saw or portrayed as
an act of war and massive aggression that
they were shocked.
Nobody expected that to actually happen by
the U.S, basically assassinating a foreign
official on another country's soil.
It came as a big surprise, and the Iranian
hardliner, who's a supreme leader also, had
been vowing severe retaliation for that.
At the same time, there is the sense among
Iran experts, at least that I'm talking about
that, if Iran didn't respond at all today
in like this big show of retaliation, something
flashy they can play on TV over and over again.
If they didn't do this deterrence, then it
would mean that attacking them, this type
of major aggression will have no cause.
So there's obviously a camp here in Washington
that thinks attacking Iran, even invading
Iran or bombing Iran is not going to have
any cause cuz the US military is so big and
mighty.
And it seemed like the Iranian wanted to show
that the cost of that is going to be severe.
And like I said, they're willing and capable,
maybe they're not capable of hitting the White
House or anyone here in Washington of course.
But at least they're capable and willing to
attack U.S. bases in their region.
But then at the same time, not willing to
start a full-on, classic war with the US.
That's why they offered the exit ramp that
I was talking about.
>> So, I'm glad we talked about what's happening,
currently, but it's also important to understand
how the United States got to this situation
with Iran, in the first place.
I feel as though the way the media has covered
US-Iranian relations has been incredibly shallow
and surface level.
Because in order to really understand it,
you need to look into the history of US-Iranian
relations.
And so, you had a great tweet that I wanted
to draw a little attention to.
You wrote, every American has heard of the
hostage crisis in Iran.
But most have never heard that a few years
later our navy killed 290 Iranian civilians
including 66 children.
Both sides have a long list of grievances
against each other.
This fight is not one sided and of course
there was a US-orchestrated coup in, I believe,
1953 that over threw the democratically elected
Prime Minister of Iran.
And so, I was hoping that you could maybe
talk a little bit about why Iran feels such
hostility toward the United States in the
first place.
>> Sure, so, the anti-American sentiment in
Iran didn't come out of war or it's not because
Iranians are Muslims or they hate the West
or freedom or anything like that.
Like you said, we have to go back and look
at, at least recent history.
So the U.S orchestrated a coup against Iran,
was just in the 1950s, just over less than
a century ago, and that's a vivid memory in
the Iranian psyche.
Basically the understanding is that there's
this other country that's powerful and mighty,
country that can always undermine our governance,
our regime or a democratically elected official.
At the same time, there's been this list of
events that untie, about a civilian airline,
a major one of them that is also something
that many Iranians still see as an unresolved
problem with the U.S.
But many Americans don't even know about it.
I talked to some of my friends and colleagues
and some of them have actually never heard
about it.
Whereas an event and agreements on the US
side something like the hostage crisis, attacks
by Iranian proxies, Iranian Revolutionary
Guards having US blood on their hand.
All of that as something that's over and over
repeated in the US, and specifically with
this administration, it seems like officials
are trying to portray this as a completely
one-sided, 40-year war of escalation.
And I think it was per say, it's been Iran
who's been escalating and escalating against
the United States in the past 40 years.
And that's just not how it's played out.
>> So, I wanna look to the future and the
possibility of actual peace among the United
States and Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.
And so, I know in my mind, who the best leader
in the United States would be in order to
handle these types of foreign policy issues.
I wanted to get your thoughts on it.
Now, ideally after 2020, Donald Trump would
not be the leader of one of the most powerful
countries in the world.
But out of the Democratic candidates, out
of the options that we have available based
on your read and your expertise, who do you
believe would handle the situation with Iran
appropriately to de-escalate the situation?
Well, I'm not going to endorse any candidates
or tell people how to vote.
But out of all the Democratic candidates,
I think the foreign policy agenda in general,
and specifically the Iran file of the Bernie
Sanders team has been the most extensive and
the most informed.
Bernie Sanders is the only person who talks
about the 1953 coup.
Bernie Sanders is the only person who talks
about Iran's Prime Minister, Mousavi.
Bernie Sanders is the only one who talks about
how this form of escalation is just not going
to lead anywhere.
He's someone who opposed the invasion of Iraq,
and now makes clear comparisons to Iran.
Of course others like Elizabeth Warren and
other progressives have had similar, have
made similar good comments.
But I think as far as the extent of it and
the grasp and the understanding of a foreign
policy, it's been the camp of Bernie Sanders
that''s been most consistent and not afraid
of taking a position that sometimes is not
necessarily very popular.
>> Yep, well, that's certainly something Bernie
Sanders is known for throughout his political
career.
Negar, thank you so much for taking the time
to speak to us.
I appreciate your expertise and I hope you'll
come back soon.
>> My pleasure, thanks for having me.
