IRAN'S NEW LEADERSHIP MAY 26, 1997 TRANSCRIPT

---

Iran has elected moderate Mohammad Khatami, a 54-year old cleric, as its new president by a landslide. Although it is unclear how much power Khatami will have once he takes over in August, the election was clearly a milestone. It was the freest and most competitive since the Iranian revolution 18 years ago. A background report is followed by a panel discussion.

---

A RealAudio version of this segment is available. May 26, 1997: A background report on the election of Iran's new leader Mohammad Khatami. January 30, 1997: The U.S. State Department's 20th annual survey of human rights practices in 193 nations. April 24, 1996: House Speaker Newt Gingrich appoints a special committee to look into the Clinton administration's role in arms shipments from Iran to Bosnia. March 13, 1996: Twenty-nine leaders arrive at the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh for a summit on ending terriorism in the Middle East. Browse the Online NewsHour's Middle East Index.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now for three perspectives. Stephen Fairbanks is a guest scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center. He's on sabbatical from the U.S. State Department, where he serves as the senior intelligence analyst for Iran. Shaul Bakash is a professor at George Mason University and a specialist on the politics and history of modern Iran. He's from Iran and has written numerous articles and books on the region, and Hooshang Amirahmadi is a professor and director of the Middle Eastern Studies program at Rutgers University. He too is Iranian and has written extensively on post revolutionary Iran and U.S.-Iran relations. Thank you all for being with us. Mr. Bakash, is this a vote for change, and, if so, what sort of change?

SHAUL BAKASH, George Mason University: Well, I think it's a stunning endorsement of the idea of change, and the change that Khatami, the victor, endorsed and spoke about was a lifting of restrictions in the social and cultural sphere, much greater attention to the needs of women and the youth, diversity of views in the political sphere, and perhaps even the easing up of your own foreign relations.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you agree, Mr. Fairbanks, that this is a vote for change, that that's what it means?

STEPHEN FAIRBANKS, Woodrow Wilson Center: Yes, I do. I think it was clear from the beginning when he first announced his candidacy, that Khatami had a greater sense of the frustrations of the Iranian people. He especially appealed to the young people, particularly in the universities, and to the women who've become increasingly important in the electorate there. There's been a lot of political activity this spring, talk about forming political parties, and Khatami's victory, I think is a symptom of a real need for change and a sense of the possibility of change there.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Amirahmadi, tell us what you think about the vote for change, and also free were these elections?

HOOSHANG AMIRAHMADI: Rutgers University: This is a truly landmark event and getting interest to the end. And its significance cannot be underestimated, and the elections of this sort are very rare in the Middle East and particularly are rare among the Arab allies of the United States; therefore, first we have to give the Iranians credit for what happened there as a result of the selection. Second, I just was in Iran a few months ago before the election--I spoke to many--the mood in Iran, as our previous speaker said, is for change.

And I believe that this election provides significant opportunity for it, as well as challenge. First, Mr. Khatami is a man who truly believes in reform. And, second, he has a strong popular mandate and has on his side influential individuals and organizations; however, he places tremendous challenge in the years ahead. First, he does not have a political organization of his own.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. I'm going to come back to the years ahead. Let me--just let me go on to ask you, Mr. Fairbanks, was this a free election and a fair election? There were a limited number of candidates, right, not everybody could run?

STEPHEN FAIRBANKS: That's true. I mean, I think there were four candidates out of some two hundred, more than two hundred that announced their names, but in any democracy there are limitations on who gets to run, as often been our experience here. Nevertheless, there was a clear difference between these two candidates not so much in the way they expressed it in any sort of campaign speeches, but I think there was a perception that Khatami really stood for change, and the fact that 90 some percent of the people voted, and that it was such an overwhelming vote for the man who was considered the underdog I really speaks for a real free election there.

HOOSHANG AMIRAHMADI: I may just say that this election was not about personality. In fact, this is the first election in the last 50 years, I believe, in Iran that was not personality but issues and issues were discussed and people did vote for issues, and, therefore, Khatami to them was not just a charismatic person; that he stood for issues that the people wanted.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Bakash, do you agree with Mr. Amirahmadi that this is the landmark event?

SHAUL BAKASH: I think, you know, it is an important event. The elections were limited to candidates of the ruling group.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: All clerics, right?

SHAUL BAKASH: Well, three clerics and four candidates, but all members of the ruling group, and what we really were seeing is a competition within the ruling elite. Secondly, I think it is significant that certain issues were not discussed at all or hardly, like foreign policy, or the role of the security agencies or the military budget. But, nevertheless, I would agree that this was a significant election with a significant choice for the candidates.

HOOSHANG AMIRAHMADI: I may just add here that the foreign policy, particularly U.S.-Iran relation, was brought up in a televised debate among the four candidates, and, in fact, Khatami was the only candidate who did not rule out a relationship with the U.S.. He basically said that our relations with other countries would be based on what he said, "wisdom, dignity, and expediency," and if this were to be--you know--in the process, Iran will be open.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Fairbanks, do you think that there will be any changes between the U.S. and Iran because of this?

STEPHEN FAIRBANKS: I think eventually changes are possible; in a rather oblique way, relations with the U.S. were brought up by the leader, himself, Mr. Kahmenei, who said the day before the elections that the Iranian people are going to vote for the person who will not compromise with the United States.

People understood that to be the favored, Mr. Natew-Nouri, and in fact, Khatami I think has made it pretty clear that he wants no further tensions with regional countries and with countries farther abroad. He has expressed his--the possibilities of relations eventually with the United States more in terms of that it's the U.S. that would need to adjust what he called a bullying attitude not in expressing in terms of Iranian position, so I think eventually there may be some possibilities--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Before we go on with this, excuse me one second, Mr. Bakash, just get one thing clear. How much power will he have, Mr. Khatami, on foreign policy that--he is under Ayatollah Kahmenei, who is in charge of--I mean, he is the head of state, right?

SHAUL BAKASH: Well, I think in a sense foreign policy is--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Explain how this works.

SHAUL BAKASH: --the special prerogative of the--of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Kahmenei, and--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And so we have it clear, Mr. Khatami is the head of the executive branch, right?

SHAUL BAKASH: Yes. Mr. Khatami would be the president and there is the role of leader who's the ultimate authority in Iran. And I think it's fair to say that foreign policy is an area in which the supreme leader has final say, as well as the National Security Council, which advises him on foreign policy issues. And, as Mr. Fairbanks has said, Mr. Kahmenei has already said that there should be no leniency towards the United States. I think, you know, the new president's room for maneuver on foreign policy clearly, you know, depends a lot on which way the supreme leader comes out on this issue, and there are other restraints in this area as well.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And restraints from President Clinton too, right? Go ahead, Mr. Amirahmadi.

HOOSHANG AMIRAHMADI: Well, in this country they have got used to only think in terms of leaders. Over the last 18 years we have forgotten that the Iranian people also speak out, and in this election, it is a clear indication of that voice. So from--in the years ahead or even months ahead yes, the supreme leader would want what he wants but I believe the Iranian people will increasingly assert the voice in domestic, as well as foreign, policy, while, however, what Mr. Khatami has to do is to get organized. Here is a man up in the air at this moment. He has no political organization of his own, and some of the votes at least were protest votes, not the popularity votes, and, therefore, he remains vulnerable to the conservatives in the parliament, as well as in the histories of Tehran, and, therefore, he would have to get organized, but at the same time I believe the U.S. government, as well as the Iranian government, must reduce rhetoric and bank on this opportunity. This is a window of opportunity, and we should not, of course, raise our expectations too high but gradual change is possible. And I believe that both nations are at some point ready for it.

Unfortunately, the level of information on Iran in this country remains very inefficient and insufficient. There is an information void. I suggest that the best way to approach the U.S.-Iran relation at this point is what I call people-to-people diplomacy. That is, the U.S. government could at least encourage delegations of private Americans in business and academe to go to Iran and see for themselves what actually is happening there. And I would believe a similar thing should happen in the other side.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Fairbanks, do you agree that this is--excuse me--just one second--I want to get Mr. Fairbanks' view on whether this is a window of opportunity and that it's time for some kind of a gesture on the part of the administration, whether it's people to people or whatever?

STEPHEN FAIRBANKS: I think not quite yet. I mean, it'll be a while before it really becomes clear in Tehran once we see how Mr. Khatami sets up his government; that there will remain issues that will be of concern to the United States, and it will take some time before we see--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I mean, terrorism is a fairly--or at least the charge of terrorism is a fairly serious issue.

STEPHEN FAIRBANKS: Terrorism absolutely, and the nuclear weapons issue, and there are others that will certainly remain concerned. But I think this situation now provides more of an opportunity I think for eventual dialogue on issues that concern us both, and there are a lot of issues that both the United States and Iran have mutual concerns over the situation in Iraq, for example, or Afghanistan, stability in the Persian Gulf and in Central Asia. These are all areas where both countries have mutual interests.

HOOSHANG AMIRAHMADI: That's a very important point. In fact, both--I have been telling the leaders in Iran and the American administration that the best way to approach their relationship is to take a long-term perspective of this relationship. The U.S. remains a very important and indispensable country for the well-being of Iran, particularly as economic and technological well-being. This must be understood in Tehran. At the same time, Iran sits in the midst of 2/3 of world's oil and gas, and is a strategically important country and U.S. must recognize that significance and--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Amir, excuse me one second. I want to get Mr. Bakash -- we only have a few seconds left. Do you have anything to add on this whole question of U.S.-Iranian relations before we go?

SHAUL BAKASH: Well, I think there is a small window of opportunity. The obstacles on both sides are really quite considerable, and, after all--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: There are laws that limit what the President can do.

SHAUL BAKASH: In this country. And, after all, President Rafsanjani came to power eight years ago with the intention of opening a dialogue with the U.S., and he didn't quite succeed. And I think this tells us there are obstacles on the Iranian side as well.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Well, thank you all very much for being with us.

REGIONS TOPICS RECENT PROGRAMS ABOUT US FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS:

Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.