 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we have with us Professor Ajaz Ahmad and we will discuss the non-aligned meat that took place in Tehran recently, particularly what happened vis-a-vis Iran. Ajaz, it is very clear that the kind of isolation that the United States and the West sought to impose in Iran did not happen in the non-aligned meat. 120 countries attended, a lot of heads of states went there and even the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon attended when he was told not to by the US. Do you think it is a temporary victory for Iran? Well, I hope it is not temporary of its kind, yes. But Iran is now going to be in this position in the non-aligned movement for the next four years. It is going to be chairing the non-aligned movement and it is very interesting that he has taken it, I mean Iran has taken it over directly from Egypt. What I was thinking very interestingly, Pravir is, what is now non-aligned movement? Because the atmosphere in which it was born in terms of two great powers and two systems of capitalism and socialism and so on and so forth, all of that is gone. So what you then have is that except for a small handful of countries which are not aligned with the United States, all the countries are aligned with the United States. So conceptually, non-aligned movement has become a forum for the assertion of the rising powers in, call it third world, call it tri-continent or whatever and whatever margin of autonomy people can assert in relation to the United States. So that is what it has really come down to and this was in that sense a show of autonomy. Iran is one of the very few countries, there are three or four in Latin America, you know, which are not aligned with the United States. And for all of these countries which are aligned with the United States to stand up there and assert that one fundamental right that the United States and under the pressure of the United States, even the Security Council in a certain sense is trying to deny Iran. They affirmed it resoundingly. So it is certainly solidarity with Iran but it is also a certain sort of assertion of autonomy that beyond a certain point. The dictator of the United States will not allow. Yeah and the same thing is with Ban Ki-moon. He is an American, you know, messenger boy basically. But given the power of the governments, which are the governments of about two-thirds of the planet, it would have been extremely awkward for him to fall under the pressure of the very people who have got him appointed to the position that he holds. So even he had to in his mousy way sort of defy the United States. It is a very important point that what does NAMM represent today. But you know, one of the core points of NAMM was not neutrality between the two blocks but it was decolonization. That is really what brought the NAMM together. And do you think that the fact there is a recolonization that is being attempted is one of the reasons that this assertion is being in a certain sense. But I think it is much more the slow unraveling of U.S. power, the gradual sort of rise of a number of other countries in the game of global capitalism within itself. The weakening of the hegemony of the United States post-1991. Yes. And well, certainly, I mean, increasingly so as the, you know, I mean, 40% of the world's product now comes from East Asia. I mean, it's just as simple as that. So the U.S. can be hegemonic in all kinds of ways supported by its militaries, it's the largest economy in the world and so on. But this is slow unraveling of all that. And it is really in relation to that. This I see in relation to a number of countries, Brazil, India, among others, making a kind of a coalition for membership in the Security Council. It is that kind of assertion of autonomy. The very countries that are very closely aligned with the United States and yet are saying that global governance cannot be left to or who want IMF reforms and so on. So it is part of all of that sort of institutional remaking of the world slowly and gradually. You know, NAMM had almost faded out for about 20 years, 20, 25 years. So this is in some sense a comeback. And it's also interesting that a lot of the Western commentators have said that don't write off NAMM, don't dismiss it like you used to do earlier. NAMM still exists and it's something that's accounted for. That's right. I mean, the general impression was that G20, G whatever, Group of 77 and so on had taken over and NAMM was over. Now, part of it, I think, is just the fact that just procedurally at this historic juncture, Iran took over the presidency. Historically, they came at the point because you have U.S. trying to isolate. So at this point, you all congregate in that. You either say, no, we are not going to congregate. You say, no, Iran cannot become the etc. Either Iran's very idea of Iran cherry NAMM and holding this meeting in Tehran, either you challenge that. Again, I think other things related to it. I think a number of countries, India included, I think, are hurting with the U.S. sanctions against Iran. We want to import that oil. We have said we will abide by the sanctions. What does that mean? We are going to find other ways. We will reduce the imports. Turkey is paid for 58 tons of gold, has gone from Turkey to Iran to pay for oil in the last four months. So it's some of that that you can't isolate Iran in that way. And that's part of what I think is happening there. That's, of course, visible in what happened with the resolutions moved over there, particularly the one in which the countries are certain that Iran has a right to the complete fuel cycle, which is what is being contested in the UN Security Council. So do you see that as a huge victory for Iran? It is a huge victory, but let me add a footnote to it. You know, if you look at it over the last 10 or 12 years, Iran started by making remarkable concessions. At one point in the late 90s, it offered to cap its enrichment at 5%. At one point, it said, we will just transfer all our uranium out and you give us that. At that point, countries like China became quite worried that Iran was giving up on its rights under the NPT. So defense of those rights under NPT, it's not only a question that involves Iran. It involves any number of countries, this right to enrich. So any number of countries are also saying that if Iran cannot have this right, then in principle, no one has this right. Then this right has to be given all over again by the Security Council United Nations, something of that kind. This is always a crux of the issue that under NPT, Iran has a right to fuel cycle. And if you want Iran to give up that right, that has to be done mutually. It cannot be done as a breakdown. That's right. And any number of these countries say, well, tomorrow they might do this to me. So since Iran does have that right by treaty, we affirm. So it's certainly an act of solidarity with Iran, but it's also an act of self-preservation. Do you think this is going to have any repercussions as far the UN Security Council sanctions are concerned? Is it going to make a difference into the regime that is now in place to the security council? I don't believe that at all. That is a strategic decision that the United States and EU has made together. Precisely at the time when this is happening, Canada has withdrawn its ambassador and dismantled its embassy in Iran and declared the Iranian diplomat's persona non grata. Precisely at the time when this is happening, Canada has gone much further than anyone else. But this is a strategic position that the Western countries have taken. It's also interesting that both the United States military as well as Israel, the security apparatus over there, do not want a military strike on Iran. So given that, do you think the danger of war has receded or do you think after the elections in the United States the danger has come back? I have never believed that there was any danger of war. I think it was rhetorical and finally Dempsey speaking for Obama basically and the US chief of staff has just put an end to it. And the interesting thing is that Hayden, who is the former chief of the CIA and who is one of the key advisors for Romney, has repeated what Dempsey said. So it's a bipartisan position. And this is also one of the security apparatus in Israel is saying that you cannot have a strike on Iran. You see that rhetoric was getting completely out of hand. And Israel, whatever it is in other respects, is also among that elite that rules Israel, a very peculiar country that serving heads of the intelligence agencies and armed forces can issue statements of that kind and all that. I never believed that there was any chance of a war, of a strike. I always believed that this was a bargaining chip with the United States. And Obama kept giving Israel more and more. And finally at some point, they just put their foot down to shut him up. And I personally believe that it may well be that those key figures of the past and present Israeli establishment did it with the US law. As when we look at Syria, Iran did not successfully get its position on Syria through the NAMM. In fact, it appeared that Syria was isolated and most countries used to back it. So do you think that on that count Iran has lost in the NAMM? I think that we should look at the positive things that have happened in the NAMM and be happy for the rest. NAMM is right now, as I said, the Coalition of Pro-American Forces. If you have Qatar and Saudi Arabia and all of that, whether technically members of NAAD and Turkey and all of them there, and all the US pressure and all that, what else do you expect on Syria? Iran is isolated on the issue of Syria and that isolation came out. In fact, it could have come out worse except that the meeting was happening in Iran. So I think there was some restraint. Otherwise, it could have come out worse. Iran did not press the Syria issue when it found it was not. I think there had been diplomatic consultations all over the place and Iran knew how isolated it was. Just before NAMM, there was a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Countries and there the Saudis and the Qataris had been quite ugly and Iran had sent very high level, the highest level delegation possible. All the high officials were there and my own sense is that that laid the groundwork for this kind of thing at NAMM. NAMM also asserted the right of Palestinians for their own country. That, of course, it always has. Again, will it make any difference on the ground or it is just one of the rhetorical positions that NAMM has taken the path? I don't think NAMM positions make that much of a difference because Iran is an absolutely burning issue and so is Syria. These kind of things matter. Otherwise, the rest are routine positions. So on the whole, NAMM reassertion of, shall we say, emerging powers in what you said, the third world countries coming together, giving it some kind of new life again. Reassertion of Iran's right to the nuclear fuel cycle. These are the positives. Negatives are on other issues. It continues pretty much as it was. And in this day and age of, you know, I mean, U.S., Japan is getting eroded in the long wave. But in the immediate sense, it's a gathering of people who are completely annoying. U.S. still remains the most dominant military power on the earth, military and also economic. Thank you, Ajaz, for coming to NewsClick and discussing with us what is a very important landmark revival, hopefully of NAMM, as an important player on the global arena, if not in its past form, but at least in a new form. Thank you very much. Great pleasure.