Iran

This text corresponds to a transcription of part of the above interview. Click on the video to watch the full interview.

Djamel Mazi: First of all, we learned on Thursday, April 9, about the negotiations between Israel and Lebanon that will take place in Washington next week. Benjamin Netanyahu calls for direct negotiations with Lebanon. How should we understand this? What does it mean? Is it an attempt to calm things down?

Maneli Mirkhan: It’s an attempt to separate the two issues. It has been the desire of the Americans and Israelis to separate the question of Hezbollah from the ceasefire issue with the Iranian regime. On the other hand, we also see the importance because the Iranians specifically want to link the two issues, and the first condition for a lasting ceasefire is to stop strikes on Lebanon. So, it is clear that this is a sensitive issue for both parties.

I think it’s a good approach to separate the two because, indeed, the armed wing of the Iranians against Israel has always been Hezbollah, and the Iranian issue cannot be addressed if the Hezbollah issue is sidelined. So, it’s a good thing to separate the two.

Anthony Bellanger: (…) It’s clearly a victory that is actually deceiving Iran. That means that Iran, for the past two days, had been insisting that the ceasefire should include Lebanon. Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently, had to speak with Donald Trump. Things got heated between the two capitals. He ultimately backed down and opened negotiations with Hezbollah. He probably decided to extend an olive branch oddly and requested direct discussions. It had never been seen before between Lebanon and Israel.

The second point that seems very important to me is the negotiations that will begin in Islamabad, Pakistan. Maybe we will come back later on the role of Pakistan in this matter. What I am trying to understand is that all observers around the world say that Iran has the upper hand. Iran has achieved it. Do you really think that Iran can obtain a lot from these negotiations?

I believe that Iran has the upper hand since the issue of the Strait of Hormuz surfaced in this conflict. Iran would not be in the same situation if the strait had not been blocked and if it had not shown the world that it used the Strait of Hormuz as an economic weapon.

Today, from my point of view, the Iranian nuclear issue and the Strait of Hormuz issue are on the same level, because both are meant to be a deterrent weapon for protecting Iran. So now that it can use the Strait of Hormuz issue to negotiate the rest a bit, indeed, it has a very strong position.

Click on the video to watch the full interview.