Ms Kulsoom Belal (Junior Research Officer IPS) opened the session by welcoming the participants of the

roundtable and more particularly the delegation from the Institute of International and Political Studies (IPIS)
Tehran. The session started with recitation of the verses of the Holy Quran.
Dr. Kazem Sajjadpour, DG IPIS was the key speaker while Dr. Azhar Ahmad, Senior IPS Associate and Dean
Faculty of Social Sciences, Bahria University Islamabad moderated the session. Keynote statement of Dr.
Sajjadpour was followed by an interactive discussion after which Khalid Rahman DG IPS shared his remarks.
The proceedings went on as follows:
Dr. Azhar Ahmad: On behalf of IPS, it is indeed a great pleasure and privilege for me to
welcome Mr. Kazem Sajjadpour and his team and everyone who is present in this very select
gathering of scholars, opinion makers and opinion affecters.
We are in a very delicate and dynamic environment nowadays. A very serious geopolitical shift
is taking place. The balance of power is shifting from the west to the east, and not only the
geopolitics but geo-economics is also on the move. Both Pakistan and Iran are geographically
centered in this game. I always say, whatever happens in this region will determine the direction and contours of
this shift. ‘Is it going to be a smooth transition of balance of power or will there be more hiccups?’ is the question
that are bothering every thinking mind.

[1]
With this background in view, I will not take much time because everybody is anxious to listen to Professor
Sajjadpour who himself is a political science scholar and has the honor of serving as the ambassador of Iran to
Geneva and is also deputy to the Foreign Minister of Iran.
Dr. Kazem Sajjadpour: It is a pleasure for me to be here. I thank IPS, and the Executive
President Khalid Rehman. I don’t know how to express my feelings when I am in Pakistan,
especially when I am in this Institute. It is about so much friendship and so much emotions.
Let’s be clear. Life is not just about calculations, life is also about emotions. I am happy to be
here.
Since you know about my mixed background of scholarship and diplomacy, I usually start
with a joke which means that whatever I say, I say on my own and it’s not official because officially you cannot
talk more than yes or no. We need to be more detailed. I don’t have much hair but have two hats, the academic
hat and diplomatic hat. In order to say I am using my academic hat, I usually start with a joke.
Someone asked: “What is the difference between a camel and an ambassador?” And the response was: “A camel
can work for a month and not need to drink while an ambassador can drink for a month and do nothing!” [laughs]
With this detaching not, I would like to talk about a triangle — Iran, Pakistan and existing International Politics
— how this relationship can be understood or how the dynamics can be analyzed. Very quickly I would like to
go to ABC to offer a package of concepts on this issue.
My ‘A’ is accumulated and contested interaction. In order to understand Iran, Pakistan and international politics,
we have accumulated a set of factors and issues at global level which we have to look at. We have a diversity of
actors at the global level, which means international politics is no more exclusive zone of major powers.
International politics has evolved to that level where every actor matters. So, equating international politics to
one global power or one factor is erroneous. Individuals are now actors of international politics. Look at Snowden
of WikiLeaks, for example.
Something that is more important for the relationship of Iran and Pakistan is that the new international system
has opened up — due to evolution and not by design — creating more space for regional players. Regional players
matter today more than ever in the history of the international politics, and both Iran and Pakistan are genuine
regional players. That means that our surroundings cannot be managed and the issues cannot be solved without
taking into consideration the role and interests of Iran and Pakistan. It cannot be that the decision is taken in
Washington or Moscow and the issue will be fixed. That era has passed. Nobody can ignore Tehran or Islamabad
in this region anymore but accepting this nuanced fact is not easy to digest for some in our region, and the thinking
of everything still being done by the great powers seems to prevail.
When I talk of accumulated problems, we definitely have American issue. We have the President of America who
thinks that the only actor globally is US and the others should be trashed out. I think he is wrong and his approach
is problematic. I don’t mean that the US is not powerful but I think, the US cannot set the rules for everybody
including Iran and Pakistan. I know Pakistan has been an ally of US but does it mean they can dictate to you? No.
Can they say what they think is right and Iran should follow it? I think it’s wrong.
Trump would be problematic locally as well because he is transforming American domestic politics, American
foreign policy but the fundamental issue with him is that he cannot digest that the US is not the only global player.
Of course, in this accumulated concept, we have competition of everything including the competition on different
narratives. So, my first point is that global interaction is not by intention but rather by evolution that has resulted
in more space for Iran and Pakistan.
Now my point B is about ‘the building blocks’ in our policy towards the region, and Iranian and Pakistani
contribution to the region. What are the components of our regional and global participation and contribution? I
think geography is very important. Geography is the first building block of every global geopolitics. And
geopolitics cannot be changed overnight. Can West Asia be imagined without Iran or without Pakistan?

[2]
The assumptions need to be identified and deconstructed. There are assumptions on Iran which negate geopolitics.
For example, have you heard of pushback policy, suggesting that Iran should be pushed back in the region? Is it
that Iran is over stretching in the region?
We are part of the region geographically. We have 15 neighbors. We are neighboring with 5 different regions.
Iran is neighboring the Indian subcontinent through Pakistan, Central Asia, Caucasia, East Mediterranean, and
the Arab world. It may not be part of all decisions but cannot be detached from the region. It is a matter of
geopolitics. Can we imagine West Asia without Pakistan? Can we imagine a solution for Afghanistan without
Pakistan? Or the subcontinent without Pakistan? This is why building blocks is geopolitics. I think the
assumptions which ignore this fact need to be negated.
The second building block is our achievements; individually and collectively, that Iran in its 40 years of revolution
and Pakistan in its 70 years of independence have achieved. Pakistan has over the years achieved development,
and nuclear technology that cannot be ignored.
Can we ignore the civilizational cultural component on the Iranian side? The fact that Iran is standing on its very
own with confidence achieved by the Revolution which is reflected in Iran on being a player for providing security
to itself as well as the region. I call this a building block.
Furthermore, there is another building block which is ‘decisions’. It’s not just geopolitics or achievements on the
ground, we must also talk about human beings, and here, I can tell, there is a consensus in Iran and Pakistan to
work together. Situational issues keep going up and down. But interesting is that we both have decided that we
can manage any issue which emerges situationally. Our decision is to live peacefully with everybody. Pakistan
decision is the same, so there is human dimension to the building block.
Now let me go to my point C. My C stands for the cooperative space. I think right now there are more cooperative
spaces being opened because of the changing global system, the difficult situation in the region and furthermore
because of the interaction we have. We can cooperate more bilaterally, regionally and globally.
Iran-Pakistan relations are fundamental not just to both countries, but are also essential for the peace and security
of the region. But suppose we don’t have good relations, we are trapped in imposed competitions, imposed
conflicts than the region wouldn’t benefit. So more cooperation between Iran and Pakistan means more stability
for the region. Here by region, I just don’t mean Afghanistan or the subcontinent, I mean the broader regional
space. I think this relationship is important for global peace and stability. Because you are not an easy small state.
We are genuine regional player. God forbid, our conflicts will not just have regional ripple effect but also global
impacts. This is fundamental fact not just for our interests but also for the region and for global interactions.
What needs to be done? Our relationship should be further strengthened. As we say in Persian, ‫ دید و باز دید‬i.e. to
see and see again, is helpful even if you don’t have a particular agenda. Just to see your friends deepens
relationship. Politics is not just about structures, it’s about human agency. The human touch is very important.
Further, we need to multi dimension-alize our issues. That means that the relationship should not confine to just
one, two, or three issue. Economic issues must include culture, politics, and strategic things. Each of this
dimension should further be multi-dimensionalized. For example, our Ambassador to Pakistan told me that we
are working on energy and electricity with Pakistan. This means multi-dimensionalization of economic
interactions. Then there are think tanking interactions. It is an essential component. We might have knowledge
but it is the interaction that gives a better picture of reality. They build human ties and create cooperative space.
So multi-dimensionalization of this component is very important.
May I conclude! I began with this question of how Iran and Pakistan relations in the contemporary international
politics can be looked at form analytical perspective? My answer was through ABC and that more space has been
created and that this space should be used. Challenges are there but challenges must be managed. There cannot
be peace and security in the region by ignoring both of us. Of course, we have different sets of challenges but I

[3]
would emphasize that may be there is no other period of history where our activism is unprecedented because of
the fundamental changes in the bilateral relations, global geopolitics. This is what I want to believe in.
Dr. Azhar Ahmad: Thank you! I don’t know if I should call you a professor or an ambassador because I have
rarely seen a professor so conscious of time. So there is definitely an ambassador who is dominating inside. And
I think you all know that Dr. Kazem comes from an Institute which is taken very seriously in the policy making
circles of Tehran, so whatever he says has to be noted down and taken seriously.
The floor is now open.
Dr. Azmat Hayat (Former VC, University of Peshawar): I was a regular visitor to IPIS. I have
grown old but you’re still young. [Laughs]
We have signed many agreements with IPIS and we need to put them in operation, particularly
on exchange of scholars. There was a time when there were 200 Iranian scholars in our
universities and there were hostels which were known as Iranian hostels. But this has
completely stopped now. We had agreements on tourism and mutual cooperation on
developing Persian language because the roots of our culture lies in the Persian language. It has been thirty years
since we have signed them but it’s all on paper now.
Since you work at the economics of regional countries, an Iranian scholar has suggested a railway line from Rush,
Mashhad, Herat, Kandahar to Quetta. If implemented, I think, it will bring huge changes economically and
diplomatically in the region.
Dr. Sajjadpour: I am so happy to meet you again.
Let’s be fair. We should accept the deficiencies that we had and still have. I think there were budgetary and
administrative challenges, and the dynamism of the regional and global issues also contributed to the deficiencies.
Some of the points are related to the social facts. Like Iranian universities are now developed; people still travel
for education but mostly we have domestic production of PhDs. We have more than four and a half million
students in Iran. But you are right, we must resume the ties.
Saeed Ahmad Qureshi (Member, National Academic Council, IPS): Thanks for the refreshing
and optimistic view! In Pakistan, there is a stronger view that bilateral cooperation is important;
rather essential for both countries. Are you referring to the Asia Pacific when you are talking
of the ‘region’, by the way?
Additionally, we live in a time where regional arrangements have shown signs of weaknesses
like EU; look at the Brexit, look what’s happening in Hungary and Poland, and Greece
resentment towards the EU is quite acute. This also brings me to the point that EU has not imposed sanctions on
Iran despite American pressure. So that of course is a good sign but one has to see how far it can go. But I believe
that whether it is regional or global arrangement, the foundation of that has to be built on strong economy. And
also perhaps less dependence on open trading system under attack particularly related to the current economic
policies of US. Iran has large youth unemployment which is 28% and the currency has been under attack. This
impinges psychologically, but hopefully you will get over it in due time. This is a very difficult time and media
is not regionally oriented. We wish you luck!
Dr. Sajjadpour: The concept of region has to be defined but it also depends on who defines. There are different
concepts and definitions of regions but I don’t want to go into definitional contest. For me, when you are in a
neighbor of a country or in neighborhood of countries, the neighborhood is the basis of common region. You are
a neighbor of Afghanistan. Iran is a neighbor of Pakistan and Afghanistan so we are part of the same region.
These two neighbors of the region are important. So it’s a simple proximity concept. But if you want to go to
conceptualizing regional cooperation then of course you have to define what you mean by region. There is a
civilizational cultural zoning for defining a region so we have different notions but proximity would be the most
immediate concept.

[4]
On the point you raised about strong economy, nobody can reject that but there is a lack of interaction which also
contributes to our economic factor.
On psychological factor you raised, I think we are now at the psychological war. In the real world, the economic
war has real psychological impact. But I have a self confidence in my country regardless of what they say to our
friends. I do believe that Pakistan has its own challenges. But I have confidence in Pakistani elites regardless of
the challenges to Pakistan. They have enough skills to manage as they have done in the past. And let’s say to
manage psychological war self-confidence is very important.
Moreover, your point about media is fantastic, which I would like to underline too. Media should be regionally
oriented which right now is oriented more globally, but regardless of globalization and globalism you are seeing
a trend that global media is threatened by two sets of actors: it’s the emergence of the social media, for instance
look at what’s happening in the Khashoggi’s case. The second actor is the alternative media, in which we have
RT, Turkish TV, Press TV, and Al Jazeera which are alternative to the dominant globalized media. We also see
some concepts of globalization in these media also. But more scrutiny and study needs to be done on the idea of
regional media.
Air Cdre (R) Khalid Iqbal (Senior IPS Associate): I just want to have a brief comment and
want to identify a few failures in our relations. First of all, talking about Iran, Pakistan and US
triangle, and although Pakistan has been an ally of US, but I think we also have had the
distinction of being the most sanctioned ally of US. Once US pulled out of the Iran deal, it also
chose 17 entities of Pakistan and sanctioned them on the pretext of trading the dual usage of
nuclear material and also on account that they have more than one addresses of business in
Pakistan. So once people tried to find out, they discovered that this included a shoemaker who had business in
Karachi and other cities. So that is about the logic.
I think both Iran and Pakistan have been attempting to resist the American hegemony in one form or another by
developing peaceful programs of their countries or resisting to offset anti-China or contain China policy. And
because of that, America has been dealing both these countries with sanctions on and off. At the same time, this
act of US has created certain common areas where we can cooperate. They are very well known like CPEC. But
of course there are certain weak areas between Iran and Pakistan, such as, the weak border management, sectarian
issue, Chahbahar-Gawadar conundrum, and US is trying to exploit these weaknesses directly or by involving
third parties. The issue of Kulbashan Yadav (the Indian agent apprehended by Pakistani agencies) is afresh in the
mind of both countries.
And also I would like to seek brief comment on the speech by the Spiritual Leader regarding the likelihood of
blocking the Gulf if Iranian oil is not to flow and I would like to verify its attribution. Because as I see, it’s too
early to think of this ultimate objective. And I hope the pro and cons of his decision are properly weighed and
would like to see that things have progressed.
Dr. Sajjadpour: Very analytical comment!
When I said that you are US ally, I didn’t mean negative or positive. I think the pressure on Pakistan by US is
historical, which I haven’t seen before. I think it’s because of the current President of the US. Being the most
sanctioned ally is a contradiction by itself. Both Iran and Pakistan have been resisting US hegemony and also all
kind of hegemony. You being the US ally and we as non-ally. Even at the local level, if somebody wants to
impose hegemonic desires, there would be resistance. On your issues of border management, they are working
together and there is a possibility of betterment.
I don’t think Pakistan has ever been a sectarian country or player which I have seen in my entire life. But sectarian
politics is so injected in the region about which it’s being propagated that it started with the Iranian revolution
and the invasion of Iraq by Iran. But actually, it started with the invasion of Iraq by the Americans. In our
constitution it is written that everyone has a right to vote, but then the minority issue was raised and the GCC

[5]
started calling it sectarian. Then it has deflected with other evolution. But I think there should never be any type
of sectarian outlook in relationship.
On issue of Chahbahar, our elites say that Chahbahar is in no place of competition with Gawadar but there should
be a sisterly relationship. Actually, we both have suffered with the foreign interventions in our vicinity and we
don’t want to make it global contestation place. Moreover, we don’t have anything in Chahbahar to make it
competitive; it’s rather complementary.
On your final question, I don’t think there is any statement by the Supreme Leader on blocking the Gulf. There
is a tendency in US to ignore Iranian oil, to make zero export of Iran. Iran has said that this is not possible that
you have export from everybody except Iran. So this a matter of planning but rather a broader picture where
Iranian exports are concerned.
Ghulam Muhammad Safi (Convener, All Parties Hurriyat Conference J&K): Well, there was
a time in Kashmir when Sunnis didn’t pray in Shia mosque and Shias didn’t pray in Sunni
mosques. But in 1980, Hujjat ullah Ayatollah Ali Khamenei visited the Jamia Masjid of
Srinagar and his 15 minutes speech changed the whole scenario. We find now that Sunnis and
Shias are confronting the Indian occupation together. We were also very much encouraged by
the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the Hajjis who had gone for pilgrimage and were advised very
strongly for the issue of Kashmir. Can we expect more from Ali Khamenei on the right of self-determination of
the Kashmiri people and especially after the report of the UNHRC which entitles India in the crime against
humanity?
Dr. Sajjadpour: Let me thank you for bringing these facts. I am not in a position to talk about what the Supreme
Leader will do in the next stage. But what you reviewed is resemblance of the fact that regardless of our national
boundaries, we all should be attentive to the plight of other Muslims and the humanity. When human rights of
anybody are violated everybody should be concerned.
On your second point, I would like to bring a non-sectarian perspective of Iran. It’s important because there is a
tendency of violating the message of Iran on sectarian lines, especially during the recent years.
Dr. Azhar Ahmad: There has been a time when Iran would issue statements on Kashmir issue but in recent times
it has become very careful. But we hope it’s going to change.
Dr. Mujeeb Afzal (Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad): I have two questions. The
relationship of Iran and Pakistan has remained generally friendly but suspicion was very much
rooted in this relationship and it has not evaporated till now. Do you think that it will deepen
or go away? I am particularly referring to the new geopolitical realities of new challenges from
Saudi Arabia, from Trump becoming highly regionalized and from active participation of Israel
in the region particularly with reference to Syria and Hezbollah.
Iranian revolution presented an Islamic revivalist model. It had an appeal to the Islamic world along non-sectarian
lines and became popular in places like Palestine and Egypt. But gradually it has become sectarian in its appeal.
The message may be the same but in appeal has become sectarian. It is a unique model in the modern polity of
Islamic modern state with a Majlis, regular general elections and mechanisms for resolving internal issues. How
have things transformed, does it have something to do with Iran’s own policy or something external?
Overtime, Iran is also becoming restrictive. It is becoming open in its debate but intellectually the elite in Iran are
becoming conservative in the concepts of relations with the states or at the global level.
Dr. Sajjadpour: You must be teaching political science or political philosophy because your question is well
tuned and a complete answer to them would require me to take one of your classes. Your question has multiple
questions and also multiple assumptions. On the first one regarding Iran and Pakistan relations, you have an
assumption which I would like to challenge methodologically. We have good friendly relations but the frictions
or fractures we had, which may be due to third party or the suspicions as you say, – I would say it’s not always

[6]
100 percent suspicion. I think suspicions may have been occasional or issue oriented. For example, in
Afghanistan, yours and ours positions were different on Taliban in late 90s. I am happy that we could sustain our
friendship despite opposing each other. We had different readings on other issues as well, for example on Saudi
Arab. Your reading is different from us but we appreciate your good relations with anybody including Saudi
Arabia. It’s not ‘abstractual’ suspicion. We both have abstractual suspicion of US although you are their ally. But
it’s not in the case of Iran and Pakistan. We have always had channels of communication. Let me be frank. Not
everybody is happy with this friendship and thus create problems. They want to contend this relationship and to
freeze it. We have to be attentive and we have to learn more about Pakistan because in each issue you have a
special dynamism which should be identified. And then there will be no space of suspicion.
You made a very good point of Trump being regionalized. We all know Trump along with MBS (Muhammad
bin Salman) and MBZ (Muhammad bin Zayed) are contributing to regional confrontation. The assumption is that
Iranians have an upper hand in the ground. There are such tendencies that want Pakistan to be on their side. But
Pakistan is mature enough not to be manipulated and the report on Yemen war is reflective of so many depths of
maturity in Pakistani society. Look at this if tomorrow Iran and Saudi Arabia become good to each other, which
we are for, then Trump cannot sell so much weapons. So for selling weapons they need this regional conflict.
On your second question where I said political sociology, I think each revolution like any other social event has
its own evolution. So you have an evolution of Iranian revolution. But fundamental point about the Iranian in the
study of revolution is that the basic tenets of revolution remain intact. I would also quote a French scholar here,
who when asked about the effects of French Revolution said that two centuries are not enough to comprehend the
effect of revolution. I would say the Iranian revolution, which is forty years old only, cannot be fully understood
and time has to be given to Iran to understand the dynamism of revolution.
On the third point, I think sectarian issue is a constructed narrative based on two or three events and cases which
I referred to as Iraqi case. If you remember the time before recent 16 years, political relations between Iraq and
Saudi Arabia were not good based on their own sectarian readings. If you remember and had read WikiLeaks on
Syria, it wasn’t about human rights or humanitarian law. Human rights and humanitarian laws were weaponized
in that conflict. And when they could not topple the government, they used the phrase that they have to cut the
head of the snake in Levant, which meant minimizing the influence of Iran in Levant by regime change from
outside in Syria. And you see what happened in ISIL and its immediate neighbor. Sectarian issue was not
produced by Iran but by ISIS which thought that immediate enemy was more important than distant enemy. But
they could not achieve much in Syria.
Brigadier (R) Said Nazir (Senior IPS Associate): Thank you, we are enlightened! My question
is regarding the elite you mentioned in your conflict management. Now as far as the region
goes and regional relevance is concerned, there is polarization and that polarization has got the
perception and color and tone of that sectarianism. This color has resulted into the conflicts.
Conflicts have not been managed; rather they have expanded. You have seen the implosion of
Iraq and American intervention. But of American intervention the beneficiary is Iran. Syria is
there. Also the Russian intervention has gone in the favor of Iran. On the Afghan front, Pakistan was on the
Taliban side and Iran was on the Northern Alliance wing. When America came, Iran benefited. So this conflict
management by design or be default goes in favor of Iran.
My second question is that when there was revolution and American intervention was there. The war between
Iran and Iraq was actually a tug of war for influence in the region. That influence put Pakistan in a tight rope on
how to balance it. So the question is that how Iran can come forward to manage the conflict in the region?
Dr. Sajjadpour: First of all, good quality questions. Tough questions but packaged with politeness! Pakistani
elites are an asset for the Muslim world. I have seen in my diplomatic life how Pakistani diplomats are required
by different multilateral forums.
Of course, you may call the rise of Iran by default or by plan. I think there is a fact that Iran has become stronger
compared to forty or thirty or ten years ago. I think there is a combination of several factors. One is the resistance

[7]
of Iran and it paid. It pays off in the short, medium and long term. Iranian resistance challenged hegemony or
imperialism and it paid. Recognizing it as Iranian achievement is also very important. Domestically not just
education, I think Iran is the only player in the Persian Gulf that does not rely on the borrowed security from
outside. We always remember Pakistan’s help to us in the imposed war. We never forget the friendly gesture to
us. But the need of the day is the Iranian achievement of building its own capacity and capability of maintaining
tis security.
Second, I think they made mistake by ignoring Iran, by isolating or sanctioning Iran. It’s Trump’s idea that you
deprive Iran of oil money so Iranian people will revolt and the political system will finish. Forty years of perpetual
analytical mistakes on Iran.
Third, on collapse of Soviet Union: For two centuries, Iran’s relations with its northern neighbor was a security
challenge for Iran. It was asymmetric powerful relationship. But the demise of Soviet Union opened up that space.
And during Iran-Iraq war, they had planned to invade Iran but they couldn’t. Now see the way other actors are
acting. In the Arab world you had four major regional players, Egypt which is right now at the center. Syria and
Iraq were also regional political player. Now the only actor is Saudi Arabia. Is it acting maturely? Does it take
decision in a mature manner? Is there any institution there? You have very strong institutions in Pakistan, you
understand debate and decisions. When you don’t have institutions you don’t understand decision maturely.
When you see Iran’s strength they package it as sectarian. It’s not. It’s a matter of influence. Actually we didn’t
decide to go here and there. The evolution of the different accumulated factors which have resorted to these
decisions.
The regional weakness or problem is not the rise of Iran. One is lack of self-confidence that you should rely on
the others. And I think this reliance on the other has made them weak. This is why they need more borrowed
security. The second point is the rejection of Iranian cooperation. Iran has always been there for bilateral and
regional cooperation which leads to zero sum mentality.
You asked for my suggestion for Pakistan. Pakistan is much more mature than any other actor in the region and
I don’t think they need any suggestion. But I would like to add as a scholarly note that don’t be interrupted by
repetition of sectarian war or that it is the division of the region based on sectarian notions. It is about other
complicated issues including the hegemonic desires of others and other regional players and adversaries of each
other.
Ambassador (R) Tajammul Altaf (Senior Research Associate at IPS): I have the honor of
serving in Iran from 1992 to 1995. I welcome you to the Institute of Policy Studies as our
brother and all that brotherly love and commitment I received during my tenure in Iran, we
sincerely reciprocate to you and our Iranian brothers.
Having said that today’s topic, which is the current geostrategic dynamics and perspectives
from Iran, is a vitally important topic for all of us especially those sitting here. In that equation
if I can slightly touch upon trilateral or triangular strategic relations between India, Iran and Pakistan because it
is very important for us by all means.
Excellency! you touched upon geostrategic relations and geography which is fundamentally important for
Pakistan’s foreign policy right from the beginning. Like Iran, we also believe that geography and neighborhood
cannot be changed. You would agree that in foreign policy national interests remain supreme. You rightly said
that decisions should not be made in Washington or Moscow but rather in Tehran or Islamabad or in Kabul
because that is our joint destiny and we have to live with our destinies and geography. And economic interest is
also supreme. For instance it is very important for Iran to export its oil to India or any other country. And likewise,
the Chahbahar port is important in serving the interest of India, Iran and Afghanistan. But we do understand that
both ports, Chahbahar and Gawadar can complement each other. The point where I really need to have soul
searching and your insight, is that Kashmir for us is lifeline. Pakistan is incomplete without Kashmir. Kashmir is
also incomplete without Pakistan. As Dr. Azhar has indicated, we find many proactive statements coming from

[8]
Iran on Kashmir in the past. But I share the observation that this approach is not being followed lately. There
might be reasons for Iran.
While talking about geographical complementarities, the new emerging geopolitical realities include the
phenomenal rise of China, the CPEC AND Shanghai Cooperation Organization. How do you look at our chronic
adversary India with whom we have no hope in future as it has blocked dialogue with Pakistan and is not ready
to open any avenue, how does our close brother neighbor look at India while thinking to create more
complementarities between Iran and Pakistan and on Kashmir policy to take a position? Also, how do you look
at the role of CPEC and Gawadar in the long run?
Answer: This triangle of Iran Pakistan and India is a complicated issue. Pakistan is our immediate neighbor and
friend. We understand that you need to have relations with everybody. Let me assure you that our relations with
India are not and will never be against Pakistan. This is the fundamental point. We never work with any other
player against Pakistan and we are not for negation of Pakistani interest.
On CPEC, I think we have welcomed it. Our FM has been on the record that it’s good for the regional cooperation
and development. We have imposed wars in the history, like the imposed war on Iran by Iraq. We have also
imposed competition. Let’s not be interrupted by these imposed competition or notions.
On the issue of Kashmir, the point you said about finding complementarities is quite unique because till now I
have analyzed this subject from humanitarian point of view that we all should be attentive towards the plight of
other humans. I wouldn’t say much on the issue because I don’t have much knowledge and detail on this
complicated issue. But I am learning and have also been given a book.
Ambassador (R) Ayaz Wazir (Senior IPS Associate): Iran and Pakistan are the most
important Islamic countries not only in the Muslim world but also in the world, I would say.
We are immediate neighbors, friends and we have so much in common. But when I look back,
we have gone one step forward and two steps backward in our friendship. Why or what in your
opinion would prevent us from forging an exemplary friendship? No doubt, close friendship
would pinch or disturb others.
My second question is that sectarianism is certainly there. In Pakistan it was not so prominent before 1979. I am
sure you know what I am referring to. As a young student in Peshawar I used to go to Muharram processions to
help them if anything is needed and walk along them. But after 1979 I have hardly dared to go outside my home
because things have completely changed here. Look at politically, I am not blaming Iran as the blame lies with
us too, when we had leaders who came as dictators the relations went well and when they weren’t, the relations
went step back.
Dr. Sajjadpour: My ABC applies to both questions.
Analysis is highly needed. Was it Iranian Revolution of 1979, or the invasion of Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia,
responsible for sectarianism?
We have been exposed to easy analyses whereas they require complicated ones. We have to share our analyses
the way we did today. One thing I learnt today is that you cannot have detailed analysis by distant responses.
Analysis is not luxury of intellectual interaction. I think it’s the basis of solving and managing issues. Blame
game should be entirely rejected. It is very easy to blame Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or others. Blame game is
the most intellectual challenging disease that we have. And it’s easy because it fits with policies of others. There
was a time when everything was alluded to the Soviets — Soviet bashing. In early 80s, I had a friend in
Washington, who went to watch a play in theater where there was a scene of shooting. He told me that a child
shouted, “Russians did it”. This actually is alluded to the time when everything was blamed on Russians. I know
it has a market in the West and in the GCC states when you blame Iran. So blame game should be put on shelf.

[9]
My C is communication which we need more of. When you read through paper it’s different from real
communication. As for can you communicate with Saudi Arab for Iran, of course we are ready. Your government
has done so. We have been contacted by you and we have been ready but not Saudi Arab.
On the issue of Afghanistan, a collectivity of communication can help. There are two plans or versions for getting
Taliban on board. The American version is that you have Taliban and Afghan governors, and you forget the rest
including Pakistan and Iran. It’s about containment of Iran. But you have another reading on getting Taliban i.e.
where you have all neighbors of Afghanistan on board. I don’t want to say that the Russian version is more
sophisticated but it is more communicative. So I think communication is the key.
On your point of 1979 as the reason for rise of sectarianism, I think it’s a combination of all issues. But let’s be
frank that multiple concept of competition or regionalization, making division by the other, and there is an
industry of fear which benefits from conflicts, sectarianism, and they have been at their work. You cannot say
they have failed. They have been consuming energies and consuming life. We need to end this industry by
cooperating more and more.
Khalid Rahman (DG IPS): Let me thank you once again Mr Kazem Sajjadpur and your
delegation. When we were discussing the program for today, I asked Mr. Zamani that ‫نشستنددنتفگ‬
‫( رباخس‬sitting, chatting and leaving) is very well known phrase in Pakistan, but how do you say
that we intend to do something so he said that it would be ‫نشستنددنتفگلمعرکددن‬. So I was thinking
during the whole discussion and before it when we had institutional cooperation meeting where
we discussed that we will have a regular series of roundtables. I noted two things from the discussion of Amb.
Sajjadour for action. He said that medicine for psychological war is self-confidence and he also emphasized
analysis and communication again and again. So I would like to have the permission to document the discussion
today which is very rich and would be beneficial for many circles. We will keep in mind the sensitivities that may
not be appropriate to share at every level but it would enhance communication and build better bridges at all
levels.
Dr. Azhar Ahmad: We have had a very informative and comprehensive talk today. Since we have already spoken
a lot and summing up the points of all scholars is very difficult, I will finish with the verses of a poet who is
revered in both Iran and Pakistan, Allama Iqbal.

‫الہل انی نمچ آولدۂ رگن اتس ونہز‬

‫رپسازدتسدنیمازہکگنجاتسونہز‬

‫ہنتف یئ را ہک دو دص ہنتف اب آوغشش وبد‬

‫درتخیتسہہکدردہمرفگناتسونہز‬

‫ایہکآوسدہینیشنبلاسلحربزیخ‬
‫ہکرتااکررگبدابوگنہناتسونہز‬

‫ا ز رس ہشیت ذگنتش ز رخددنمی تسین‬

‫ایاسبلعلہکادنردلگنساتسونہز‬

[10]
 ‫ابش ات رپدہ گ س ا می ز اقمم درگی‬
‫ہچدمہرشحونااہہکبچنگاتسونہز‬

‫شقنرپدازاھجنوچنونجبمنرگنتسی‬
‫تفگوریاہنوسبدایوتگنتاتسونہز‬

Prepared by:
Ms Kulsoom Belal
Junior Research Officer
Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), Islamabad.

For queries:
Syed Nadeem Farhat
Senior Research Officer
nadeem@ips.net.pk | www.ips.org.pk

[11]