A Response to the Editor-in-Chief of Kayhan: From the Front Lines to Negotiations, a Soldier's Account of Responsibility

Mr. Shariatmadari, in an article titled "Parliament Was Not in Charge for Seven Months!", called the selection of Dr. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf as head of the negotiating delegation a "trick by the enemy to shut down parliament," and argued that the parliament speaker's presence at the head of the negotiating team is "in contradiction" with his oversight role. This article is a response to that claim, not from a standpoint of confrontation, but from a standpoint of defending a long-standing tradition in the Islamic Republic's system.

Mr. Shariatmadari, as a journalist who has expressed his loyalty to the most fundamental ideals of the Islamic Revolution for years, must remember that on 12 June 1367, at the height of the eight-year imposed war, Imam Khomeini (RA) appointed the late Hashemi Rafsanjani - who was the Speaker of the Islamic Council at that time - as the successor of the Commander-in-Chief, "with all powers".

The text of the Imam's ruling is the most telling document in itself: "Given the conflict of the world-eating America against Islam and Iran and the coordination of the West and the East and the regional reaction in the fight against the Islamic revolution and preventing the victory of Islam, at the suggestion of the honorable president, Mr. Hojjatul-Islam, Mr. Khamenei, I am appointing him with all authority to succeed the Commander-in-Chief."

This ruling was not just a military appointment; Rather, it was the delegation of responsibility that included "all matters related to the armed forces, the army, the army, the gendarmerie, including operations, support, organizational and administrative affairs." Head of the General Command Headquarters, complete coordination of the army and the IRGC and the Basij, the concentration of military industries, the management of propaganda and the culture of the armed forces, and even the "correct and decisive use of the rules of the military court", were all entrusted to the Speaker of the Islamic Council.

The Imam, in the same ruling, not only did not consider this appointment as "contrary to the supervisory duty of the Majlis", but also said clearly: "Legislative, executive and judicial powers are obliged to use all their facilities and policies for the needs of the war." That is, in war conditions, the speaker of the parliament - who is the embodiment of the "legislative power" - is at the forefront of implementation and decision-making, and his supervisory duty is not only not closed, but is defined in the service of the "needs of war".

If the appointment of the Speaker of the Majlis to "replace the Commander-in-Chief" with all military, judicial and executive powers, during the holy defense period, was not only illegal, but was accompanied by the approval and prescription of Imam Rahal, then how can the appointment of the Speaker of the Majlis to the "head of the negotiating body" - which is a much more limited and purely diplomatic area - be considered "violating the supervisory duty"?

Dear Mr. Shariatmadari, the presence of the speaker of the parliament in the negotiations proves exactly the opposite of closing the parliament; Because one of the most important winning cards of the negotiating team in the international arena is the support of the Parliament and the law. A negotiator who has his back to the parliament can say to the other party: "I am a representative of the legislature and any agreement must be within the framework of the law and with the approval of the parliament." This means that the parliament is not only not closed, but has become one of the main pillars of Iran's bargaining power in negotiations.

The Martyr Leader of the Revolution, Hazrat Ayatollah Khamenei, himself said in his statements - which Mr. Shariatmadari also mentioned in part -: "Parliament is a heavy weight, governments in the world use this heavy weight of their own parliaments, both in negotiations and in interaction... In negotiations, you say something to the other side behind the negotiation table, he says: "Sir! Our parliament doesn't allow it, we have a law, we can't"; They use the parliament as a support in negotiations.

This statement of the martyred leader proves the exact opposite of Mr. Shariatmadari's claim. The presence of the speaker of the parliament at the head of the negotiating team is neither "suspension of the parliament" nor "violation of the supervisory duty"; Rather, it exactly means using the "heavy weight of the parliament" in promoting national interests in the field of diplomacy.

Mr. Shariatmadari, in his note, raised the concern of "deceived by some officials". But can't this note itself - which was published in the dangerous conditions of war - be as much, or more, "deceit" or at least "negligence"?

As the supreme leader of the revolution emphasized, the enemy, today in the combined war, is focused on two points: "the resilience of the people" and "creating errors in the officials' computing device". In such a situation, the publication of notes that accuse the negotiating team - which has gone to the negotiating table with the approval and support of the leadership - of "enemy's trick" is exactly the "calculation error" that the enemy expects.

On the other hand, entrusting such a responsibility to Dr. Qalibaf can indicate trust in his management ability, executive experience and coordination capacity. In a situation where the country is facing one of the most sensitive periods in its history, taking advantage of the capacity of managers who are able to create links between different decision-making levels can be a strategic advantage.

The existence of managers who can simultaneously have political capacity, executive experience and the ability to coordinate is an asset for the system; A capital that should be used properly, not that the principle of their responsibility becomes the focus of the dispute. Of course, being happy and grateful for the country's possession of such capacities does not mean shutting down criticism and supervision; Rather, it means appreciating the responsibility of the warriors who never leave the stronghold of the defense of the country - despite all its dangers.

Dear Mr. Shariatmadari, we are both loyal to the same set of values and traditions: a tradition in which, at the height of a crisis, the speaker of the parliament can assume a more serious responsibility than the head of the legislature - from replacing the commander-in-chief to the head of the negotiating team - without "closing down the parliament" or "closing down the supervisory function."

Imam Rahel, in the decree appointing the Speaker of the Majlis to replace the Commander-in-Chief, stated: "Legislative, executive and judicial powers are obliged to use all their facilities and policies for the needs of war." Today's need of the country is "defense and diplomacy"; And the speaker of the parliament, based on the same tradition, stands at the forefront of this need.

Mr. Shariatmadari, an important point that you have completely neglected in your note is this: Dr. Qalibaf was elected as the head of the parliament in June of this year, with the decisive and unprecedented vote of 235 representatives out of the total of 290 representatives of the Islamic Council. This vote of 235 people - which includes more than 80% of the representatives - has a clear message: Dr. Ghalibaf is not just the head of a faction or a political trend; He is the elected representative of the people of Iran. Representatives who themselves have entered the parliament by the direct vote of the people of Iran, and there are representatives from every nation, every religion, every region and every political taste among them. His election with this decisive vote means that the overwhelming majority of the people's representatives trusted him and considered him worthy to head the legislature. And here, by questioning the choice of Ghalibaf as a negotiator, you have actually questioned the choice of the people's representatives and their vote. Isn't this the same as "ignoring the people's vote" and "weakening the position of the parliament" that you are worried about?

Dr. Qalibaf, with the votes of 235 representatives, is the representative of all the people's representatives and, accordingly, the representative of the entire nation of Iran. When he sits at the negotiating table, he doesn't just talk about himself or a faction; He speaks of the "Islamic Parliament" - which is the home of all the nation. And this is his biggest capital and support in the international arena.

The last word is that; Mr. Shariatmadari, the parliament is not only not closed, but with this worthy election, it has been placed in its real position, i.e. at the head of affairs, more than ever. And its head, who is elected by the people's representatives, is at the forefront of defending national interests. The difference between these two views - the view of "rest" and the view of "responsibility" - is the same difference that determines the fate of the country in this historical turn.