sharaf iran has a telegram channel playing with the country. why is your question an interesting question in these six months of pricing? you are a footballer's board of directors. we do not want any kind of gratuity. we are at your service with another debate. with a political and international issue , what should our foreign policy and our international relations with other countries be, and where is the priority of communicating and starting relations with which countries? let's talk about neighborhood policy. it has already been realized and i am waiting for

your presence whether it is successful or not, basically we should in prioritizing our own foreign policy, which countries should we prioritize and how should we draw this path for ourselves and our country is a matter of debate that we will be at your service . please accompany us until the end . here in our studio , mr. pakayin, a former diplomat and expert on international issues, is also present, mr. khosrow shahin, one of the experts in the international field. our classification and our reference in order to develop foreign relations, where should it be ? basically , how should our foreign policy and our relations with other countries be regulated ? dear guests and

dear compatriots, i say hello and i hope that your prayers are accepted by god in this month of ramadan, and i also congratulate you on nowruz and new year. well, you see , the principles of the foreign policy of each country are usually based on the provisions of the upper documents for many in the republic. islamic iran, the constitution, documents that are actually promulgated, programs such as the 6th and 7th development plans, as well as the views of the martyred leader of the revolution. it determines the principles of foreign policy and its priorities , and the foreign policy apparatus and institutions and organizations and ministries related to foreign policy that are active in the field of foreign relations

implement these provisions. if we want to start with this, i would like to say that the supreme leader of the revolution in bahman 139, in a meeting with the people of east azerbaijan, specified 3 points regarding foreign policy priorities. they said that the preference of the east over the west, the preference of the neighbor over the distance, and the preference of nations that have commonalities with us, these are priorities for us, that is, with this description, if we look first of all, we look at the priorities of foreign policy, preferring the far east. east over west

means the same look to the east or approach to the east that we are following in foreign policy today. the approach of looking to the east can be considered in two parts or in two areas. one geographical area, two political areas. in connection with the geographical area of ​​the countries that are geographically located in the east of iran. asian countries. oceania and so on. in the political field , the countries that are against the west, that is, the countries that are against the unilateralism of the west , are against the dominance of the west, and in our definition are considered the east, so with this we can also define it in the geographical field with the countries of eastern iran, especially in asia. or

to have good relations with the countries that are politically in the east in the sense that i mentioned, that is, the east of talaq. in foreign policy , it means that we can have relations with different countries and at the same time preserve the main principles of our independence, which is based neither on the east nor on the west. thank you , mr. khosrowshani. where is it from? in your presence, i do not agree with this angle of the discussion, i believe that the discussion is from whether we start our relationship with the east or start with the west, start with the countries of the region or start with the jcpoa, these are actually dualities

, all false dualities, because all these issues that we are talking about are discussed in the world is suffering today. there is an entanglement that without understanding and understanding this entanglement of issues, we will not be able to understand the new developments in the international and regional arena. for this reason, from my point of view, in fact, the regional approach takes precedence over the relationship with western european countries. no discussion of communication with great powers in the axis. the east gets priority over the relationship with the west axis because we are witnessing fundamental changes and developments in the field of the international system and international relations, which basically the concepts of previous assumptions

are not able to explain and interpret these new developments. if i want to give you a few examples, if i want to speak a little more concretely, we in the world today: well, we are witnessing the war in ukraine. for the war in ukraine or against the war in ukraine, four resolutions were issued in the general assembly out of 193 members, only 12 members voted in favor of all four resolutions. it means that half of the countries of the world did not show up for a positive vote abstaining or voting against. we are talking in a situation where there are 11,000 sanctions against the west, but there are only 46 countries in the world that strictly comply with these 11,000 sanctions . almost two-thirds of the world's population is subject to sanctions. against the west, you said sanctions against russia. the west

is against russia. yes, the west is against russia. that those governments do not strictly follow these 11,000 sanctions , another important point is that 32 countries are currently providing military aid to ukraine, 25 of these 32 countries a non-nato member country means that 5 nato member countries refuse to provide military assistance to ukraine and the western bloc. and another thing, only 40 countries in the world are willing to give financial aid to ukraine . keep this in mind. now let's look at the other side of the coin. what is the other side of the coin?

china and india are not willing to give military aid to russia. do the body maybe about only three countries. have provided military assistance to the russians. regarding the four resolutions of the general assembly that we talked about, about four countries voted against all four resolutions. i mean, i want to open the issue like this that we are living in a world that is in a way a world in transition. let's say there is a famous sentence by the italian philosopher gramsci. which says that the old is decaying and the new is unable to be born. this situation that governs the international system shows this in a way, that is , although the old order, which

was based on a kind of hegemony of the united states and the west, continues, it has suffered disturbances and conflicts. against the new order. it has not taken its place, therefore, in such coordinates, we witness the formation of a fluid situation and the formation of quasi-orders in the international field. and the region is actually regular and behavioral instead of patterns. it is a discussion of communication, a discussion of priorities. your question was what are the priorities in the discussion of relations of the islamic republic of iran , there is no obstacle to having relations with the countries of the world. this principle is also in our constitution. unless the countries that want to compete with us, that is, in fact

, want to create domination against iran, the priority means which countries we should establish relations with so that our interests are secured, that is, there is a difference between the discussion of communication and the discussion of priority, if we say our priority is to have a good relationship with these countries to have does not mean that another country. if we say that our first priority is our neighbors or that we look to the east, it does not mean that we are not interested in having relations with european countries, as much as possible within the framework of european mutual respect. read that they have relations with us , we also accept this and establish relations with them, at the same time, we do not accept this situation, but we cannot say that regional cooperation

is false. side two, regional relations, three international relations, none of these are false, all of these are realities on the scene, and we must have bilateral relations with friendly countries , and we must have regional relations with the region we are in. and at the international level, as one of the members of the international community , we must have a relationship with these countries of the world , and these are actually an objective reality of our policies . we are in favor of multilateralism because we are in favor of multilateralism. and we are looking for a country that wants to dictate its own view to the world we stand there to secure our interests. therefore, we have to create diversity in our foreign policy, therefore, we should look for countries that

are aligned with us and they are also looking for multilateralism, and we are looking for these countries in the east in the asian sense, in the east in the political sense , that is, in latin america. in africa , we search in some countries of eastern europe, and most importantly, as neighbors next to us, we actually pay attention to them. i did not talk about false dichotomies, or this or that, or regional cooperation, or actually looking at the city, or looking at the west, or looking at the city, these dichotomies are all in the new false conditions. i believe that this is the new condition. paying attention to the fluidity and dynamics that the structures

have found in the international system and the regional system, we need a new approach and a new understanding of the developments in the region and the international system. old vocabularies are not able to define and explain new conditions. and the origin of cognitive error in regional and international domains international also goes back to the same issue. when we raise the issue of multilateralism , multilateralism is basically understood and defined under huntington's definition of the monopolar order. another important point is that when we say east and

west, this assumption is actually the division of the world, not only in terms of geography and geopolitics, but also the assumption of ideological distinctions and differences, which again means conflict. and ideological distinctions in the structure of the new context open international system. determining does not make sense , that is, whether the actors are real powers such as china and russia, or powers such as the united states and the european union. they play their role in other formats, and their games are not necessarily defined in ideological formats, so in such a context, we must first understand that these changes and transformations of these behaviors that may affect us

in the regional sphere and in the international sphere from time to time. it surprises us. and it even surprises us , where is its epistemic and cognitive origin? if it is an epistemic and cognitive source we have identified and explained, then we can adopt policies based on reality and new facts and make decisions about it. yes, well, see me in the initial explanation that we can with all the world.

let's do something, neither this nor that, which means we are not looking for this and that. for example, if some countries sanction iran's speech , then we will do the same as if we were neighbors we will deal with him. this issue of priority that you mentioned first , what is the priority here? but i don't know what mr. ghanoshahi's friends think about the ancient period. if the old period means the cold war period and your policy of looking towards the east

is actually derived from that period, i also deny this. this is not the way you see the war period. let me ask you what you mean. see , i believe that prioritizing east over west, as you said, now i will explain in the middle of your conversation, it is basically a false assumption in today's world. he points out that we are in a world where there are a number of countries who are friendly with us, and there are some who are enmity. what does reason rule ? reason dictates that we make friends with friends and at least try to neutralize the enmity of our enemies. that is, if we don't make enemies, at least we don't let them succeed in making enemies with us. this is a natural thing. therefore, we cannot

negate the trend. look , suppose there is a country like russia. our largest neighbor , a member of the security council, has extensive economic, cultural and transportation cooperation there is no colonialism to us, that is, it is not the soviet union during the cold war. let me clarify one point. see , some people raise the issue of assuming that russia is the soviet union. the soviet union has the same prescriptive claims, so why should we go to russia? i say that no, russia is no longer the soviet union. more than 10 countries, 10 republics , have other motives for separating from that union. there is a different approach. the iran of the qajar era is no longer my iran

, it is not the iran of the shah era anymore. today, iran is a powerful country with restraints. it is too high to allow it does not allow any kind of aggression from others, so i want to conclude this, i mean, in this section , we cannot negate rojahan, we cannot favor the reference, let's say russia with these details , america with those details, both are the same, we must we should have an equal relationship with both of them . this is not really possible for america to do with russia. let's agree with the enemy country and there must be this priority. mr. khosrashai is a priority. where should it be? the trends that mr. pak-ain points to, well, i basically disagree with this issue and with this view, now i will explain. dad, in the continuation of the discussion, see why i am

against prioritizing countries in the development of foreign routes . they are completely against what mr. pakaei says, because when you mention about russia, the restoration of relations with the russians or with the chinese. i see. instead of now european countries or de-escalation of tensions with the united states of america, then when you say that relations are friendly and good, after that statement of future cooperation in the economic, political and security fields between russia and the countries of the persian gulf, you will be confused and shocked. this is not a dog punishment issue because it is among the vital and territorial interests of iran, so what can we

say that the reason for this story is the reason for this position of the chinese and russians regarding the interests of life. and what is our land? well, the answer i have about it is that we need new conceptual tools to understand today's world, that is , we cannot make multilateralism a reality in the form of strategic alliances, stable and exclusive partnerships, blocking and words like this. let's explain and interpret the words of today's world. a new concept is proposed by some theorists of international relations, which to some extent can be the new facts and realities of the system.

explain the international and the region. explain why the russians and the chinese take a stand against the vital and territorial interests of iran while they have good relations with iran in some areas. explain to us how saudi arabia is possible at the same time. which has an alliance with the united states of america, as is well known , and has very extensive and good relations with china and russia. how is it possible that russia, which has good relations with us , has better relations with israel, and so on? china and israel, well, these things and the things that i have explained to you two decades ago, it was completely unthinkable that saudi arabia would enter into extensive economic relations with some of america's global competitors, such as china, and

even in the field of military and security issues, but today this is happening. i will explain to them that we have a latin word called cued procuo, which means something against something. it means that we give concessions , we demand something in return. today's international order, today's regional order is strongly transaction-oriented. that is why ideology as an element and variable that was previously normal it is put in a state of suspension and what determines the depth and level and depth of the relationship and the quality of the relationship alone. what it can define is the price an actor is willing to pay for that deal. that is, if we see that china and russia

take a stance on our vital interests, because the price of this stance is paid by the countries of the persian gulf cooperation council to the russians and the chinese. for this reason, the relationship in the regional field and in the international field is strongly based on transaction-oriented primary schools . very short-term, ruthless, and i welcome your presence regardless of ideological topics another phonological norm that can somehow explain new realities to us and we can recognize new realities through this conceptual tool is a word that is used by postmodernists and post-structuralists . now , according to the text, i have translated these into the order or quasi-order of multiple alignments, which is completely different from the unity, as these believers. that this

group of theorists in today's world is facing the erosion of the category of stable alliances, exclusive partnerships , and blocs. bringing up the new concepts, i have to explain in this way that two countries have friendly relations with each other, it does not mean that there are no differences between them. but when the difference is in the area of ​​vital and territorial interests, it is no longer a difference, that's what i want to say. well, see if the issue of taiwan is a vital issue for china or a trivial issue. china and america

have a relationship. china is one of the main economic partners of america. he has invested the most in america. america considers china as an enemy in its strategic document and mrs. nancy pelosi leaves and in taiwan, the president of the us congress will be there. well, will china and america come to china? they are arguing with america over this vital issue of china and america, so you say that they are enemies, so that you can see the friendship and friendship between your rivals. what did china do? china also summoned the us ambassador or charge d'affaires and strongly objected to him. he said that what you did, despite the friendly relations we have,

is not in my national interest and i should protest . regarding the discussion of what the uae did in the two meetings that you mentioned, both about russia and china. coming and asking iran to negotiate with the uae over the three islands of the persian gulf. well, not to say that these islands belong to the uae. saying , negotiate with each other. well, did we go because of this position that, as you said, the exchange that happened between saudi arabia and china or the uae and china, which you approved of that exchange, that is, china came based on its own interests and he signed this statement , the statement was collective and not bilateral, so we are here too, is it necessary to be our own friend?

let's mess with china . let's mess with our strategic relations with china. we also summoned the chinese ambassador . sending iran and saying no, we respect the lateral integrity of the islamic republic of iran , the same thing was done with china and russia, look at russia and india. do they have a relationship with each other? do they not have differences? the same saudi arabia that you mentioned has a very sad relationship with america, but in the area of ​​russia, syria, the region. west asia has a difference of opinion with russia and china, should they disrupt their relations, should they cut off , should their documents be made unenforceable? no, they are also looking for ambassadors and ambassadors. look, i

want to say this as an ideological debate. i will discuss it in another place. see , as a principle, friendly countries have differences, because every country has a foreign ministry. if the countries had no differences, the foreign ministry would make sense. it is diplomacy. it would not make sense. diplomats go and sit and talk. it reduces these differences and increases our commonalities we have a strategic relationship with china and russia. yes , we have disagreements somewhere. the leaders are now unhappy that we support the integrity of georgia's currency. the leaders are unhappy that we support the integrity of ukraine's currency in international forums and want the end of this war. we do not have the same positions with the russians in the caucasus region, but we are friends.