Link to source

 Born in 1947,  is a moderate right-wing Iranian Conservative and the managing director of the conformist Resalat newspaper. Being a founding member of the Resalat Foundation, Morteza Nabavi served one term as the Minister of Post, Telegraph and Telephone (now the Ministry of ICT) under Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi.

Nabavi, who used to be a critic of Mousavi's government, advocates the reelection of the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In an exclusive interview for IslamOnline.net, the former Iranian ICT Minister and the current deputy head of the Islamic Society of Engineers talks about Ahmadinejad and the prospects of his reelection.

IslamOnline: Why don’t you support the candidacy of Mirhossein Mousavi, given that you had served as a minister during his tenure as prime minister? Is it because Reformist groups, such as the Mujahedeen of Islamic Revolution or the Islamic Iran Participation Front, support him, and you simply want to avoid being in a coalition with them?

Nabavi: The political groups in Iran have distinctive identities and origins. Mr. Mousavi has been an ally of the Reformist movement – at least from a political point of view.

Since the formation of Iran’s third parliament, two different groups emerged: the Association of Combatant Clerics (Ruhaniyun-e Mobarez) and the Combatant Clergy Association (Ruhaniyat-e Mobarez). And since then, each group has had its members, supporters, and offshoots.

In the early 1950s, members of the Association of Combatant Clerics called themselves leftists as they supported governmental control of the economy. But since the 1997 presidential election, they have been called Reformists, and those on the other end of the political spectrum have come to be known as Principalists (known in the Western media as Conservatives).

In light of such a political division, Mr. Mousavi should be categorized as a Reformist politician, given that he has been connected to Reformists since the establishment of the Association of Combatant Clerics.

However, as the Supreme Leader stated, Reformists and Conservatives are two sides of the same coin; a real principle-oriented politician is for reform, and a real reformist politician finds a frame of reference in principles.

In response to Mohammad Ali Ansari, the late Imam Khomeini emphasized that he supported both groups because both of them adhered to revolutionary ideals and Islamic principles, supported oppressed nations, and opposed US hegemony and despotism.

So, we admit that Mr. Mousavi is a man of principles; however, we base our stance on the upcoming election on political alliances.

We believe that Mr. Ahmadinejad is an adherent of the principles of the Islamic Revolution more effectively as he has been allied with the Combatant Clergy Association since its very establishment. In other words, he is a pure rightist.

Ahmadinejad's views are similar to ours. Yet, we still believe that engineer Mousavi is a man of principles, and we respect him greatly. 

If any of the three other candidates is elected, do you think that he will pursue the same foreign policy towards the United States?

Iran's foreign policy is usually formulated on a macro level under the supervision of the Supreme Leader.

This was the case under Mr. Khatami and Mr. Rafsanjani. So, the next president – whoever he is – will be able to make foreign policy decisions within the acceptable framework of the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy. 

 Some critics inside Iran believe that Ahmadinej’s fervent, fiery speech in the Durban II Anti-Racism Conference stirred the European delegates' walkout and caused the removal of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from the final declaration. What do you think?

Well, during the first World Conference Against Racism in Durban, the United States and its European allies received a heavy blow when the final declaration branded Zionism as a form of racism. So, this time they wanted to compensate for their previous loss.

They assumed that the second conference will condemn Zionism as well, especially because the Iranian president would be one of the attendants. So, there was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the conference.

Despite the walkout of some European delegates, the delegates of the majority of countries and NGOs as well as human right activists courageouslyapplauded our president.

Even Hezbollah’s secretary general, Sayyid Hassan Nasrullah stated that nobody could defend the Palestinian cause as Mr. Ahmadinejad did.

The international feedback indicates that the presence of Iranian representatives in Geneva and the speech of President Ahmadinejad constituted a victory. It was the European diplomats who demonstrated their lack of patience and tolerance.

Despite chanting the slogans of tolerance and freedom of expression, they couldn't stand a president expressing his viewpoints although they had the same opportunity to express their opinions.

The Gaza war ended with the victory of the resistance group Hamas and its democratically elected government, and people all around the world demonstrated and rallied in protest against Israel’s crimes.Israel's image in the world is at an all-time low, and it will not be able to portray itself as a meek, oppressed entity anymore.

Some critics believe that Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust has not benefitted the Palestinian cause, and that it has merely stirred antagonism towards Iran. What do you think?

The question President Ahmadinejad raised is the subject of academic research. He wondered where exactly that so-called historic event had happened. Simply, he was asking about the historical and academic evidences.

Also, he wondered why the Palestinians should pay the price for the massacre committed by Nazis if we are to accept the argument that such an event took place. In other words, he argues that the Holocaust shouldn't be a justification for oppressing and sujugating the Palestinians.

Iran has been one of the strongest supporters of the Palestinian people and their right to an independent state. . 

No one can forget the reaction of Arab states in general and Egypt in particular to the Gaza war. The international community is trying to impose someone called Mahmoud Abbas on the people of Palestine and deprive them of the right of self-determination.

An excerpt of his articles, interviews and diaries is accessible via Cyber Faith