Speaking to the Iran Press Service from his law office in Tehran, Mr. Qasem Sho’leh Sa’di, an outspoken critic of the Iranian regime explained that while the hard liners "could not and cannot tolerate any change" the reformers, because of lack of guts, strategy and leadership, failed to implement the reforms when they had the possibilities to do it".

In the view of Mr. Sho’leh Sa’di, the torch of the reforms is now carried by what he describes as the "Third Current" to which he and many other former reformers belongs.

Bellow is an almost verbatim translation of the interview, in which the former outspoken MM (member of the Majles, or the Iranian parliament), who was a staunch supporter of President Mohammad Khatami and a pioneer of reform process in Iran, also warned that the regime could face "major difficulties" if it refused to reform its institutions.

Qasem Sho’leh Sa’di – Second Khordad (victory of Mohammad Khatami in May 1997 presidential elections) was an instantaneous movement that produced Khatami, and not the other way. Khatami was a friend of radicals such as (the former Interior Minister Ali Akbar) Mohtashamipoor, (Majles Speaker Hojjatoleslam Mehdi) Karroobi, Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Kho’einiha (owner and editor of the banned Salam daily) etc.

All genuine forces of the nation, including the pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards) and the (regular) armed forces voted for Khatami, a signal meaning the rejection of the hard liners. As usual, and because Iranians in general do not have a culture of political struggle, the movement however was without direction, a central command.

Nevertheless, Khatami’s electoral campaign was conducted by people like Kho’einiha, Karroobi, Mohtashamipoor, Hadi Khameneh'i (the younger brother of the present leader).

You asked about the difficulties and what is expected? Not difficult to answer, as the regime has exhausted all its possibilities. If Khatami had acted firmly and without fear, the regime would have already changed. The conservatives would have backed off if Khatami had resisted to them, taking advantage of the popular support he enjoyed. In case they would intend a coup, both the army and the pasdaran would come to Khatami’s defence.

But now it is too late. Khatami is a philosopher, not a politician. He ignores the skill of political give and take. He is also both rigid and timid. He does not take risk, preferring to retreat instead. That’s why in the past five years, he has constantly retreated from one trenches to another.

A – It’s a long time since Iranians are calling for changes. Remember the after football demonstrations? Majles’ challenging the leader? All these manifestations mean one thing: We are against this system.

All demonstrations in Iran are political in nature. At the present, they are isolated from each other, but are converging, like blinds, finding each other. In other words, in a country where 90 per cent of the educated people are fully aware of the situation, the evolution and developments that are happening are very serious.

A – The very body of the pasdaran is reformist, only a few top officers are with the conservatives.

A – He want to continue Imam’s (Grand Ayatollah Roohollah Khomeini) policies. But while the Imam had subjected the Iran-US ties to some ifs and conditions, Mr. Khameneh'i has reached the conclusion that any normalisation with the United States would inevitably lead to changes in Iran, not only endangering the velayat faqih, but also its possible replacement by a secular system. Therefore, he has decided to kill any reform.

People are asking why we shall give money to (the leader of the Leabanese Hezbollah, Hasan) Nasrallah? Why our foreign policy must be prisoner of the Hezbollah and Palestine? If we have a referendum today, the great majority of the people would vote normalisation of relations with America.

But for the time being, the bulk of the conservative leadership follows the policies dictated and imposed by Mr. Khameneh'i, who has ruled out any dialogue with Washington, realising, not without logic, that starting any talks with America would accelerate the pace of changes..

A – Yes, if the debate on reforming or amending the Constitution become more serious. Mind you that some students and politicians have called for a referendum on the issue of the absolute velayat faqih, stopping one man to decide for 70 millions, or having the power to veto decisions taken by the elected bodies of the system like the Majles..

A – All three have the same purpose and leads to the same result: change in the present system. That’s why the present rulers are so afraid of any change or even amendments to the Constitution. I was surprised to see that even Mr. Khatami opposed the idea of referendum, saying whoever makes such suggestions is a traitor. Now, if we accept Mr. Khatami as the leader of the reformists, one has to recite a requiem for reforms.

But people’s tolerance has also a limit. The more the ruling authorities create obstacles, the more the thirst for changes, for a law-abiding system, for a responsible government, for a regime in which the Majles can exercise its powers, where the Council of the Guardians is not allowed to reject candidates without providing the public with clear cut reasons, for democracy with Islam, which is different from a Western type of democracy and freedom.

But what we have instead is repression, to the point that even a president who was elected with 80 per cent of the popular vote cannot open his mouth to criticise. Look at his (Khatami’s) silence over all the killings, the closing of newspapers, the arrest of journalists, intellectuals, and dissidents, even lawmakers. The record sheet of the reforms and reformers is negative. The conservatives represses more than before, they reject all competent forces of the nation, place their own interests and ideologies above those of the nation. For this reason and many others, in my opinion, changes will happen, whether they like it or not.

A – It is mostly due to the contamination of the reformist’s leadership, a bunch of leftist-fascists who, when in power at the start of the revolution, committed all kinds of crimes, involved in corruption and now, handicapped by this not glorious past, hands in hands with the conservatives, opposes real reforms to take place.

In one word, because of mismanagement, incompetence, lack of commandment as well as strategy, the reforms are dead, mostly thanks to Mr. Khatami, who was unable to make proper use of the people’s will.

A – This assembly is not in a position to exercise the slightest control over what Mr. Khameneh'i does. You know well that here we are in a vicious circle, where candidates to the Assembly of Experts are vet by members of the Council of Guardians who are named by the leader. With very few exceptions, all members of this Assembly are on the leader’s payroll, being his representatives in various places or Friday preachers etc.

Besides, the conditions set for becoming leader are very varied, as he must be a religious authority, a manager, a courageous man, having full knowledge of affairs, etc.. More over, some of the conditions set by the Constitution for the leader are very general, making it difficult to control. For instance, the Constitution stipulates that the leader must have good and correct political wisdom. But we don’t have any clear definition of what good and correct political wisdom means exactly or what is the yardstick on which one can judge if Khameneh'i has, or not, this wisdom?

A- As to the relations with the United States, one must realise that from the outset, this issue had become a domestic play, a club to beat up the opponents, starting with the hostage taking, followed by the Algiers negotiations that brought the downfall of the (provisory prime minister Mehdi) Bazargan’s government. The reason is that in Iran, the authorities do not observe international standards in the conduct of policies, being it domestic or foreign, but their own yardsticks.

We find the same kind of reasoning about the (Iran-Iraq) War. When Imam Khomeini agreed to the 598 Resolution, he also said that he accepted to take the poison. But afterward, we pretended that we had won the war. You see, our standard for defeat or victory is different from elsewhere and for this reason; the rulers present any defeat, any setback we suffer as a victory.

You named Pakistan. We are not loosing only to this country, but on all fronts. Because of our opposition to the United States, we have lost all our privileges in Central Asia as, for instance, the transfer of oil and gas is concerned. We are the most natural transit rout for the transfer of Central Asian energy to Europe and Asia, bringing us billions of Dollars as well as creating employment, getting better bargaining cards, stronger position in the region. But because of our irrational policies, not only we lost all that, but continue to suffer from boycotts and isolation, costing other billions and billions.

A - That’s right. As I said, reforms would triumph, weather the present rulers likes it or not. You see, the ideal is not to have a system like that of France or Switzerland, but a regime based on Islam and respecting freedoms and democratic values. But since the reforms are dead, changes are inevitable, one way or another.

A – I sincerely hope that America never intends attacking Iran. I sincerely hope that the authorities wakes up to realities and give the Iranian people what they struggle for: basic freedoms, law and order, security, opening to international world, prosperity. Because of stubbornness and insisting on wrong policies, we have lost on all fronts. We lost the war against Iraq. In the (Persian) Gulf War, we stood neutral, but also got nothing when the victors divided the bounties. Countries like Egypt or Syria, which played much less important roles than Iran received some prizes, but nothing for us. The same in Afghanistan, where Pakistan, the country that had helped install Taleban and was on the brink of collapse after the 11 September, got the lion’s share of economic and political assistance offered by the United States and international agencies while we, despite of our substantial backing of the Northern Alliance, were ostracised.