Tehran had sought, by hosting the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), to break its political and economic isolation at the international and regional level. It considered that heading this movement would provide it with the elements needed to turn into a major international power able to impose on everyone what it considers to be its interests. Indeed, in terms of basic considerations, the occasion has provided Iran's leaders with the opportunity to make their voice heard by the heads of the delegations of the 57 countries participating – among them Egypt, of which they have met with the President directly for the first time since the Islamic Republic was established, in addition to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to whom they conveyed their grievances against the international community and the sanctions imposed on Iran because of its nuclear program. Yet the realities that have accompanied the summit remain more obstinate than Iran's wishes. Indeed, the large-scale publicity campaign for Iran's policies has not managed to attract any noteworthy new support for Tehran's stances, as reflected by the summit's closing statement, which was quite traditional and repeated what had been said in statements issued at past summits. Tehran had wagered on UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon attending the opening of the summit, an attendance which in any case is traditional and customary of all those who preceded him in the post, in order to show that it had broken the international isolation that has been imposed on it. Yet Ban, after meeting with Iranian officials, reminded of the two main issues which Tehran had sought to skip over. Indeed, he reminded those present that Iran was still muzzling the opposition on its home soil and violating human rights, demanding that it release its prisoners of conscience. Furthermore, he reminded once again that Iran was still defiantly refusing to provide what was required of it by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about the nature of its nuclear program, and that lifting the sanctions was contingent on cooperation with the IAEA, which has the authority to assess the guarantees required in this respect. Moreover, extensive international attendance in Tehran did not conceal the fact that the countries participating were all well aware that the Iranian nuclear issue was now in the hands of the Security Council, and that the group of 5+1 was the one in charge of negotiating with Tehran on this matter. Iran has thus failed to cover up the situation of human rights there, just as it failed to make of the summit an alternative to the Security Council with respect to its nuclear issue. Indeed, it appeared that nearly all those present conceded that the issue did not concern the Non-Aligned Movement, but rather the Security Council. When it was announced that President Mohamed Morsi would be participating in the summit, there was talk of a “historical visit", seeing as his presence there would represent the first time an Egyptian President goes to Tehran and meets with senior officials there since the establishment of the Islamic Republic. However, the blatant and intentional falsification that took place with regard to the translation of Morsi's speech at the summit's opening session turned the occasion into a “historical scandal". It might be understandable for a state to resort to crooked means in order to promote its position, and it may have the right to respond as it wishes to its critics. Yet Tehran, through its official translators, turned the main stances declared by Morsi upside down, so much so that those listening to the Farsi translation would imagine to speaker to be a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry or the Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran), not the President of Egypt. This blatant and intentional falsification of Morsi's speech bears numerous indications – foremost being that no Iranian, not even an official translator interpreting a foreign visitor's statements, would dare utter words that contradict Iranian policy. This reveals the extent of repression and brainwashing at the state level. But most importantly, Iran's leadership may very well be relying on such translations to analyze the stances of others and determine its choices – which would reassure this leadership that there is overwhelming support for its policies in the world, something which may well explain the many declarations of victory it makes on a daily basis!
