 |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2008, pages 61-62 Waging Peace Experts Discuss Iran’s Strategic Concerns and U.S. Interests
AS PART OF its Capitol Hill Conference Series, the Washington, DC-based Middle East Policy Council (MEPC) held a Jan. 18 panel discussion about U.S. national interests in Iran. MEPC president Chas. Freeman moderated the event, which he said would focus on issues that are “neglected and misunderstood,” narrowing the discussion to the current U.S. “national preoccupation” with Iran—its influences, policies, and subsequent challenges to U.S. authority and Western hegemony. Gary Sick, senior research scholar and adjunct professor for the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, began by outlining a “geo-strategic view” of the U.S.-Iran relationship. “One of the really curious ironies of the current political situation,” he stated, “is that Iran is actually emerging as the pivot of Middle East politics”—and the U.S. harbors responsibility. Sick referred to the post-9/11 termination of Taliban control in Afghanistan, and the subsequent removal of Saddam Hussain from power—Iran’s “worst enemies” to both the east and west. While Washington did not seek to intentionally bolster the position of Iran, asserted the author of October Surprise (available from the AET Book Club), “Iran is enjoying the benefits of our largess.” According to Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and author of Treacherous Alliance—The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel, and the United States, U.S. policies of containment and isolation of Iran have not and will not be successful. U.S. allies “have lost faith, if not in our policy, in our competence,” he explained. “Iran bashing has a political cost,” Parsi pointed out, not only in the international arena, but in U.S. presidential elections with Americans who favor diplomacy. This is unprecedented, he stated. Washington’s aggressive policies also lack Arab support, for fear that they “may end up looking more American than the Americans” and have to deal with a dominant and vengeful Iranian neighbor. Counter to U.S. preference, Arab countries have begun to open diplomatic ties with Iran, as evidenced by invitations for President Ahmadinejad to visit Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Turning to human rights issues in Iran, which he feels are all too neglected, Parsi warned that heightened tensions between Iran and the U.S. foster and perpetuate an environment of human rights violations. “As counter-intuitive as it may sound,” he argued, “it is actually the opposite that would help the cause of democracy and the human rights situation in Iran by reducing the tensions, by opening up dialogue, by ensuring that there would be inspections not only on enrichment, but on other matters inside a country as well.” Ray Takeyh, author and contributing editor to National Interest and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, provided an historical overview of Iran’s Gulf neighborhood and Tehran’s interests there. After its 1979 theocratic Islamic Revolution, Iran viewed the Gulf states, ruled by monarchies, as “inappropriate means of political organization.” The fact that many Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia, also maintained relationships with the U.S. was unsatisfactory to a revolutionary Iran, Takeyh stated, and as a result Iran attempted to undermine these regimes through “violence, terrorism, [and] subversion.” The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) unified in support of Iraq in the 1980s Iraq-Iran war, cementing the failure of Iranian policy in the Gulf. Iran’s policy between 1989 and 1997 was inaugurated by Ayatollah Khomeini’s successor, President Hashemi Rafsanjani. Tehran ceased trying to subvert neighboring regimes, and focused instead on influencing their international policies. In Takeyh’s opinion, this policy was also a failure, but it demonstrated a consistency in Iranian goals, namely “to appeal to the Gulf states, not unlike the shah, to concede to Iranian predominance” and forgo American allegiance and presence in the region. Takeyh identified as Iran’s most important phase the reformist period that began in 1997 with President Mohammed Khatami. “Reformists recognized that Iran would have to be a part of the global community and have to live in a Gulf whose balance of power is determined by the United States,” he pointed out. This policy has continued even under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Takeyh asserted. Noting that Ahmadinejad was invited to attend the GCC, Takeyk added that one “can argue that President Ahmadinejad is the most successful diplomat Iran has had,” because Arab countries are moving toward “integration of Iran as a means of regulation of its power.” Barbara Slavin, senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and a senior diplomatic reporter for USA Today, closed the panel with ideas about how Tehran and Washington may be able to overcome their history of tensions and distancing now that Iran is in a more secure position for negotiations. The U.S. will have to be open to dialogue with the prominent nations in the Middle East, she concluded, including Iran, which is on the rise. —Nina Hamedani |
||
