Iran and the West ( THE ECONOMIST )

Aarwaa · #1 Thursday, April 12, 2007

Iran and the West
Sailing into troubled waters

Apr 4th 2007 | LONDON AND TEHRAN
From The Economist

Despite its decision to free the British sailors, Iran remains a problem
Reuters

THE Iranian revolution has been replaying one of its favourite old propaganda movies. In 1979, Iran and the world were gripped by scenes of 52 blindfolded American embassy staff taken hostage by Iranian students for more than a year. This time round the show was the 12-day public humiliation of British sailors and marines who were captured by the Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf and were due to be released on April 4th.

Day after day Iranian television broadcast the spectacle, part farce and part menace, of the hapless Britons taking turns to confess their “trespassing” into Iranian territorial waters, apologise for their misdeed and praise the kindness of the Iranian authorities. Handwritten letters from the one woman in the group, Faye Turney, professed friendship with the Iranian people and demanded the withdrawal of British forces from Iraq.

At a football match in Tehran on March 30th, television cameras panned to the electronic scoreboard flashing “We Condemn the Invasion of the British Forces in the Blue Waters of the Persian Gulf” alongside the better-known slogans such as “Nuclear Energy Is Our Indisputable Right” and “Imam Khomeini: Israel Must Be Eradicated”. Two days later a stirred-up crowd threw stones and firecrackers at the British embassy, demanding that the servicemen be tried as “spies”.

The indignation of the British government, and its decision to seek support from the United Nations and European Union, incensed the Iranians and emphasised the weakness of Britain and the West. There was a time, said Admiral Sir Alan West, a former First Sea Lord (the head of the British navy), when British gunboats would have responded by flattening one of Iran's coastal towns. Those days are long past (see article).

Then all of a sudden this week, Tehran decided that it had done enough Brit-baiting, either because it did not want more international opprobrium, or because it thought it had squeezed the full propaganda value from the affair.

On April 2nd, Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council contacted a British TV channel to say that there should be a bilateral diplomatic solution. The British government said it wanted the same. An Iranian diplomat who was mysteriously kidnapped in Iraq two months ago was released just as mysteriously, and Iraq said it was trying to secure the freedom of five Iranian officials arrested by American forces in January.

It was left to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deliver the finale on April 4th. He berated Britain for scheming in Persia for the past century. Then he pinned a medal on the chest of the seamen who led the “brave” capture of the Britons and announced that, as a gift to Britain for Easter, he would pardon the British servicemen and release them immediately.

The incident says much about the volatile mixture of confidence and paranoia that swirls in Tehran these days. Iran knows it is one of the main beneficiaries of America's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and of Israel's ham-fisted war last year against its Hizbullah client in Lebanon. At the same time it faces increasing international pressure and isolation. Twice in the space of three months the UN Security Council has unanimously imposed financial and other sanctions on Iran for its refusal to halt its uranium-enrichment programme, which many believe is designed not to make fuel for civilian reactors, as Iran claims, but to build atomic bombs.

Saudi Arabia has begun a diplomatic offensive to contain Iran, shoring up Lebanon's pro-Western government and trying to revive peacemaking between Israel and the Arabs. At the same time, America has sent two aircraft-carrier groups to the Gulf and is conducting manoeuvres. A French carrier has also arrived. The defection (or “kidnapping”, as Iran says) of Ali Reza Asghari, a former deputy defence minister, may also be part of a not-so-covert war.

That Iran might lash out at the “Great Satan”, America, or less riskily against the “Little Satan”, Britain, might have been predicted. In 2004 the Revolutionary Guards, known as the Pasdaran, captured eight British naval servicemen in the Shatt al-Arab waterway and released them three days later, after parading them blindfolded on television. One of their dinghies was displayed in an Iranian museum as a war trophy. In January this year an article in Sobh-e-Sadeq, a magazine close to the Pasdaran, said that capturing members of the coalition forces could be “easier and cheaper than obtaining trashy Chinese goods”. Iran or its proxies would need only to “open up a purse to see a queue of blond, blue-eyed officers taken like bowls of seed by hungry fighting cocks”.
Signs of immaturity

Twenty-eight years after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's followers swept away the pro-Western dynasty of Shah Reza Pahlavi and crushed left-wing rivals, Iran has yet to make the transition from youthful rebellion to mature statehood. It may be less zealous in exporting its revolution these days, but it still draws strength from the troubles around it—some of which it has helped to aggravate. The revolution in Shia Iran helped stir the belief among Sunni extremists elsewhere that Islamist rule could be recreated in modern times. It also established the idea of deliberately seeking “martyrdom”: Iran sent countless young men to clear minefields with their bodies in the war against Iraq in the 1980s, inspiring Hizbullah suicide-bombers who in turn set the example for Hamas in Palestine, al-Qaeda and Iraq's sectarian killers.

Iran is still torn between a sense of ancient Persian nationhood and the universality of radical Islam, between resentment over colonial subjugation and ambition for regional hegemony. The Bible memorialises Cyrus, the ruler of ancient Persia, as the man who freed the Jews from exile in Babylon; yet today's Iran of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews and seems ready to entertain another one by talking of the need to wipe Israel “from the pages of time”. It adopts the tactics of the weak by backing militants in the region (and by taking hostages), yet appears to be seeking the ultimate power of nuclear weapons.

How to deal with such a large, important country that refuses to live by the diplomatic rules of the rest of the world? Since the trauma of the American embassy siege of 1979, America has tried to squeeze Iran politically, militarily and economically in the hope that the regime would fall, but in vain. The Europeans have preferred an awkward policy of “engagement” in the hope of encouraging Iran to moderate; for years they tried to support “reformists” against “conservatives”, but this too was a failure. The reformists were discredited and set aside as lackeys of the West and, with the election of Mr Ahmadinejad in 2005, the choice is now between different kinds of hardliners—pragmatists who want to avoid confrontation, and neo-revolutionaries who seem to court it.

The capture of the British servicemen appears to have been a deliberate provocation by zealots in the Pasdaran, which constitutes an ever more powerful state-within-a-state. Despite uncertainty over the territorial waters in the Gulf, there have been few, if any, disputes in recent years over the demarcation line in the sea. The Pasdaran's speedboats surprised the British crewmen at their most vulnerable moment, as they clambered down into their dinghies after a routine inspection of an Indian-registered cargo ship in Iraqi waters (according to the British). Most suspiciously, the Pasdaran were equipped with video cameras to record the humbling of the British and the Iranian colours fluttering over the Royal Navy's White Ensign.

It is less clear what the Pasdaran hoped to achieve. Were they demonstrating the damage they could cause to American and British forces if attacked, or trying to secure bargaining chips to secure the release of Iranians captured in Iraq? Or was this an attempt to regain advantage in the internal political debate in Iran? Perhaps all three. One further aim may have been to send a message of strength to neighbouring Arab countries: many of the British “confessions” were first aired on Iran's Arabic-language TV network, al-Alam.

In a country that was twice occupied by Britain in the 20th century, most Iranians believe that their waters were invaded. John Limbert, one of the American embassy hostages and now a professor of politics, sees striking parallels with the way that radicals in 1979 set out to create a fait accompli to radicalise the climate. But there are also differences. “In 1979 it worked. There were hundreds of thousands of people outside the US embassy; 200 people at the British embassy is pretty small. It looks like people in the regime don't want to go back to the old days.”
AP

Iran's least reasonable face

With the end of the long Persian new year holiday, the pragmatic wing apparently reasserted control. Still, the release of the servicemen was probably determined as much by negotiations within Iran as between the foreign ministries of Iran and Britain. It is always difficult for outsiders to divine the shifting alliances in Iranian politics. Nicholas Burns, an influential American under-secretary of state, recently said that the Iranian leadership was “not a monolithic regime; it's a cacophonous government that is fighting, we think, within itself.”
The Great Satan's weakness

Under the Bush administration, America has gone from a policy of “dual containment” of Iran and Iraq to one approaching dual failure. It removed the iron rule of Saddam Hussein, but created an anarchic void in Iraq into which Iran has extended its influence. Exhausted by the insurgency in Iraq, America now struggles to deal with the more acute threat of weapons of mass destruction posed by Iran's nuclear programme. America's Arab allies may be terrified by the strengthening of Iran, but they are even more terrified by the prospect of American military action to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

In Europe there is a degree of acceptance that, sooner or later, the world may have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran. Some in the Bush administration, though, regard that prospect as even more horrendous than the consequences of attacking Iran, which may include more instability in Iraq and elsewhere, more terrorism and the disruption of oil from the Persian Gulf. There is no certainty, moreover, about how far military strikes can set back the nuclear programme, if at all.

George Bush has repeatedly said that “all options” remain on his table, by which he means the use of military force. But the one option he has seemed less keen on is the idea, advocated by many, of seeking a “grand bargain” with Iran on a whole range of disputes, from the nuclear question to peace with Israel. When America was strong, it felt it did not need to deal with Iran. Now it is worried by the prospect of looking weak.

Nevertheless, there has been a real change of policy since the days when Mr Bush said Iran was part of the “axis of evil”. His administration has offered to join nuclear talks if Iran suspends uranium enrichment. Ray Takeyh, an expert on Iran, argues in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs that America should go further and talk to Iran without preconditions. Iran's rise is unstoppable, he says; better to deal with the pragmatists, and strengthen them, rather than give free rein to the radicals. He may or may not be right. Another possibility is that the prospect of normalisation with America may cause real ideological upheaval in the regime. If so, talking to the Great Satan may scare the mullahs more than sanctions.

mtgondal · #2 Friday, May 25, 2007

IAEA on Iran

It was without doubt a coincidence, but an extremely significant one. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in Vienna on Wednesday that Iran was not only continuing to defy calls by the United Nations to stop uranium enrichment but was accelerating the activity. The confidential report by Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief of the UN nuclear watchdog, was issued the same day as an American flotilla steamed through the narrowest point of the world's most sensitive waterway. Washington says the move was actually intended to reassure jittery allies in the Gulf region of constant US commitment to their security. But the two aircraft-carriers and seven other warships and the 17,000 navy personnel on board the vessels can only be seen in Tehran as a confrontational show of force off the Iranian coast.

"Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities," the report complained. Iran wouldn't be far wrong if, on the other hand, it perceived this largest daytime gathering of warships in the Gulf since the Iraq war as a provocation. According to the United States the measure had been planned well in advance, but that is little justification for the fact that it followed US-Iranian moves, exactly ten days previously, for a dialogue over Iraq. Washington had emphasised at the time that the dialogue was strictly confined to the situation in that war-torn country. But with Iraq situated at the head of the Gulf, the entry of the US warships is certain to have a strong negative impact on that situation. Since Iran is equally certain of being seen as the target of the American move, and not only by the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it is not impossible for Tehran to have second thoughts about the usefulness of the dialogue. The simultaneous occurrence of the two events -- the US new challenge to Iran and the IAEA's "laundry list of Iran's continued defiance of the international community," as the White House national security spokesman described Dr AlBaradei's report -- has in a single day has further heightened the tension in the Gulf.

Britain reacted to the report by reaffirming its position on the Iranian nuclear programme. A Foreign Office spokesman said in London that "full suspension of Iran's enrichment activities is the only acceptable confidence-building measure to allow formal talks to begin." But for the first time since the assumption of the French presidency by Mr Nicolas Sarcozy this month, France plainly said it would support Washington on the question. This abandonment by France of its independent stance on Iran, despite its opposition to the Iranian nuclear programme, is yet another cause for regional and global consternation.

mtgondal · #3 Monday, May 28, 2007

US and Iran exchange accusations ahead of meeting
By PAKINAM AMER

ARTICLE (May 28 2007): Accusations flew between officials from the United States and Iran on Sunday as US officials reiterated their claim that Tehran is destabilising Iraq by funding the insurgency there and providing weapons for extremists.

The exchange took place during discussion at a meeting of the Jordan-based World Economic Forum (WEF) being held on the shores of the Dead Sea resort and come ahead of a planned US-Iran meeting in Baghdad on May 28.

"We have evidence that Iran is participating in destabilising Iraq," US Senator Orrin G Hatch said. However, his claims were vehemently denied by the leadership of Iran during a discussion at the forum gathering.

Hatch asked Iran for "some indication of respect, some indication of willingness" to abide by the rule to law. Mohammed Larijani, Iranian deputy minister of foreign affairs, said it is in Iran's national interest to have a unified, peaceful Iraq.

But he also noted that Iran had not been getting any signs of respect from the US ahead of the Baghdad meeting. "(Senator Hatch) talks about respect. We have been labelled as part of the axis of evil. And we are threatened every other day that (our) government should be changed," he said.

"They say our meeting should be only at ambassadorial level. Are these good signs of respect? Definitely not," Larijani said.

Concerning the raging violence in Iraq, Larijani said Bush should not have expected a "red carpet" to be rolled out when the US invaded Iraq in 2003. "Nobody likes occupation."

Larijani said the upcoming meeting - even with Iran's cooperation - "will not solve all the problems in the world" but "it will open a path."

A day earlier, Iran's foreign minister also levelled blame at the US, saying that it did many wrong things in Iraq, and that in the next meeting Iran would show the US where it went wrong and how to correct the wrongs. They also expected an "offer of withdrawal" of US troops from Iraq. Senator Hatch said on Sunday that the US government realised that errors were made during the war on Iraq.

"There's no question that we made mistakes in the war, but the intention was good." He added that the US needs to do more and so does Iran which should "start running their own affairs" instead of running Iraq's.

"We don't enjoy having our men and women killed. We don't enjoy terror," said the senator, who was joined by US Senator Gordon H Smith in confirming that US troops would not leave Iraq until Iraqi forces are capable of handling the security situation. "We will not leave a vacuum that they can fill," said Smith, adding that there is "no question from the evidence" that Iranians and Syrians are meddling in Iraqi affairs and settling disputes on the territory of Iraq.

Iraqi officials at the session which brought Iranian, Iraqi and US figures together joined the rhetoric, saying that foreign powers not only engage in sectarian conflicts, but also encourage the Iraqis to take sides - sometimes through direct financing.

On the sidelines, Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi said that if US troops withdrew, they would "leave a security vacuum and so (the country) could slide into chaos."

Multinational forces in Iraq have lately been reporting more and more findings of Iranian-marked bombs and weapons - some of which earlier official reports traced back to Quds, a group affiliated with right-wing members of the Iranian government.

Iran, however, continues to deny this. Larijani told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa that for a country that "has more than 150,000 troops allowed, bombarding houses and people everyday, it's shameful to accuse us of infiltrating arms to Iraq."

The Iranian-marked weapons, he said, could be passing through the border from any of Iraq's neighbours: "We're selling arms to other countries, officially. They could be smuggled into Iraq illegally, so could American weapons and German weapons."

During the session, Larijani told US and Iraqi officials that militants in Iraq "don't need arms from Iran. Iraq is full of arms, the borders are open. They could come from anywhere."

Meanwhile, al-Hashimi told dpa that the Iraqi government "hasn't seen the Iranian weapons, but I do believe that there is a concrete report on that."

mtgondal · #4 Wednesday, May 30, 2007

US-Iran talks

The US-Iran talks in Baghdad did not result in a positive development on the situation in Iraq. The outcome of the talks was not unexpected as the two counties were holding talks after about 27 years since their diplomatic ties were severed after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the seizure of the US embassy by the Iranians. Nonetheless, the meeting can be termed as significant because it brought the two arch rivals to the negotiating table. The four-hour long meeting on Monday was mainly consumed by the two sides trading allegations against each other for the Iraq imbroglio. The US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, urged Iran to stop arming and financing militants who were attacking the US and Iraqi forces. Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Crocker’s Iranian counterpart, accused the US of not being able to adequately arm and train the Iraqi army to control the insurgency. Still, there are signs of some movement on the issue as Cocker said that at the level of policy and principle “the Iranian position as articulated by the Iranian ambassador was very close to our own”. To play their role in bringing normalcy to Iraq, the Iranian government offered to provide training and weapons to the Iraqi government.

The possibility of the two sides meeting again in less than a month offers the hope that the process of negotiations may lead to some agreement between the two sides which brings peace to the bullet-ridden streets of Iraq. It now seems that the US is beginning to heed the voices that advocated to resolve the issue of Iraq through diplomacy. But the main reason behind the US opting for a path of negotiations is that the US forces have been bogged down dealing with the insurgency in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq had called on the Bush administration to engage Iran and Syria, with the goal of stabilising Iraq and withdrawing most combat troops by 2008 after training the Iraqi forces. The report had mentioned Iran because it exercises great influence over the Shias in Iraq so it was necessary for the US to take Iran on board on the issue. In the same way, Syria was invited for talks as it shares its border with Iraq, which is termed as the ‘lifeline’ of Sunni insurgency. But instead of paying heed to what the report had recommended the Bush administration did not change its course. The abduction of Iranian consulate officials in Arbil in Iraq by the US forces is proof of US’s desperation to bring the situation under control. The US now desperately needs regional partners in the face of a never-ending war. The recent talks can be seen in the same context.

The resumption of Iran-US talks is also an indication that the hawks in the US administration have taken a back seat as far as the Iraq situation is concerned. If the US-Iran talks continue to be held on a regular basis, they are also likely to have a positive effect on the Iran-US stand-off on Iran’s nuclear programme, which the US claims is set to reach a level where Iran may develop a nuclear bomb. The talks have been held at a time when the US has increased its military presence in the Persian Gulf to put pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear programme. As things stand, the fact that the long-overdue talks have at least broken the ice is a big achievement. The talks are a welcome step but expectations of a breakthrough in the US-Iran relations should be kept to the minimum.

mtgondal · #5 Thursday, May 31, 2007

US-Iran talks

As was only to be expected of representatives of two countries which have been bitter rivals for nearly three decades, Monday's talks between the US and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad were marked with mutual recriminations. Nevertheless, the very fact that the four-hour session between Ryan Crocker and Hassan Kazemi went ahead, despite fears that Iran will call it off in reaction to the US navy's massive show of force off the Iranian coast is a positive sign. That the two sides had been eager for this first high-level contact between Washington and Tehran since they broke off diplomatic relations in 1980 is already obvious from the early date at which they scheduled the talks. It was just two weeks ago, on May 13, that the agreement on the talks was announced. In bilateral relations as complicated and embittered as here, preliminary contacts and arrangements can take weeks and months. Increasingly mired in the Iranian crisis as it is, the US is evidently more in need of contact with the country which is a component of President Bush's "axis of evil" than the other way round. Iran has an immeasurably strong, and growing, influence in Iraq; last week's return of Moqtada Al Sadr from exile in Iran was evidently meant to emphasise this influence just before the beginning of the ambassadors' meeting.

Mr Crocker doesn't convince when he suggests, as he did after the talks, that Iran was sabotaging the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki through its alleged support of armed factions in Iraq, which "is dangerous for Iraq". The US is engaged in far more direct opposition to the beleaguered administration by putting forward one condition after another that would be unacceptable to any sovereign government, such as the demand that it denationalise its petroleum resources, in order, as the world knows, to enable US oil companies to take them over. It doesn't bear reminding the American ambassador that it is the gap between US avowals and actions in Iraq that, in the first place, is behind the crisis in that unfortunate country. The ambassador complained that at the talks the Iranians did not address US objections to Tehran's actions inside Iraq, persevering with their usual objections to the US occupation. Was he demanding that Iran simply stop these actions and accept the occupation as a fait accompli? He did not, of course, refer to the United States' own, self-acknowledged armed interference inside Iran. In short, Mr Crocker's remarks smacked of everything but sincerity. This attitude can only endanger the future of a hopeful dialogue.

mtgondal · #6 Saturday, June 09, 2007

US-Iran policy dynamics

Noam Chomsky
Satureday, JUNE 09, 2007

In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed, and it must be obeyed, or else. What you believe is your own business, of lesser concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is not proclaimed. Rather, it is presupposed, and then vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The crude system leads to natural disbelief. The sophisticated variant gives the impression of openness and freedom, and serves to instill the Party Line as beyond question, even beyond thought, like the air we breathe. In the ever more precarious standoff between Washington and Teheran, one Party Line confronts another. Among the well-known immediate victims are the Iranian-American detainees Parnaz Azima, Haleh Esfandiari, Ali Shakeri and Kian Tajbakhsh. But the whole world is held hostage to the US-Iran conflict, where, after all, the stakes are nuclear. Unsurprisingly, President Bush's announcement of a 'surge' in Iraq — in reaction to the call of most Americans for steps toward withdrawal, and the even stronger demands of the (irrelevant) Iraqis — was accompanied by ominous leaks about Iranian-based fighters and Iranian-made IEDS in Iraq aimed at disrupting Washington's mission to gain victory, which is (by definition) noble. Then followed the predictable debate: The hawks say we have to take violent measures against such outside interference in Iraq. The doves counter that we must make sure the evidence is compelling. The entire debate can proceed without absurdity only on the tacit assumption that we own the world. Therefore interference is limited to those who impede our objectives in a country that we invaded and occupy. What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the United States? Reports of threatening, off-the-record statements by staffers for Vice-President Cheney have heightened fears of an expanded war. 'You do not want to give additional argument to new crazies who say, 'Let's go and bomb Iran,'' Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the BBC last month. 'I wake up every morning and see 100 Iraqis, innocent civilians, are dying.' US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, as against the 'new crazies,' is supposedly pursuing the diplomatic track with Teheran. But the Party Line holds, unchanged. In April, Rice spoke about what she would say if she encountered her Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki at the international conference on Iraq at Sharm el Sheikh. 'What do we need to do? It's quite obvious,' Rice said. 'Stop the flow of arms to foreign fighters; stop the flow of foreign fighters across the borders.' She is referring, of course, to Iranian fighters and arms. US fighters and arms are not 'foreign' in Iraq. Or anywhere. The tacit premise underlying her comment, and virtually all public discussion about Iraq (and beyond) is that we own the world. Do we not have the right to invade and destroy a foreign country? Of course we do. That's a given. The only question is: Will the surge work? Or some other tactic? Perhaps this catastrophe is costing us too much. And those are the limits of the debates among the presidential candidates, the Congress and the media, with rare exceptions. That's part of the reason the debates are so inconclusive. The basic issues are not discussable. Doubtless Teheran merits harsh condemnation, certainly for severe domestic repression and the inflammatory rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who has little to do with foreign affairs). It is, however, useful to ask how Washington would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico, overthrown the governments there, slaughtered scores of thousands of people, deployed major naval forces in the Caribbean and issued credible threats to destroy the United States if it did not immediately terminate its nuclear energy programs (and weapons). Would we watch quietly? After the United States invaded Iraq, 'Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy,' said Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld. Surely no sane person wants Iran (or anyone) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable solution to the crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, under one condition: that the United States and Iran were functioning democratic societies, in which public opinion has a significant impact on public policy, overcoming the huge gulf that now exists on many critical issues, including this one. That reasonable solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who agree quite generally on nuclear issues, according to recent polls by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, at the University of Maryland. The Iranian-American consensus extends to complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82 per cent of Americans), and if that cannot be achieved, a 'nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include Islamic countries and Israel (71 per cent of Americans).' To 75 per cent of Americans, it is better to build relations with Iran rather than use threats of force. These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from exploding, perhaps even to World War III, as predicted by British military historian Correlli Barnett. That awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion — at home, where it is badly needed. Although we cannot carry out the project directly in Iran, we can act to improve the prospects for the courageous reformers and oppositionists who are seeking to achieve just that. They include people like Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji, and those who as usual remain nameless, among them labour activists. We can improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion. That would entail withdrawing the threats that are a gift to the Iranian hardliners and are bitterly condemned for that reason by Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion. We can act to open some space for those who are seeking to overthrow the reactionary and repressive theocracy from within, instead of undermining their efforts by threats and aggressive militarism. Democracy promotion, while no panacea, would be a useful step towards helping the United States become a 'responsible stakeholder' in the international order (to adopt the term used for adversaries), instead of being an object of fear and dislike throughout much of the world. Apart from being a value in itself, a functioning democracy at home holds promise for a simple recognition that we don't own the world, we share it.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News....cat=ar&nid=289

Aarwaa · #7 Saturday, June 09, 2007

The UN and Iran

Playing with fallout
May 24th 2007
From The Economist print edition

Negotiate with Iran; but not while it is enriching uranium, even on a “limited” basis

TO IGNORE one unanimous United Nations Security Council resolution may be considered impudence; to defy a second looks like policy. This week the UN's nuclear inspectors confirmed that, far from suspending work to enrich uranium (which, sufficiently purified, can be made into bombs), as the council has now twice demanded, Iran is spinning ever more centrifuge machines ever faster at its plant at Natanz. Shrugging off the limited sanctions so far, Iran claims an “inalienable right” under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to any nuclear technology it fancies. So what next?

Expect the six countries leading the diplomacy at the UN—the council's five permanent members (America, Britain, China, France and Russia) plus Germany—to start work on a third resolution. Like the previous two, it will remind Iran of its inalienable obligation, imposed by the UN, to suspend both uranium and plutonium work until inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can be convinced its nuclear efforts are peaceful, as claimed.

Iran looks set to ignore this resolution too. Neither the offer of inducements—trade and political talks, including with America, and help with less proliferation-prone nuclear technologies are all on the table—nor the threat of further sanctions seems to give Iran pause. It resents being in the UN's sin-bin, but not enough to give up on enrichment. Is there nothing that might persuade it to come to the negotiating table?

One idea to defuse the gathering crisis, pushed for some time by the IAEA's boss, Mohamad ElBaradei, is to let Iran continue its enrichment activities, but on a limited scale and under strict safeguards so that the uranium produced cannot be diverted to military use. By now, he says, Iran has mastered many of the enriching skills it needs; continuing to insist on shutting down Natanz misses the point. What is important is to keep Iran in the NPT and inspectors in the country.

The technical flaw in Mr ElBaradei's logic can be seen from his own inspectors' reports. Though Iran claims to have no interest in a bomb, it has repeatedly refused to come clean about dodgy nuclear experiments concealed for 20 years in flagrant breach of IAEA safeguards, still unexplained traces of highly-enriched uranium (civilian power reactors use the low-enriched sort) and unaccounted-for imports, including of more advanced centrifuges than those spinning at Natanz. The alarming possibility in all this is that Iran has a hidden military programme, not just its known civilian one. Letting it hone its enrichment skills would help any military effort too.

Where exceptions don't prove the rule

Whether or not Iran has a secret bomb project, Mr ElBaradei has his priorities backwards. Why take such risks just to keep Iran in the NPT when Iran's refusal to let the inspectors do their job undermines that very treaty? Giving a nod of approval to activities explicitly ruled out by a string of UN and IAEA resolutions can only damage both organisations—and encourage other unsavoury regimes to follow suit.

Mr ElBaradei is right, however, that time is slipping by. The surest way to end the impasse would be for Iran's uranium and plutonium work to stop and for inspectors to be given the co-operation they need to do their job. Short of that, diplomatically it is back to the UN. But with a necessary difference. More pin-prick sanctions on individuals or companies involved in Iran's nuclear or missile programmes won't get Iran's attention. Any new measures will need to hurt—a lot. Thus far Russia and China have balked at that; some Europeans are squeamish too. But the alternative—Iran smoothly accelerating towards a bomb—is worse.

mtgondal · #8 Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Will US invade Iran?

Plain words

By M B Naqvi
Wednesday, JUNE 13, 2007

The question is: will the US make war, limited or unlimited as it might become, against Iran? There are two opinions: one says that the US has assembled an amount of military wherewithal in the Middle East and Persian Gulf that should ensure victory against Iran so that it enforces a regime change. The fact is American hearts are still lacerating over the events in Tehran 28 years ago; the loss of Iran is still not acceptable to the US. The whole post 9/11 US policy, under which the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq for mainly trumped up reasons, strongly points to the 'compulsion' to ensure that America needs to reshape the area, including subduing Iran if it wants its own position to stay secure in the strategically vital Middle East.

Against this is the so-called realistic school and the recent trends of American opinion now supposedly make sure that Iran would be off the hook, much like the way North Korea has got off the same hook. The Neocons school of thought is said to have lost favour within the Bush administration after the Iraqi misadventure and the proof of it is that the US has dealt not only with Iran in two recent conferences face to face -- the earlier one in Sharam-al-Shaikh and the later one in Baghdad where the contact was genuine and substantive -- but also Syria. The US is said to have yet again focused on solving the Palestine problem as a necessity for rendering Hamas and Hizbollah less credible. And this shows the way Iran might escape the otherwise likely war. Besides, Iran is not a pushover.

It would be astonishing if the arrogant American policy makers fail to realize the likely political and economic costs of unilateral action. Yes, the US can mount air action against no matter how many Iranian targets. But then what happens later depends on Iran's political, military and economic capabilities. Iran's smart ordnance that can cost American Navy a ship or two -- may be in or near the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz. Conceivably, Iran can stop all or most oil exports from the Gulf region, sending world markets into a tailspin. The damage the world economy will suffer cannot be assessed. Notwithstanding the paranoia of the Americans Iran cannot support Al Qaeda in Iraq or elsewhere. But it can cause a political earthquake throughout the region by its actions against Israel in concert with Hamas, Hizbollah and any other Arab power (Syria?) that may also join in. Iran will remain capable of rebuilding itself in the present orientation. The Americans have to think again.

There is no disputing the plausibility of both schools. Still, it is not easy to visualize the Americans' resiling from their programme of regime change in Iran. The fact is that North Korea was a different kettle of fish. For strategic reasons, it is sure to be supported to the hilt by both Russia and China. The Americans haven't also forgotten the lessons of the 1950s Korean war. The idea of America getting into a war with North Korea without South Korea is inconceivable. Even Japan is not anxious for such a war, though it has had a lot of heartburning over the North Korean missile programme. Even today the Americans would not dare to repeat their earlier mistakes of the late 1940s and early 1950s.

None of these considerations apply to Iran. To be sure, there is no comparison between the military strengths of Iran and the only hyper power. Iran, all said and done, can be invaded, though it is not going to be an easy morsel to swallow. A regime change in Iran remains as urgent for the Americans today or tomorrow as it is axiomatic to most American schools of thought that the US should continue to control the Middle East. There is no doubt that the Iranians are a consciously anti-US force in the region. Iran is playing the role of a natural leader of the Middle East and has many qualifications for it. Its recent behaviour is based on the assumption that it is already a pre-eminent power of the Middle East and it is intent on winning the hearts and minds of the Arabs. And it has gone some way in that direction. The question boils down to how vital the Middle East is to the US. On that will hinge the question of taking military action vis-à-vis Iran or not.

Controlling the Middle East tightly is of prime importance for American strategic thinking. Can it let the Middle East go its own way especially with Iran leading it against American interests? And controlling ME tightly seems to involve a regime change in Tehran. Therefore it is hard to visualize even a Democrats-led US letting Iran in an adversarial orientation. The role of American politics in policy-making cannot be denied: American opinion is decidedly against the Iraq war and wants American soldiers back home. True enough. But see the total silence the Democratic Party regarding American troops in Afghanistan or the nearly 150 foreign military bases. There is simply no talk of any withdrawal from Afghanistan or elsewhere.

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, visualizes a permanent US presence in Iraq, irrespective of what happens there. This would seem to suggest the way permanent US strategic interests are defined. The present differences of opinion and the ballyhoo of the democrats regarding withdrawal from Iraq is mostly electoral politics; it may not be proof that America is likely to change its strategic thinking or that it will let Iran and the rest of the Middle East slip out of its control.

If this line of thinking has any merit, it will involve the assumption that the American strategic thinking is not actually partisan but is shared by all the major stakeholders in America. If this assumption is granted, the lay of the land is altogether different. It is easy to note that Americans of most stripes think that they have to remain numero uno in the world, militarily, economically and politically. That involves management of the new power-centres that are definitely emerging while preserving what the US already has.

The US policy in Asia can easily be seen as being mainly aimed at containing and countering the rising influence of China on the one hand, and of Russia on the other. The US is at the head of a coalition with Australasia, Japan, South East Asian states and South Korea and Taiwan. It is trying to absorb India in its power system. In Europe, America is tightening its grip on the European Union so that it does not develop into a rival power centre but remains tied to the American chariot as an allied power. The struggle for the soul of EU is intense today.

Europe cannot be left out of the loop of the American power system if the Middle East is to remain secure in American control. From that viewpoint, control over the Middle East is as vital as over Europe. It means a regime change in Iran will remain an American priority. Whether it means war now or later is secondary.

The writer is a veteran journalist and freelance columnist. Email: mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=60259

mtgondal · #9 Friday, June 15, 2007

Iran’s stabilising role in ME

By Maqbool Ahmed Bhatty
Friday, JUNE 15,2007

WITH the UN Security Council due to consider further sanctions against Iran, the previous consensus among its permanent members may be difficult to maintain as the US justifies its Ballistic Missile Defence installations in Eastern Europe that are being targeted at Iran.

As a signatory of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran has not only accepted inspection by the IAEA but has also signed an additional protocol permitting further visits to specific sites. Alarmist opinions aside, the general assessment among experts is that Iran is at least five years away from acquiring military nuclear capability. The only known nuclear power in the region, Israel, not only has its own capability but also enjoys full US guarantees. The basic problem in the current crisis is that the US remains committed to its goal of a regime change in Iran.

The anomaly is that the predominantly young population of Iran would like to see improved relations with the West, but not at the cost of sacrificing their national identity and values. Former presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami reflect a pragmatic approach but President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stands for the sovereignty and rights of an ancient land, which cannot be sacrificed. He also symbolises the aspirations of the Muslim world, which must be respected if the West wants security in the region.

While sticking stubbornly to its right to continue uranium enrichment, that is being exercised by many other signatories of NPT for peaceful purposes, Iran has participated in a security dialogue in Baghdad in which the US also took part. Iran has participated in IAEA consultations and is in contact with some EU countries on its nuclear programme. It has refuted allegations that it has sent arms to militants in Palestine or Lebanon and has condemned Israel’s resort to violence against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, where it has arrested many elected representatives belonging to Hamas.

The Israeli attitude shows complete disdain for the peace process and the US has hardly shown any reaction, which bodes ill for durable peace in the region. On his recent tour of Europe, President George Bush tried to strike a conciliatory note with President Vladimir Putin of Russia by suggesting the installation of monitors in Azerbaijan for US and Russian missiles. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the US is being changed and a large US naval force has been steaming up and down the Persian Gulf.

The overall US posture in the Middle East is still aggressive, with Syria being accused of provoking conflict in Lebanon, while Iran’s nuclear ambitions are highlighted frequently. Though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice keeps talking to Arab leaders the US is focusing on militants in Sudan and Somalia. The post 9/11 anti-Muslim rhetoric persists, and apart from the US pursuing regime change in Iran, ideas of redrawing the map of the region keep surfacing, and include the creation of Greater Balochistan.

As the election campaign picks up in the US, the Republicans continue to stress commitment to US forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. As neighbours of Iran, Tehran would prefer to see foreign forces leave and internal peace and stability return. This does not look probable in the near future as the process of reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan has not gained momentum, and maintaining law and order remains the priority. The Democrats, on the other hand, are urging diplomacy and dialogue.

With Shia militias in Iraq stepping up attacks on Sunnis whom they outnumber three to one, the Arab rulers of adjoining lands to the south, headed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, have made it clear to the US government that they will not remain indifferent if the widespread killing of Sunnis continues.

As Iran is allegedly aiding Shia militias in southern Iraq and supplying weapons to groups hostile to the US, there is increased pressure from Washington on Iran. But then, President Ahmadinejad paid an official visit to Saudi Arabia to assure the monarch that Iran stood for Muslim unity and had no desire to ignite sectarian passions.

Iran has defended its right to carry out uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. But the powerful Jewish lobby in the US, joined by Israel, has stepped up pressure on the Bush administration to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran for the purpose of destroying its nuclear installations and achieving a regime change.

Despite possessing the technical capability to attack Iran, the overall US predicament does not make a decision on the issue an easy one. The US is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and its military resources are already overstretched. With the EU favouring a peaceful settlement and China and Russia lukewarm about additional sanctions against Iran, Washington will not only be defying world opinion but also ignoring new trends in the US itself where a majority favours diplomacy over bloodshed.

There are other elements that should make the US consider Iran as a regional power with a long history of a player of global significance. The Iranian empire stretched up to the Mediterranean 2,500 years ago. The country today boasts of a rich culture and a civilisation that influenced Central and South Asia as well as the Middle East. Its geo-strategic situation allows it to play an active role in a large region.

It may be recalled that following the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953, the restored Shah became the most trusted ally of the US until he was toppled by the Islamic revolution in 1979. Except for the first decade when Imam Khomeini was in control, the US and Iran have coexisted without too much acrimony. Analysts point out that their interests have overlapped on many issues. Even now the Iranian attitude towards Iraq and Afghanistan may be harmonised with that of the US.

There is no love lost between the Iranians and the resurgent Taliban. The Iranian attitude over security issues in Iraq did not lead to controversy involving the US representative at the recent conference in Baghdad. Iran’s role as a major producer of oil and gas cannot be ignored. It is certain that if hostilities were launched, the price of these items would shoot up, causing hardship all round.

Any US show of force will further destabilise the region. Pakistan would experience serious disturbances with its substantial Shia population. One hopes that self-restraint prevails over arrogance.

The writer is a former ambassador.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/15/op.htm

mtgondal · #10 Friday, June 15, 2007

Imam Khomeini and Iran’s Islamic revolution

By Rahimullah Yusufzai

Friday,JUNE 15,2007

Every year on June 4, the Iranian government and people observe the death anniversary of Imam Roohullah Khomeini by holding a public meeting at his mausoleum located around 20 kilometres outside Tehran and arranging related political and cultural activities. The yearly event provides an opportunity to the Imam’s followers to keep alive his memory and energise the Islamic Revolution that he successfully led in 1979 by toppling the powerful monarch Raza Shah Pehlavi, better known by his high-sounding title Shahinshah of Iran.

Imam Khomeini died 18 years ago on June 4, 1989. His last days were spent in the simple, two-room house that he had rented in Tehran’s middle-class Jamaran locality after doctors advised him to shift to the Iranian capital where the weather was pleasant and suitable for patients suffering from asthma and other breathing problems. Until then, the ailing Imam was living in Qom, the seat of religious learning in Iran with a number of seminaries run by well-known Ayatollahs. Imam Khomeini had lived a major part of his life in Qom before and after the Islamic Revolution and it was in this city that he gave a bold and path-breaking speech at the Faizia seminary, sited adjacent to the popular shrine of Imam Raza’s much-venerated sister Hazrat Masooma, that earned the wrath of the Shahinshah and resulted in a campaign of victimization against the Imam and his supporters.

Imam Khomeini’s Jamaran home in northern Tehran is now a place of pilgrimage. The small house is often unable to accommodate the number of visitors. Everything in his use has been preserved. A photo gallery depicts his journey from being a young student to his long years of exile in Iraq, Turkey and France and then his victorious return to a tumultuous welcome in Tehran. A library provides free books and literature encompassing the Imam’s life and times along with titles on contemporary religious and political issues. The simplicity and smallness of the house explains Imam Khomeini’s disdain for the luxuries of life. He could have demanded and got anything that he wanted as the country’s supreme leader. Instead, he continued to lead the simple and spiritual life that he had chosen for himself as a man of God. In the process, he set precedents that his successors and followers must follow even if it is a tough act to do so. For visitors like us coming from countries where rulers insist on strict observance of protocol to the accompaniment of pomp and show while performing various official functions, it came as a relief and pleasant surprise to see Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei and President Mahmud Ahmadinejad going about their business and receiving guests as normal human beings. It is primarily due to Imam Khomeini’s legacy that his successors strive to be the servants of their nation instead of being rulers.

Twenty-eight years after the fall of the mighty Pehlavi dynasty, there is not much evidence that the Islamic revolution is losing steam or there is a big drop in the revolutionary fervour of its cadres. In fact, it has received regular doses of energy on account of internal and external factors to retain its vitality. Right now the US-led opposition to Iran’s nuclear programme and the sanctions imposed on the country through the United Nations Security Council is enabling the clergy-led Iranian government to gain the sympathy of the people by appealing to their patriotism. The Iranians are highly patriotic and most of them are religious. The fact that the US has done everything within its means to undo the Islamic revolution and weaken the government of the Ayatollahs has made majority of Iranians even more determined to support those ready to defy America and its allies. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that “death to America” slogans still receive the loudest response at political rallies.

Earlier, the eight-year war with Iraq kept patriotic sentiments at its peak and prompted the Iranian people to support Imam Khomeini and his colleagues in their efforts to defend the homeland. There is no doubt that President Saddam Hussein was emboldened to attack Iran due to the not-so-covert assistance from the US and other western and Arab powers and one of the objectives of that misguided war was to defeat the Islamic revolution before it could be established on a sound foundation. The death of dozens of Iranian leaders including President Mohammad Ali Rejai and Prime Minister Ayatollah Syed Jawad Bahunar in acts of terrorism in the early years of the Islamic revolution also motivated the followers of Imam Khomeini to close ranks and continue supporting him and his comrades.

The clerics who have been in power in Iran since 1979 have been smart enough to fulfil both their spiritual and temporal responsibilities. No doubt implementing Shariah has remained their primary concern and steps have been taken to Islamize the Iranian society, which had become largely westernized in urban centres during the rule of the Shahinshah. But the ruling Ayatollahs have also paid attention to resolving the socio-economic problems of the Iranian people and improving their life standards. Elections are regularly held even if they don’t satisfy western demands and some freedoms are allowed in keeping with Islamic teachings. Iran’s huge energy resources have allowed the government to keep the economic uplift projects on track and maintain healthy growth rates. The economic well-being of the people despite US-led sanctions is a remarkable achievement of the government. The infrastructural development and the impressive socio-economic indicators also keep the people generally happy and deny an opportunity to opponents of the Iranian regime to exploit the situation in their favour.

Apart from the US-led western countries and their other allies such as Israel and some Arab neighbours of Iran that are hostile to the Iranian government, there are also some Iranians who have been campaigning to overthrow the ruling Ayatollahs. The Mujahideen-i-Khalq, derided in Tehran by referring to it as ‘Munafiqeen-i-Khalq,’ probably remains the strongest opponent of the Iranian government but its France-based leadership is far removed from the region to make an impact. It had training camps and bases in Iraq during Saddam Hussein’s rule and some of these facilities still exist under the patronage of the US occupying forces there. But there is little evidence that the group, which was later joined by discredited former Iranian president Banisaddar, enjoys popular support in Iran. The supporters of the late Shahinshah’s son are also in no position to influence Iranian public opinion. Non-Shia groups such as some Baloch operating from the platform of the mysterious Jundullah organization have made their presence felt by organizing terrorist attacks in Zahidan and elsewhere in Seistan-Balochistan province of Iran but these operations are few and far between.

It is obvious that Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad appear firmly in control of the situation. There is no immediate threat to their government and the Islamic revolution has come to stay. And the more the US tries to bring a regime change in Tehran by attacking Iran or imposing further sanctions, the chances are that Imam Khomeini’s successors will emerge stronger and the Islamic revolution will become even more well-entrenched.

The writer is an executive editor of The News International based in Peshawar. Email: bbc@pes.comsats.net.pk

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=60617