U.S. STILL REFUSES TO TALK

The following column was first published on November 5th, 2005

It’s time to talk with Iran

Recent anti-Israel remarks by the president of Iran have been interpreted by many as the true belief of the Iranian “leadership." However, we should keep in mind that the effective head of Iran’s political establishment is not the president; that role belongs to the Supreme Leader–a religious figure selected by a so-called Assembly of Experts. And there is some evidence that the real powers in Iran do not condone Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement about “wiping Israel off the map."

There are deep divisions within the Iranian population and to a lesser extent within the leadership itself. On the one hand, there is the hardline, conservative religious establishment, which is currently in charge. But on the other hand, there is a large and growing group of more liberal, “reformist” thinkers who take a more pragmatic approach to politics and government. Reformers in Iran are under fire these days, even though a few of the latter are also religious figures.

Both liberals and conservatives,  however, see their country as the leading power in the Middle East. It is this internal view of itself that makes Iran such a problem for the West and especially for the United States. The West views Iran as unpredictable and unreliable and therefore fears its growing nationalism, influence and political clout. Like it or not, the country is a power to be reckoned with.

One of the main difficulties raised by the American invasion and occupation of Iran’s next-door neighbour has always been, “What next?" There is no easy answer to that question; it may be answered eventually by forces that are well beyond the control of the occupying coalition.

One of those forces is Iran.

The Americans are sitting on the sharp horns of a dilemma: Sooner or later, they will have to choose:

Option One — Leave Iraq and let the Iraqis decide their future even if that means civil war. That would give Shiite-dominated Iran a very strong voice in future Iraqi affairs (given its close relationship with Iraq’s Shiite majority). This option would need to involve Iran

Option Two — Hunker down as a long-term occupying authority until the time comes when, if ever, the region as a whole finds a kind of political equilibrium.

The real challenge for American policy-makers is how to turn this awful dilemma into a rational solution, which would end the killing of American soldiers and bring some stability to both Iraqi society and the region as a whole.

The first option is fraught with great danger for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Most credible American analysts, including some in the CIA, recognize that Iran is already a regional powerhouse; they know that if the Americans leave Iraq (without an ironclad agreement with Iran), there would be a power vacuum that only the Iranians would be able to fill. That would pose clear dangers for Israel and threaten the stability of the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and perhaps even Pakistan.

Option One could be viable. But the Americans, together with the government of Iraq, would need to enter boldly into negotiations with Iran. Negotiating as equals could well result in the hammering out of some sort of workable region-wide peace agreement. Of course, any such agreement would have to result in a hard and fast non-aggression treaty, which would protect both Iraqi and Israeli interests.

In fact, option one could yield other benefits besides providing for regional security and a rational Iraq exit strategy for the United States. Serious negotiations and subsequent ongoing talks between Iran and the United States could lead to a regional super-pact containing an arms-control agreement. It could also include, as an overarching objective, the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the area, including those now stockpiled in Israel. And it could include an end to Iran’s financial support for such militant groups as Hezbollah.

The very beginning of such talks would have a dampening effect on the power and success of the insurgency in Iraq, at least that part of the insurgency now being financed by Iran. That would make it possible for Iraqi forces to take over the lion’s share of responsibility for security and open the way for the United States to extricate itself from what has become an increasingly untenable situation.

Peace talks involving Iran would also bring the United States to a deeper understanding of the less militant goals of the Muslim Middle East and provide a basis for moving forward on a solution to the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Such talks would be opposed by other governments, including those of Israel, Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but that opposition could be overcome.

From the point of view of international security, however, the most immediate result of these proposed talks would benefit everyone. They would mean an instant loss of influence on the part of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other violence-prone elements, which now receive moral and/or economic support from Tehran.

I discussed these two options recently with a policy analyst at a major American conservative think-tank. She called it a “charmingly naive theory,” but added that if it worked, it would be hailed as “brilliant strategy.”

She added one caveat: “Iran would have to agree to continue to accept American dollars for the sale of oil. If not,” she added, “it will be option two and we’ll be in Iraq forever.”

global view middle east