HOPES FOR US-IRANIAN RAPPROCHEMENT FADE
Jim Lobe: 2/09/04

A recent US initiative to boost contacts with Iran appears to have become an election-year casualty in both countries. As reformers engage conservatives in a bitter dispute in Tehran over upcoming elections, Iranian diplomats have backed away from a plan that would have permitted the first US congressional mission to Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Meanwhile, American neo-conservative strategists continue to urge the Bush Administration not to normalize ties with Iran’s theocratic government.

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist tragedy, US President George W. Bush branded Iran as a member of the "axis of evil." In recent months, however, the Bush administration’s rhetoric towards Tehran softened, and the US State Department, driven in large part by a desire to hasten the stabilization process in Iraq, sought to engage Iranian officials. In January, expectations for a rapprochement were rapidly rising. Iran’s UN Ambassador, Mohammad Javad Zarif, traveled to Washington, DC, for talks with congressional leaders. Earlier, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi met with US Sen. Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland.

On January 30, a historic breakthrough appeared at hand when Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announced that Iran had agreed to a bipartisan, 10-person congressional delegation trip to Tehran. But high hopes were dashed the next day, when an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman announced that such a visit was "not on our agenda."

Many US foreign policy observers see improved US-Iranian cooperation as critical to the stabilization of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Aside from the difficulty of policing the 795-mile border between Iran and Iraq, Washington’s success in rebuilding Iraq increasingly depends on its good relations with the majority Shi’a population over which Iran’s Shi’a clergy could exercise substantial influence, they say. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Iranian assistance could additionally prove vital in containing resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban activity in Afghanistan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Efforts to improve US-Iranian relations have experienced sudden stops and starts in recent years. For instance, the US-Iranian dialogue experienced a quick cut last May, when the Pentagon charged that a terrorist attack against a foreign residential compound in Saudi Arabia was organized and directed by al Qaeda from Iranian territory.

The engagement process took a turn for the better in October 2003 when Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Congress that the administration did not seek "regime change" in Tehran, and would consider "limited discussions with the government of Iran about areas of mutual interest." The declaration marked a significant departure from the talk of "pre-emptive warfare" that had earlier characterized policy discussions concerning the region. Two months later, with Washington’s backing, Teheran signed a special protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency for inspections of its uranium-enrichment facilities. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Many in Washington view Iranian reformists as preferable to conservatives as the two countries strive to restore diplomatic relations, which were severed in 1979. The authority of Iranian reformists, however, has steadily dwindled in the face of conservative political pressure. With reform-minded President Mohammad Khatami’s failure to secure the reinstatement of 2,000 reform candidates for the February 20 parliamentary ballot, it appears as though Iranian conservatives are on the verge of returning to power. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Some experts say it does not matter whether reformists or conservatives are in control in Tehran; when it comes to US relations, Iranian leaders from across the political spectrum are cautious. Even though reformists have controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government in recent years, Iran has hesitated to seize opportunities to promote the normalization of US-Iranian relations. A major factor in this is Iran’s political system, in which conservative-dominated, unelected oversight bodies hold effective veto power over most presidential and legislative decisions.

Reformist caution towards the United States was evident following the devastating late December earthquake in the Iranian city of Bam. Reformist leaders and media welcomed the so-called "earthquake diplomacy" advanced by the US, under which restrictions on financial aid to Iran were temporarily lifted, and some 80 relief workers and 150,000 pounds in emergency aid were sent to the devastated Iranian city. But, in remarks to reporters, Khatami denied that US involvement in the disaster response signaled any change in Tehran’s relationship with Washington. "Humanitarian issues should not be intertwined with deep and chronic political problems," the official IRNA news agency reported Khatami as saying.

Some political analysts believe a conservative victory in the parliamentary election could result in renewed US-Iranian tension, diminishing near-term chances for a rapprochement. Converesely, some Iranian press reports suggest that conservative leaders are interested in engaging the United States. Citing "well-informed sources," the independent Iran Press Service recently reported that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni, who often sides with conservatives, had endorsed high-level contacts with US officials. The report suggested that Iranian hardliners see engagement as the best way to reduce the chance that Washington might make Iran the next target in its ongoing campaign against terrorism.

With US forces struggling to promote stabilization in Iraq, and with the Bush administration under pressure over its use of faulty intelligence to launch the war to oust former dictator Saddam Hussein, talk of expanding the scope of anti-terrorism operations has greatly diminished in Washington.

While the Bush administrations political priorities have shifted, though, some prominent American neo-conservative strategists continue to argue against normalizing relations with the Islamic republic of Iran. Iran’s leadership, they argue, has supported Middle Eastern terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah and Hamas. Thus, engaging the Islamic republic would undermine the US interest in promoting stability in the Middle East.

In the recently published book "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror," former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle and former Bush speechwriter David Krum argue that democratic change can occur in Iran only if the United States encourages dissidents to overthrow the country’s theocratic government. That theme has been echoed in the neo-conservative press of late. The weekly National Review has characterized those who seek dialogue with Iran as "abject appeasers of evil."

Given the extensive influence that neo-conservatives wield in Bush’s Republican Party, it is uncertain whether the president will make a hard push to overcome existing obstacles to the normalization of US-Iranian ties. Even if rapprochement efforts fade into the background for now, some US experts say that, ultimately, normalization is in the US national interest. ’’We surround Iran presently, and we’re going to be there for a long time and they’re going to be there for a long time, " said Gary Sick, former President Jimmy Carter’s principal Iran aide and the acting director of Columbia University’s Middle East Institute. "There’s a sense that now we’re neighbors."

Editor’s Note: Jim Lobe is a freelance reporter specializing in financial affairs. He is based in Washington.

Email this article | Printer-Friendly Version
Posted February 9, 2004 © Eurasianet
http://www.eurasianet.org

	The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.