US NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERT SAYS INTERNAL RIVALRIES INFLUENCE IRANIAN FOREIGN POLICY
A Q&A with US National Security Expert Zalmay Khalilzad,
Conducted by Camelia Entekhabi-Fard: 3/15/02

Tension is rising in US-Iranian relations that may have an overall impact on the anti-terrorism campaign. Some US officials are specifically worried about the destabilizing effect that Iran may have on the Afghan peace process. EurasiaNet contributor Camelia Entekhabi-Fard spoke March 14 with Zalmay Khalilzad, a top Bush Administration national security advisor on Central Asian affairs, about US-Iranian relations and other topics of regional geopolitical significance. The text of the interview follows:

EurasiaNet: Mr. Khalilzad, you have said that the US government has provided Iran with detailed information on the al Qaeda members it thinks have been given safe passage through Iran. The Iranian Foreign Ministry said recently that the information they received was old and inadequate. What can public opinion conclude from these disputes? Can you be more specific now about some of these claims of Iranian involvement?
Khalilzad: First I must say that the Iranian government, particularly that part of it which deals with security questions, knows much better than us what is going on with al Qaeda. They know which elements have passed through their country and which ones have stayed behind. In the meetings we held with them in Geneva and elsewhere, we voiced our concern to them. They have received the information we have on this. This was also done in discussions in Kabul.

As I have said in my press conferences here and abroad, there is concrete information about those al Qaeda members who have entered into Iran en route to other destinations and those who have stayed there. We are certain these security officials are aware of these goings-on and have worked with these elements.

EurasiaNet: When was the Geneva meeting exactly, and who were the individuals involved?
Khalilzad: The last meeting in Geneva was in January. In Kabul, some discussions were held between the gentleman in charge of the Iranian embassy, Mr. [Mohammad] Taherian, and on our side, [acting US] Ambassador [to Afghanistan Ryan] Crocker.

EurasiaNet: In your recent speech at the American-Iranian Council conference, you called on the Iranian leaders to start official talks with the United States without any pre-conditions. Is the US government ready to enter into discussions with the Iranians without any pre-conditions also?
Khalilzad: Both during the Clinton Presidency and under the Bush Administration, we have said repeatedly that we are ready to discuss matters of mutual interest with Iranians without any pre-conditions attached to them. That means we are not ready to accept pre-conditions from them.

I think there are problems in Iran with this. Some want talks, others are apparently against this. Last Thursday [March 14, President Mohammad] Khatami was quoted as saying he was for dialogue at the governmental level. On Friday, [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei came out opposing it. This is a problem within the government there that people should be aware of.

EurasiaNet: Recently, [Mustafa] Zahrani of the Iranian Mission at the UN was not allowed to travel to Washington for a scheduled speech at the American-Iranian Council conference. As you know, members of the Iranian Mission can only leave the 25-mile perimeter with special authorization from the US government. Why do you think his travel request was rejected?
Khalilzad: We have no problem with issuing visas for such occasions. The matter was only a particular security check and not a political decision.

EurasiaNet: After President Bush's State of the Union speech, in which he included Iran in a world-wide "axis of evil," both you and Mr. Bush have gone out of your way to prove that this is not directed at the Iranian people and their elected representatives, but at an "un-elected few." What if this sort of pressure leads to a suspension of civil liberties or disbanding of the parliament under the pretext of a state of emergency? This was in fact openly suggested by some in Iran.
Khalilzad: This is a very good question. We could discuss what the Iranian people are aspiring for. They want their liberties; a sound economy; and a government that is answerable to them and follows through on promises. I believe the large vote for [President Mohammad] Khatami is an indication of demands for change. But the hard-liners and those who are un-elected are standing against the tide of change.

How can the United States help the Iranian people to achieve their goals? I think the best way is to be quite forthright about the facts and the problems the people are facing so that nothing is misunderstood by anyone. They must know what behavior benefits their interests and what harms them. I never said we should put heavy pressure on anyone. We only want our problems with Iran in the region known very clearly. We owe it to the Iranian people to let them see the problems.

EurasiaNet: What about the threat such a position poses to civil or political liberties?
Khalilzad: I am not in a position to say anything on this. What I wanted said in my speech and elsewhere was the need to be transparent about the problems; the internal problems that the people are facing from the hard-liners and the foreign policies that are also harmful to their interests. This way America's future actions will be more understandable.

EurasiaNet: You mentioned in your [recent] speech that Iran needs to look for issues of common interest with the United States. Among the issues you mentioned was Iraq. As you know the leaders of the Shia-based group, the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, have expressed readiness to work with the United States to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In fact Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Hakim, the movement's leader, was quite explicit about this in an interview with MSNBC last December. This is obviously in coordination with Iranian leaders. What is the US government's position on this?
Khalilzad: There are some things said in the media in Iran that are not official positions. These are two separate things. Our hope is that both Iran and the groups that are based in Iran give their support to a future government that truly represents the people of Iraq and is no threat to its neighbors.

That Iran would cooperate with the international community on this is entirely their decision. But practically speaking, we can conclude that such a decision could only benefit Iran, the United States and the people of Iraq.

EurasiaNet: My last question is about financial assistance to Afghanistan. The government in Kabul is grappling with many problems today, but they haven't apparently received much of the money promised them. Why is that so?
Khalilzad: In Tokyo, $1.8 million was promised for reconstruction. We tried to expedite this. …..for various projects. We encouraged all the donor countries to start their deliveries. The problem many governments have is the issue of security. They want security restored before economic development starts. Perhaps it is better to start economic improvement to restore security.

This month and the next, delegations would visit Afghanistan to start economic improvement projects wherever possible. Also the money frozen from the Taliban, to the tune of $200 million is released for [Afghan interim government leader Hamid] Karzai. Hopefully these would help alleviate some of the problems.

Editor's Note: Camelia Entekhabi-Fard is a freelance journalist who specializes in Afghan and Iranian affairs.

Email this article
Posted March 15, 2002 © 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, politcal 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.