Washington's obstinate Iran policy
By Tariq Fatemi
American President George Bush's rating at home is at an all-time low. His administration is virtually sailing rudderless. The Democratic-controlled Congress has stymied his domestic agenda, while his foreign policy initiatives, which mean primarily the war on terror, are going nowhere. And now, Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales has been accused of nepotism.
While all this has led to panic in the Republican Party, the president's unyielding conviction born out of monumental ignorance has stood him in good stead, and he appears unruffled. Vice-President Dick Cheney has gained greater influence regarding foreign policy and national security matters.
In the meanwhile, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate has claimed that the U.S. has failed to crush al-Qaeda and that the latter may have recouped its losses from "safe havens" in Pakistan's tribal belt. There is, however, no acceptance, much less admission, that it is the U.S. occupation of Iraq that has provided a powerful fillip to Islamic extremism and turned that country into a breeding ground for terrorists.
Instead, the Bush administration remains convinced that the deployment of additional American troops would not only pacify the county but also set it on the road to democracy.
Statements of senior U.S. officials and their neo-con supporters indicate that Washington's appetite for further adventures has not been satisfied. The Bush administration has upped the ante in its confrontation with Iran.
The administration, which had been accusing Tehran of providing weapons to its adherents in Iraq, is now making similar charges with reference to Iran's role in Afghanistan. U.S. and British officials recently claimed to have discovered Iranian-made weaponry, including C-4 plastic and mortars, with the Taleban militia in Afghanistan.
Iranian officials have vehemently denied these charges, pointing out that the Taleban are primarily a rigid Sunni organization that pursued an anti-Iranian policy when in power. Tehran has also recalled that its support to the Northern Alliance was instrumental in preventing the Taleban from sweeping the country. Tehran has poured some $200 million in reconstruction projects in Afghanistan.
The neo-cons in the U.S. as well as some independents, such as Senator Joseph Lieberman, have called upon the Bush administration "to take aggressive action against the Iranians to stop them from allegedly killing Americans in Iraq."
The so-called threat from Iran has had its inevitable fallout on U.S.-Russia relations as well. The Americans have sought to place missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter what they claim is the likelihood of Iranian missiles hitting European targets.
The Russians, recognizing that this is only a ploy to station more missiles around their country, have proposed that, instead, the U.S. be given access to data from a Russian early warning radar unit in Azerbaijan.
President Putin's proposal makes sense for it would end the diplomatic row over the Eastern European plan. This is because the technical features of the Russian radar system complement those of U.S. missile defense radar systems now being set up in Alaska.
In this context, it would be recalled that after having stated that the administration was not convinced of the validity of the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the U.S. open dialogue with Iran, Washington finally agreed to an ambassador-level meeting in Baghdad some time ago, thus breaking a 27-year diplomatic freeze.
Although the two sides said the meeting was "positive", the Americans accused Iran of arming and financing militants attacking U.S. and Iraqi troops. It was emphasized that the meeting was confined to Iraq and that neither side mentioned Iran's nuclear program nor raised other issues.
A second round also took place last week. However, after the talks, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker accused Iran of stepping up its support of militia groups fighting in Iraq and claimed that the U.S. had "actually seen militia related activity with Iran's support go up and not down."
The Iranians recognize that the U.S. is seeking only a limited dialogue, restricted to solving its problems in Iraq, without adopting a constructive approach that could lay the foundation for mutually advantageous relations between them. No less significant is the fact that only days before the Baghdad meeting, Washington launched a vicious media campaign alleging that Iran was planning a summer offensive against U.S. forces in Iraq.
It is the attitude of Congress that is most surprising because while many legislators are vocal in their opposition to the war in Iraq, Congress has cooperated with the administration on the issue of Iran, by passing every bill or resolution that has been initiated by the highly influential Israeli lobby AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee).
One would have expected that with the administration facing serious problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would have been more amenable to resolving its differences with Iran. Instead, the administration is stiffening its opposition to the Islamic government in Tehran.
If only America could recognize that if it has major interests in a stable and peaceful Iraq, Tehran, too, has important interests in that country. Tehran has tried to convince the U.S. and countries in its region that it is not in its interest to destabilize Iraq.
There are quite a few American specialists on Iran who believe that Tehran's interests do not necessarily differ from those of the U.S. For example, Dr James Russell, a specialist on security issues in the Persian Gulf, has said that history of their tortured relations and the differing agendas of their domestic constituencies continue to cast a shadow on the policies of both.
He is nevertheless of the view that the two countries do share common strategic interests in Iraq, "at least in terms of the rational and realistic definition of their strategic interests."
James Dobbins, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, is also of the view that Iran is not trying to destabilize Iraq as the "Iranians don't see anything to be gained by Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq."
Recent reports to the effect that the U.S. military command has prepared a detailed plan for a significantly enhanced American role in Iraq would be a matter of concern to Tehran.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki pointed this out in his speech at the World Economic Forum in May, where he charged that U.S. military presence was a cause of instability rather than a solution for Iraq. He added "we believe that sooner or later they will have to decide to withdraw their troops from Iraq because that is the cause for continuation of terrorist activities."
And now, the Bush administration's announcement that it intends to sell to Israel, Saudi Arabia and other "moderate" Middle East regimes a massive arms package to counter what it claims is a threat to them from Iran, will certainly not promote peace and stability in the region.
If anything, it will further exacerbate tensions among the neighbors, while providing a powerful fillip to the U.S. defense industry at a time when U.S. politicians need to expand their "war chests" for the coming electoral battles.
When will Washington discover that it is not Iran that worries the Arab youth, but its own pro-Israel, pro-repressive Arab regimes that are enhancing Iran's credibility and that of organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, while also generating increasing hostility towards America in the Middle East?
The writer is a former Pakistani ambassador.
Source: DAW
Loading...
I hope it gets better over there about womens rights
ReyesZeul 3 years ago