| |
The Iran factor looms
large
By Jeffrey Donovan
WASHINGTON - The United States approach to Iran
after the Iraq war appears caught between a desire to
promote change in Tehran, and yet at the same time avoid
trouble from Iraqi Shi'ite Muslims with close ties to
Iran.
Freed from 30 years of oppression under
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Shi'ites are enjoying a revival
that would have been unthinkable a few weeks ago, taking
part in a long-banned pilgrimage to the holy city of
Karbala and openly protesting the American presence in
Iraq.
Many of them, especially those with ties
to Tehran - such as the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic
Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI) - are calling for
Iranian-inspired Islamic rule to take over in Baghdad.
Some say that they are willing to consider violent means
to achieve their goals should Washington fail to satisfy
them.
To be sure, the administration of
President George W Bush rejects any notion of a
theocratic regime taking root in Baghdad. White House
spokesman Ari Fleischer told a briefing this week,
"Well, Iran, certainly, is not an example of a democracy
or a country in which people are free. So, certainly, we
want to make certain that out of the liberation of Iraq,
it is not replaced by another different type of
dictatorship."
But how to balance that position
with the possible need to work with Iran, the most
populous Shi'ite Muslim country, to avert possible
unrest among radical Iraqi Shi'ites, has put Washington
in a tricky spot.
On one hand, Bush has said
that one goal of the war in Iraq was to pressure other
autocratic regimes and to unleash a democratic wave of
change in the Middle East. On the other hand, analysts
say that the war may have given Iran more leverage
vis-a-vis the US than it previously had, as least for
now. Complicating matters is that Washington has not had
diplomatic ties with Tehran since the 1979 Islamic
revolution, when Iranian students held US embassy
personnel hostage for more than a year.
Judith
Kipper is a Middle East expert with Washington's Center
for Strategic and International Studies. Kipper said
that the US clearly has competing interests in Iraq with
Iran, which after years of hostility with Baghdad would
now like to see an Iraqi government that is friendly to
its interests. Kipper says that Iran is therefore eager
to see American influence on any future Iraqi government
kept to a minimum.
She said, "At the same time,
the US wants a secular government in Iraq, which may
compete with the view of the hardliners and the
religious establishment in Iran, but coincides with the
view of the reformers in Iran - that they want a secular
government where the rights of the Shi'ite and all the
citizens of Iraq are taken into account because that
would promote democratization in Iran."
But how
can Washington achieve that without unduly antagonizing
Iran - and radical Iraqi Shi'ites - in the process?
Recently, there have been reports that the US is engaged
in quiet talks with Iranian officials. Fleischer himself
confirmed that the US does have "channels where we talk
to the Iranians". Moreover, senior Iranian figures, such
as influential former president Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani, have suggested that resuming ties with the
US should be considered.
Kipper says that such
talks are in US interests. The implication is that a
deal could be worked out that would satisfy both
countries and avoid undue confrontation. "They
[Iranians] have the capacity to make trouble," Kipper
said. "So it's extremely, extremely important for the US
to take into consideration the interests of all of the
neighbors of Iraq. We have relations with all of them
except Iran, which is probably the single most important
neighbor, and that is unfortunate. It is definitely a
handicap in terms of moving forward, trying to achieve
stability in Iraq."
But any diplomatic overtures
to Iran, Syria, North Korea or similar regimes are
coming under intense criticism by the right wing in
Washington. Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker
of the US House of Representatives, launched a scathing
attack on the State Department in a speech this week to
the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think
tank in Washington.
Gingrich said that US
foreign policy over the past six months has been marked
by six months of failed diplomacy and one month of
ringing military success. Now, he said, the failed
diplomacy is beginning anew. As an example, he pointed
to Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent decision to
visit Syria next month despite recent intense American
pressure on Damascus. According to Gingrich, the
Pentagon should continue to use its military victory in
Iraq to put more pressure on dictators in the Middle
East.
Raymond Tanter agrees. A former Pentagon
official and member of former president Ronald Reagan's
National Security Council, Tanter said, "The Office of
the Secretary of Defense - OSD - would like to see
regime change in Pyongyang, in Tehran, in Damascus and
in Tripoli. And the way you effect regime change is not
to cut a deal that props up dictatorships but to use the
military success of bringing down the regime in Baghdad
as a means of tipping over the tottering dictators in
other rogue states."
How the US could increase
pressure on Tehran and at the same time placate Iraq's
more radical Shi'ite elements is unclear. To be sure,
Iraqi Shi'ites are anything but politically uniform.
Kipper and other analysts say a power struggle is
already under way in Iraq between secular Shi'ites and
more radical Islamists.
One idea that has been
floated is that Washington could help empower moderate
Iraqi Shi'ites and hopefully satisfy most of them. But
others say anyone seen as being backed by Washington
could lack legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. Moreover,
it remains to be seen how popular radical Iraqi Shi'ites
are.
Some see signs they could wield a great
deal of influence, pointing to the fact that some
southern cities and one of Baghdad's poorer
neighborhoods have already fallen under the de facto
rule of Islamic clerics. But other analysts warn that
however popular they may or may not be, ties between
them and Iran's religious hard-liners should not be
exaggerated.
Shireen Hunter directs the Islamic
program at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies. She said that radical Shi'ites in Iraq may work
with Washington, depending on what kind of governing
set-up the US establishes in postwar Iraq.
"If
they felt that that setup does not serve their
interests, they might be troublesome," Hunter said. "But
I think that if, indeed, the US offers them a deal that
they cannot refuse, I would almost make a bet that they
will accept that, even if that meant antagonizing the
Iranians." Such a compromise, Hunter added, would be
more favorable to Tehran than the previous Iraqi regime.
Copyright (c) 2002, RFE/RL Inc. Reprinted
with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington DC
20036
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
