WRITE for ATol ADVERTISE MEDIA KIT GET ATol BY EMAIL ABOUT ATol CONTACT US
Asia Time Online - Daily News
             
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese



    Middle East
     Sep 9, 2011


Post-9/11 rebuff sunk US-Iran ties
By Barbara Slavin

WASHINGTON - Of all the mistakes and missed opportunities that have characterized United States foreign policy since September 11, 2001, few may have been as consequential as the failure to improve relations with Iran.

Had the George W Bush administration responded to repeated overtures from Tehran, it might have cemented a powerful ally against al-Qaeda, given the US an easier time pacifying Iraq and reduced Iranian motivation to oppose Arab-Israeli peace.

Unlike the reaction in many Arab states, where people saw 9/11 as punishment of the US for its pro-Israeli policies, in Iran both government officials and ordinary citizens expressed genuine

 
sympathy for the victims.

The government of then president Mohammad Khatami - with the backing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - strongly supported US efforts to topple the Taliban government and create a new administration for Afghanistan. Its reward: being labeled a member of an "axis of evil" along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and North Korea.

Iranian efforts to reconcile with the US persisted despite this diplomatic slap. There were monthly one-on-one talks in Europe between fairly senior Iranian and US diplomats from the autumn of 2001 until May 2003 that dealt with Afghanistan and the looming US invasion of Iraq.

James Dobbins, a special US envoy for Afghanistan after 9/11, recalls a remarkable overture in March 2002 - two months after the "axis of evil" comment by Bush - when an Iranian general offered his country's assistance in training 20,000 members of a new Afghan army.

Dobbins, in an article last year in the Washington Quarterly, wrote that secretary of state Colin Powell called the proposal "very interesting" and told him to talk to then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Rice put the offer on the agenda at a meeting of National Security Council principals, including then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"When we came to that item on the agenda, I again recounted my conversation with the Iranians," Dobbins wrote. "Rumsfeld did not look up from the papers he was perusing. When I finished, he made no comment and asked no questions. Neither did anyone else. After a long pause, seeing no one ready to take up the issue, Rice moved the meeting onto the next item on her agenda."

Dobbins told Inter Press Service (IPS) that the Iranian offer would likely have been scaled back and Afghanistan's other neighbors and interested parties such as Pakistan and India would also have to have been included. Still, he regards the lack of a US counter-proposal as a major missed opportunity. The Iranians, he said, "were making it clear that they had a broader agenda [of reconciliation with the US] in mind."

This pattern of non-response to Iranian overtures persisted. There was no US reply to an Iranian agenda for comprehensive negotiations sent to the State Department in May 2003, no answer when Iran offered that year to trade senior al-Qaeda detainees for members of an Iranian terrorist group in Iraq, and no response to an admittedly idiosyncratic letter to Bush by new President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in 2006.

By then, the power dynamics in the region had shifted toward Iran and away from the United States, which was bogged down in sectarian warfare in Iraq and about to face a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

Dobbins said that continued Iranian cooperation might not have been decisive in Afghanistan given the Taliban's stronger links to Pakistan. "In terms of Iraq, however, it could have made all the difference since at least 50% of the violence since 2003 has come from Shi'ite militants" who are either backed by Iran or otherwise susceptible to Iranian pressure, he said.

Those in the Bush administration who opposed rapprochement with Iran feared that restoring US relations would preserve an authoritarian regime that had been responsible for acts of terrorism against Americans in the past and that still supported groups opposed to Israel's existence.

However, improved US-Iran relations under Khatami would likely have strengthened Iranian reformists and might have even prevented the election of the neo-conservative Ahmadinejad. US refusal to negotiate with Iran about its nuclear program - unless Iran first suspended uranium enrichment - certainly did not stop the program; if anything, it resulted in Iran accelerating enrichment activities.

The Barack Obama administration tried to correct course and sought to engage Iran without preconditions in 2009. However, disputed Iranian presidential elections and their bloody aftermath so divided the Iranian political elite that progress on the diplomatic front was impossible.

Since then, both sides have hardened their positions. Iran has continued support for anti-US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to chase the US from the region and retaliate for mounting US and international sanctions over the nuclear program.

John Limbert, a former US hostage in Iran who was deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran in the early part of the Obama administration, blames inertia for Washington's inability to take "yes" for an answer from Iran.

"We know how to do certain things but not act constructively" with Iran, he said. "We assume there is a trick whenever they come to us."

Iranians also have difficulty trusting a country that is slowly squeezing the Iranian economy and anticipating the demise of the Islamic regime. Newly minted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Tuesday that another Iranian revolution was "a matter of time" given the pro-democracy ferment in the neighborhood. That may well be the case, but talking about it openly is unlikely to help Iranians bring that about.

Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, said she doubted that US policies had impacted Iran's complicated internal dynamics, noting that Ahmadinejad has gotten no bounce from his occasional efforts to engage Washington.

However, she told IPS that allowing the 2001-2003 talks to end was "a fantastic mistake. The dialogue that existed on Afghanistan was the single unparalleled opportunity to create a diplomatic process" with Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"It's wholly improbable that we'll see anything like that in the foreseeable future," she added, "because the political conditions in Iran are so inappropriate for any meaningful dialogue."

She might have said the same about the United States in a presidential election year.

(Inter Press Service)


How the hijackers changed American culture (Sep 7, '11)

Was there an alternative?
(Sep 7, '11)


1.
Was there an alternative?

2. How the hijackers changed American culture

3. Libya: The real war starts now

4. Regulation taking its toll

5. Toys for the boys in Myanmar

6. Moon cakes get an unsavory makeover

7. More water under the Delhi-Dhaka bridge

8. Crouching dragon, rising sun

9. Iran's nuclear dream comes true

10. Roh sheds light on Russian switch

(24 hours to 11:59pm ET, Sep 7, 2011)

 
 



All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd.
Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110