IRAN:

Time for A Fresh Policy

By

Reza Pahlavi

Barrack Obama’s vi

ctory in the US presidential elections has already aroused a remarkable atmosphere of great expectations on the part of people everywhere, including my homeland. They see his success as a new and powerful catalyst for a new world order based on peace, freedom, justice and opportunity for all. They are hopeful that the he will be much more sensitive to the kind of problems and impediments which have held them back and compromised their honor and dignity in the process.  But are such expectations realistic or will economic constraints once again ‘trump’ the promotion of democratic values and human rights considerations?

Iran’s obstinate disregard of numerous UN Security Council resolutions and various international warnings concerning its nuclear ambitions has created a situation whereby the country has become increasingly isolated while creeping slowly to the edges of an unwanted military conflict.

It is clear that so far, the ‘5+1’ policy in halting Iran’s uranium enrichment program has failed to achieve its objectives, since neither the promise of inducements nor the threat of punishments have been sufficient to convince the current leadership in Iran to change direction. Faced with a situation where its repackaged incentive offer has been effectively turned down and in circumstances when the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are unable to agree on a more robust sanctions program against the Iranian regime, the only recourse has been to reconsider potential opportunities for ‘cooperation’ with Iran in a desperate attempt aimed at avoiding ‘confrontation’.

But can the West arrive at an acceptable ‘modus vivendi’ with Iran, given the fact that more than 5 year of direct negotiations over the nuclear issue have failed to persuade Iran from observing their ‘red-lines’?

No doubt if the ‘5+1’ were willing to live with a nuclear Iran, which would no doubt lead to a major accelerated proliferation in the Middle East, which would in turn make the region a greater powder keg than it already is, then I am sure that the current crises could be resolved ‘cooperatively’. A recent study produced by the Institute for Security Studies of the European Union makes specific recommendations to this effect. But this is not a formula that I would recommend.

Today, the buzz word among Western diplomats seems to be ‘engagement’. The obvious inference from this is that the US, in particular, should no longer insist on any preconditions and be ready to open direct talks with Iran.

Most proponents of this line of thinking nourish the prospect that once direct negotiation starts all contentious issues that have led to an estrangement of relations between Iran and the US for the last 30 years, which, incidentally has also indirectly affected Iran-EU relations, may in time become resolved. In this context, quite apart from issues of primary concern to a majority of Iranians who aspire to live in a society that is free and humane with all its incumbent paraphernalia, the Iranian regime would be expected to modify its behavior on such issues as: nuclear aspirations, active engagement in international terrorism and finally, its menacing and destabilizing activities in places like Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf region.

But, is this a realistic expectation, given the nature of the Islamic Republic and the fact that for the past three decades, militant anti-Americanism across the board has been the very foundation of its foreign policy? I certainly hope that the next US administration in the course of giving proper consideration to such realities, would also consider viewing matters from the prism of the Islamic leadership in Iran and not just their own wishes and priorities.

For myself, I am strongly opposed to any form of military action against my country. But for diplomacy to succeed, the aims as well as the obstacles to any intended objective need to be carefully assessed and above all understood. Moreover, it is imprudent and self defeating if the West was to constantly find itself in a position of having to re-draw its own red lines. 

Here, it is also essential that the ideological divide that separates the Iranian regime from the Iranian people be given much more credence than ever before. The major weakness of the Islamic republic is the widening chasm between the state and the people on every issue effecting the body politic, society, economy and aspirations.

Without a creative new policy supported by robust diplomatic efforts that encompasses a role for the overwhelming majority of Iranians who do not share the vision and values of their current rulers, nothing will change. A policy of cooperation will be tantamount to capitulation, except for the fact that the ultimate cost of confrontation will most likely increase with time. The only meaningful policy would be to engage the Iranian people and invite them to be part of a new and imaginative policy which will guarantee Iran’s territorial integrity, freedom of choice and democratic expression plus a respect for individual human rights.