Geopolitical Myths by Adnan Khan

The Persian Gulf with its immense energy reserves and strategic location as well as being the world’s largest single source of crude oil, has been the centre of conflict for over 100 years by various powers with the most powerful force in the region being Iran. Hence whoever has Iran on their side will have control over the entire region since Iran is the key to the region.

Since the invasion of Iraq by the US, Iran has been on the receiving end of a barrage of criticism by US officials and has even been threatened with war by George W. Bush. Since Bush’s axis of evil state of the union speech in 2002, Bush has refused to engage with Iran. Iran is continually accused of arming the insurgency in Iraq, supporting Hizbollah and developing nuclear weapons. The dispatch of an additional aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf all increased speculation that the US may launch an attack against Iran. All of this on the surface indicates that the US and Iran are diametrically opposed to each other, have interests which widely differ and as a result Iran represents a direct threat to the US in the region hence it needs to be disarmed, especially of its nuclear weapons and stripped of its Islamic credentials and showered with democracy and freedom.

Since the so called ‘Islamic Revolution’ in 1979 successive governments from Rafsanjani and Khatami have tried to dispel the image of ultra-conservatives by building links with Europe and the West. This has resulted in the US-Iran cooperation in various areas. In 1986 the Iran-Contra Affair was exposed where the US administration sold arms to Iran, an avowed enemy at the time, and used the proceeds to fund the Contras, an anti-communist guerrilla organisation in Nicaragua. Anti-Tank missiles were provided to Iran along with shipments of surface-to-air missiles totalling more than $2 billion via Israel.

Despite being publicly derided by the Bush administration, such reformists in the Iranian government continue to promote US interests in Iran, and neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq, Tehran continues to extend support to the leader of SCIRI, Ayatollah Hakim and the Badr Brigade who have become the lynchpin of US plans for Southern Iraq. In Afghanistan, Iran runs extensive reconstruction and training programs in Kabul, Herat and Kandahar. Thus far, Iran has successfully prevented the Pushtun resistance from spreading to Northern Afghanistan. The BakerHamilton report confirmed such engagement: ‘…the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives; in seeking constructive results…Engaging Iran is problematic, especially given the state of the US-Iranian relationship. Yet the United States and Iran cooperated in Afghanistan, and both sides should explore whether this model can be replicated in the case of Iraq.’ On the other hand the US has attempted to make a compelling case about the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear capability, and continues to push for sanctions as the country’s nuclear aspirations contravene international norms. Israel is the only country that continues to propagate the view that Iran’s nuclear bomb is months away. Sylvan Shalom, Israel’s Foreign Minister told a meeting of Jewish leaders in New York: ‘According to our people, security and intelligence, they are very, very close. It may be only six months before they will have that full knowledge.’ In 2005, at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameni, issued a fatwa, which forbade the stockpiling, production, and use of nuclear weapons.

The supreme leader had also offered peace talks with Israel in 2003.

Over a period of over half a century the US has engaged with Iran in different ways. Currently what we are witnessing is a number of mixed signals coming from Washington where engagement and cooperation takes place between the two nations whilst on the other hand Iran is publicly rebuked for being Islamic and aggressive in its pursuance of weapons of mass destruction.

For the US the Islamic revolution which it engineered has outlived its use. The US for some time has been working to officially end the revolution (similar to the Jihad in Pakistan it promoted during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) as those objectives for which the revolution was engineered, have been achieved.

The revolution’s objectives were to overthrow the Shah who had by 1979 moved away from US influence. His replacement by a credible alternative in the eyes of the people of Iran was a key US strategic priority. The meetings between Ayatollah Khomeini and the US to organise the ‘revolution,’ have been confirmed by the then Sudanese leader Sadeq Al-Mehdi, who was the mediator between the US and Khomeini, as well as the former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark who held direct talks with Khomeini in 1979. The revolution led to the ‘conservatives’ led by Khomeini taking effective control of the military, judiciary, intelligence and security apparatus. For all the anti-US rhetoric from Iran it never stopped supplying the US with oil and never ended any agreements with them. With the hardliners in such key positions the US has been unable to completely reverse the Islamic revolution in Iran. It is the same hardliners who are working on developing nuclear weapons and purchasing sophisticated weaponry in order to strengthen their position whilst the US is attempting to end this.

Iranian society today has over 70% of its population under the age of 30; this means the majority of the people in Iran were not even born when the Islamic revolution took place. Such a young population is ruled by conservatives who believe in the revolution’s ideals, whilst the public have very little with such ideals. The US has directly engaged with student groups and the reformists in government but is also making it clear that it is prepared to act militarily when US interests are at stake.

The biggest problem the US faces is how exactly to achieve this. Should this be through engagement or military force in order to change Tehran’s behaviour? This has actually plagued the Bush administration ever since George W. Bush rose to office and is what sends mixed signals.

At the heart of the issue was the dispute between the realists and the neoconservatives regarding the best approach towards Iran. The row permeated all sections of the US government and divided institutions like the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. The disagreements over Iran came to ahead in July 2004 with the publication of the report entitled ‘Iran: Time for a New Approach’ which was prepared by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) under the direction of Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser. The report argued that Iran was not ripe for regime change as advocated by the neoconservatives. The report stated: ‘Despite considerable political flux and popular dissatisfaction. Iran is not on the verge of another revolution. Those forces that are committed to preserving Iran's current system remain firmly in control.’ The report also stressed, that a ‘grand bargain’ to settle all outstanding conflicts between Washington and Tehran is unrealistic and that talks should focus instead on making ‘incremental progress’ on a variety of key issues, including regional stability and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The recommendations of the report were instantly dismissed by the neoconservatives who were closely associated with Vice President Dick Cheney and the then defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Arch neoconservative Micheal Ledeen, who considers Tehran the global capital of Islamist ‘terror masters,’ wrote in National Review Online that the CFR recommendations were ‘humiliating’ and constituted ‘appeasement.’ However, in Bush’s second term of office and with the debacle of Iraq, the Neocons influence declined considerably. Some of the neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton were ushered out of foreign policy making roles and given policy implementation roles at the World Bank and the UN, while others like Douglas Feith were forced to leave. The departure of the neoconservatives gave way to realism and soft power in the Bush administration. To a large extent parity was restored between the influence of the US State Department and Pentagon over foreign policy matters. Collaboration with other nations to solve the political crisis in Sudan, Lebanon, North Korean, and Iran is reminiscent of multilateralism employed by previous US administrations.

The ascendancy of realism in the Bush administration has not completely silenced neoconservative views on Iran. The ever present Dick Cheney an ardent supporter of neo-conservatism has taken it upon himself to ensure that should the opportunity avail itself, America is prepared to use overwhelming force against Iran to occupy its oil and gas fields.

In summary, the conflict between the US and Iran is real, however there are many areas where this conflict has been put aside and cooperation is taking place. The realists in the Bush administration now have the upper hand and their preferred method of dealing with Iran’s nuclear programme is through multilateralism and diplomacy, as opposed to unilateralism and military intervention.

However, the failure of the Bush administration to subdue those voices who exhort military action against Iran continues to alarm the world.