Iran's Letter deserves US attention

Iran’s letter deserves U.S. attention

By Ghassan Rubeiz -- The Arab American News:

One wonders why Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would, out of the blue, call upon the President of the United States to live up to Christian values, to be morally fair, to reflect on the true motives behind Iraq’s occupation and to have sympathy for the Palestinian cause. The Iranian President's eighteen-page letter of May 9 to President Bush was a long interfaith and social justice sermon. Its real intent, however, was probably to contain the damage of Ahmadinejad’s negative international diplomacy.
Iranians do not doubt for a moment their rights to venture into nuclear energy development, but they may have recently realized that their emotional president has weakened the nation’s case for nuclear energy. His unnecessary remarks about Israel’s existence and "Satanic" U.S. hegemony have positioned him, in image, next to Saddam Hussein, the late Idi Amin and the younger Mu’ammar Qaddafi.
When President Ahmadinejad expressed his outrageous wish to "wipe Israel off the map" and questioned the historical validity of the Holocaust, he surprised the world, even the Arab community. And without realizing it, he made himself and his nation highly vulnerable to political opponents who had for several decades desired regime change in Iran. The rhetoric of this inter-culturally naïve president was the political equivalence of a series of simultaneous "Jihadi" suicide attacks.
Iran’s unexpected verbal assault on Israel was not only politically unwise and morally wrong; it offered a political plum to Israel and U.S. hard-liners. His unfortunate anti-Semitic verbiage weakened the argument for Iran to advance its nuclear power planning. His verbal attacks made it easier for Iran’s adversaries to paint the regime as a rogue state.
It is as if Ahmadinejad's volatility has opened a moral bankruptcy account for Iran, and its main adversaries have been cashing in politically on Iran’s diplomatic credit decline. Hawkish Israeli and American decision-makers have already started planning for Iran’s regime change through sanctions or military force; even a nuclear attack on Iran is not ruled out.
It took Iran several months to realize that its president's rhetoric is hurting its nuclear planning, weakening further the Middle East peace process and diverting world attention from the U.S. debacle in Iraq. Not only is the U.S. leading a political campaign to abort Iran’s nuclear enrichment, Israel is getting bolder in its unilateralism by dictating territorial peace terms to the Palestinians.
Is the unexpected Iranian letter an attempt to start normalizing the country’s diplomacy? Has the more sober side of the Iranian rulers pressured Ahmadinejad to send a letter to the world (through Washington) that was conciliatory? Is the document a sign for a desire to change the climate of negotiations?
Though the letter does not respond to the nuclear issue directly, it could be viewed as a new opportunity for comprehensive dialogue amongst Iran, the Arab World and the U.S. Mohammad El Baradie, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has hinted to the U.S. that Iran is seeking a regional approach to deal with hard core issues. Turkey’s president has recently declared that only diplomacy can resolve the nuclear crisis of the region. But the U.S. has no patience for Iran’s increasingly assertive position and for regional contrasting voices. The U.S. has unfortunately ignored the letter.
Experts are divided on whether the dismissal of the letter was wise. Those who support its rejection focus on the letter’s exact substance. But those who favor a serious response from the U.S. administration would appreciate the connection between the nuclear factor and Iran’s regional issues, which are candidly raised in the document.
For too long, the U.S. has myopically preferred to treat the problems of the Middle East in isolation, one by one and step by step. To the Palestine problem the U.S. assigns an illusory "roadmap;" to Iraq, western democracy building; to Syria and Hizbullah a threatening U.N. resolution; to Islamic fundamentalism, neo-crusader militarism. Are any of these policies working? The failing record is clear to most observers.
Do we need then a new foreign policy that is fair, consistent, regional and integrated? Do we need a foreign policy that admits costly U.S. mistakes and that treats adversaries with more respect?
Experts who do not see the need for basic change in U.S. foreign policy would advocate ignoring the letter from Iran. The letter deserves appropriate cultural interpretation and political contextualization. It can be used as a segue to a wider regional process of conflict resolution.

The author, a Lebanese American, is former Director of Middle East Desk of the World Council of Churches. He can be reached Grubeiz@adelphia.net

Is a new approach to Iran possible?

Is A New US Approach to Iran Possible?

Arab American News
April 13, 2006



The world community is watching what the Security Council will do at the end of April, when Iran’s deadline to comply with the UN demand to halt covert Uranium refinement expires? UN sanctions are not easy to impose, given the Sino Russian resistance to punitive measures against Iran, an economic ally.
The US and Israel are observing Iran’s emerging status as a prospective nuclear power with great concern. Despite April 17 shocking revelation ( “Would President Bush Go to war to stop Tehran from getting the Bomb?” ) of Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, both countries are well aware that a military strike at the Iranian nuclear sites is technically difficult and may precipitate a diplomatic Tsunami in the region.
To appreciate the complexity of the current crisis that Iran poses to the US, Europe and Israel, read Kenneth Pollack’s book, The Persian Puzzle (Random House 2005).
Pollack advocates a three-tier foreign policy for the US on Iran’s developing crisis: first, “a big bargain”, i.e. intensive negotiation leading to normalization of relations between the two countries. In addition to this big “bargain approach”, Pollack recommends two simultaneously active alternatives for the US policy: the threat of escalating sanctions and the threat of a military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. The question remains how can the US integrate deep and honest diplomacy, on one hand, and sanctions or war on the other, the best selling author, Pollack , does not manage to explain well.

The US has not acknowledged Iran’s emerging political status yet. Iran today, enjoys formidable political power in the Middle East. This country is a prime mover in Iraq (Shiite power) a player in Afghanistan recovery (border country), an ally of Syria and a close partner of Hamas and of Hezbollah. Moreover, increased oil revenues have reinforced its government’s influence within and outside its borders. Iran is also a leader of the Shiite political revival. It claims ascendancy in Islamic statehood ideology and resistance against Westernization, not modernization. In the Muslim world, Iran today, outranks Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, in political influence.

Facing so much difficulty in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US may have to radically shift its Iran and larger Middle East policy. A visionary US foreign policy requires three new elements: intense high level dialogue with the Iranian regime, a creative program of exchange with Iranian society and a fair response to Iranian related Middle East trouble spots.

There are plenty of reasons for the US to dislike the post Shah Iranian autocratic regimes: e.g. the hostage ordeal, support of militia activities abroad, militant theocracy and vociferous anti Israel politics. Similarly, Iranians, have their own reasons to dislike American policies. The US is seen as an imperialist power. There is wide evidence showing US strong meddling in internal Iranian affairs over the last six decades. The US military shadow over Iran is heavy. As a punitive measure, since the mid nineties, the US legislators have placed selective sanctions on trade with Iran. The US trade sanctions have not worked well since many countries have mutual interest in dealing with this oil producing country. The US has demonized Iran since the Hostage crisis.
Neither the US or Iran can fairly claim that their crisis today is solely caused by the other side. US dialogue with Iran may need to be secretive, comprehensive and bilateral. It should cover at least the following issues: nuclear development, Iraq’s stability, Middle East peace, Hezbollah and Hamas. There is now too much pride and rage on both sides to allow face to face candid and comprehensive dialogue.
But insecurity softens pride. If Iraq turns into a deeper quagmire, US reconciliation with Iran may become a priority. And if the Iranian rulers run into a growing domestic crisis, they may seek accommodation with the US. Dialogue does not look like a realistic option now.

The second dimension for a new diplomacy is fostering international cultural exchange with the people of Iran. The US is not building sound socio cultural ties with internal Iranian reformers. Instead of encouraging Iranian people to people exchange, the US is slowing cultural, economic and educational sharing with Iran. If the Soviet transition to democracy is a model, containment of the Islamic regime would allow time and opportunity for the reformers to mobilize. Given appropriate Western support, Iranian society has a promising potential for generating a new post Khomeini revolution, blending authentic Islam with modernity, separating the state from religious authority without total secularization. One can not predict the pace and quality of social change in a transitional society like Iran. But Iran remains an excellent candidate for achieving a future Islamic renaissance, given its historical experience with freedom, its youthful demography, intellectual aspirations and rich economic resources.

Iran is at the political nerve center of the Middle East. US foreign policy should alter its approach to other urgent problems in the region in order to restore harmony between the US and the Arabs, and with Iran.
Accelerating departure from Iraq will help enhance America’s relations in the region. Coordinated planning with Iran to enhance Iraq’s future stability would be a confidence building measure. Reviving the Arab Israeli peace process is crucial. Through a US rejuvenated Middle East peace process that includes the Syrian Golan Heights, Hezbollah and Hamas may be enticed to integrate their militias in the national armies of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, respectively.

Ironically, the US foreign policy in the Middle East has significantly strengthened Iran thus creating a precarious American-Persian power tension. For its own survival and for the region’s wellbeing, the current US Administration needs a new Middle East peace “road map” that runs through Tehran.