Preemptive Rapprochement
Columbia Spectator , April 24, 2003

In his recently published book, The Right Man, former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum sheds light on the adoption by this administration of a foreign affairs bias based on sheer diplomatic rhetoric and light judgement. With the embracing of the new United States National Security Strategy, Frum's assignment was "to provide a justification for a war." Elaborating on hypothetical ties between Iraq and al Qaeda terrorists, Frum coined the term "axis of hatred." National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice recommended that Iran be added to the batch, and, to avoid seemingly targeting Muslim countries, the number of rogue states got rounded to three with one extra crony: North Korea.

In order to stay in line with "the theological language that Bush had made his own since Sept. 11," the concept soon got forged into "axis of evil," and President Bush, as the new embodiment of the nation's salvation, endorsed the rhetoric that came with the job. President Bush was so satisfied with the term that after its first introduction during the 2002 State of the Union Address, he "defiantly repeated it over and over again," turning what was at first a diplomatic accident into U.S. foreign policy.

Not surprisingly, the outcome was a swift stand-back on the part of Iran, a country that had just demonstrated a fair share of cooperation with the U.S. Iran officially agreed to allow U.S. pilots to make emergency landings on its territory, opened its roads to the passage of humanitarian aides, made a pledge of $567 million toward the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and worked with the U.S. allies at the Bonn conference in 2001 to help set the Afghan Interim Authority.

Iran has provided support to Hezbollah and the Hamas movements, and maybe the Bush administration is right in suspecting Iranian underground groups--beyond the control of the government--of having offered protection to fugitive al Qaeda members. But to wrap up the analysis at this stage and name-tag a nation under the vilified and naïve term of "evil" is to make an abstraction of a reality that demands more nuance than the evening news sound byte allows.

Iran's government is torn between the politics of discredited hard-line clericals and the cautious ambitions of shy reformists (the population has lost faith in the first group and hope in the second). Iran is a politically, economically, and socially fragile country. But it is one of the only democracies in the region. Today, with the prospect of a long-term U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf and the possibility of yet another pro-U.S. state in the region, Iran is feeling increasingly claustrophobic and is justifiably concerned with its national security.

Iran is presently assembling the infrastructure enabling it to go nuclear, which is worrisome. But according to Gary Sick, Director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, "Instead of complaining publicly about it, the U.S. should hint that it would be willing to modify its policy towards Iran." Indeed, by standing aside when Iraq used chemical weapons in 1984, killing some 20,000 Iranians, "the U.S. has only encouraged Iran to develop a nuclear technology. For Iran, neither the international system nor the U.S. can be trusted," Sick said.

With the U.S.-led war against Iraq , Iran 's position has been so far one of "active neutrality." Iran is, however, willing to take part in the establishment of a future democratic Iraq . If President Bush, as he claims, has any interest in building a democracy in Iraq , he should realize that Iran 's help in the aftermath of the war would prove invaluable.

Iran is home to some 10,000 members of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the main armed Shi'ite opposition movement, and to their leader, Mohammad Bakir al-Hakim. This group has strong ties with the rest of the U.S.-backed opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime, including the Kurds and the London-based Iraqi National Congress. Iran can help the process of reconstruction and establishment of a representative government in Iraq , or it can complicate this already extremely complex issue.

The participation of Iran in the peace-building process in post-Saddam Iraq would allow the former neighboring enemies to start diplomatic relations on a new basis, which would contribute to the stability in the region. By collaborating with Iran and looking for compromise during the establishment of a new regime in Iraq , the U.S. would also substantially improve its image among Islamic states and in the eyes of the Arab street. This could also be the perfect opportunity for the U.S. and Iran to start a better record of communication.

After launching a pre-emptive attack on Iraq , the U.S. should now be more considerate toward Iran , a country that is one of the main political, economic, and social players of the region. And maybe, just this time, the Bush government could try out the concept of pre-emptive rapprochement. Á

This article is online at columbiaspectator.com

Back to list of articles