On August 2nd
Iran Has a New President -
Time for Rapprochement
By JONATHAN POWER
LONDON-- There is a tide turning in the affairs of Iran,
the land of megalomaniacal mullahs, passionate Islamic
fundamentalism and secret nuclear bomb research where
America's proven role as the Great Satan is an inviolable
text that until now has guided every move of the ruling
elite.
Item 1. An advertisement in Monday's International Herald
Tribune by the devoted sister of the late Shah of Iran,
overthrown by a popular revolt led by Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini, ending a monarchial system dating back 2,500
years. For years the Shah's sister has taken advertising
space to denounce the rulers of Iran. Now she commends on
Iran's recent presidential election thus, "Iranians have
overwhelmingly voted for personal freedom, political
democracy, separation of religion and government, economic
development and peaceful foreign policy." This is an
endorsement of the new president, given its source, of
rather stunning and unexpected proportions. She concludes
ringingly, "This is what my brother would have wished."
Item 2. From Monday's Washington Post: "The Clinton
Administration has decided not to oppose a $1.6 billion
pipeline that would carry huge quantities of central Asian
natural gas across Iran, in the first significant easing of
Washington's economic isolation (of Iran)."
Reconciliation between Washington and Tehran is still a
long way away. But it is no longer out of sight and spurred
on by the upset presidential election result of Mohammed
Khatami (who takes office on Saturday) Washington is visibly
changing gears.
A lot is going to hang on President-elect Khatami. Is he
a glass half empty or half full? He was part of the regime
for long enough, holding at one time the post of minister of
culture. He was a voice for moderation yet, nevertheless, he
was an enthusiastic proponent of rule by mullahs and still
today ultimate power remains not with the elected president
but with the supreme religious leader, the orthodox
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The important thing, however, in this delicate balance of
power, is that Mr. Khatami remains, as the Shah's sister
makes plain, the only one with a popular mandate for change,
voted by an electorate disillusioned with the ong years of
theocratic rule.
The people are worse off materially than they were in the
Shah's time. The bazaar--the merchant class--whose hostility
doomed the Shah is now likewise alienated from the regime.
Besides, fundamentalism almost everywhere in the Middle East
seems to have peaked. In Egypt the fundamentalist guerrillas
are in retreat and the cause no longer has the popular
cachet it once did. In Algeria extreme fundamentalism is
being undermined by the twin policy of repression and
controlled electoral participation.
A pressing question for Washington is whether this
apparently half-full glass is going to be topped up by the
new president by putting the nuclear bomb program on the
shelf.
Last month General Binford Peacy, head of U.S. Central
Command, with responsibility for U.S. forces in the Gulf,
said he believed that Iran could have nuclear arms within
three years.
The imperatives for Iran to build a nuclear armory have
been strong. If Saddam Hussein's Iraq had perfected its
nuclear weapons during its 1980-88 war with Iran it may well
have used them. Iraq remains Iran's supreme enemy and
although United Nations inspectors have supervised the
dismantling of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme there is
undoubtedly a question mark over the future. For Iran
nuclear deterrence must seem the best insurance.
Then there is the issue of Israel. Iran values its
position as the country which most faithfully supports the
Palestinian cause. It is not that Tehran believes it can
engage Israel in nuclear brinkmanship to force Israel out of
Palestine. It is simply a question of standing and also,
usefully, of adding to the war of attrition on Israeli nerve
ends.
Finally, there is the relationship with the U.S. with
whom conflict has become a way of life ever since the
American embassy and its occupants were seized and held
hostage shortly after the Khomeini revolution.
What then has Washington to offer to persuade Iran to
return its nuclear genie to the bottle? Washington cannot,
except indirectly, bring peace between Palestinians and
Israelis. Nevertheless, it is now clear that it must get
tougher with prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu if the Oslo
accords are to be salvaged. On Iraq it is as much in
Washington's interest as Tehran's to keep Saddam Hussein's
nuclear war machine in the dismantled state it now is. By
making it clear that the U.S. no longer sides with Iraq
against Iran--its de facto position during their
war--Washington could make a huge physchological gain. But
as for America's direct relationship itself, prisoner for
too long of its own fundamentalist-style crusade against
Iran, it is surely the time for constructive management.
Iranian public opinion, as the Shah's sister has intimated,
is ready to bury the hatchet. So should Washington. And that
change of relationship alone will do more to help bury the
Iranian bomb than any policy of isolation and
confrontation.
July 30, 1997,
LONDON
Copyright © 1997 By JONATHAN POWER
Note: I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172
and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
|