• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

02 April 1998

TEXT: RIEDEL REMARKS AT THE BAKER INSTITUTE SYMPOSIUM ON IRAN

(US is ready to engage with Iran on issues of mutual concern) (2540)
Houston -- The United States stands ready to engage with Iran on all
of the issues of concern to both states whenever Iran is ready, Bruce
O. Riedel, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for
Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council,
said April 2.
In remarks to the Baker Institute Symposium on Iran, Riedel said the
U.S. is watching with interest signs of change within Iran since the
inauguration of President Khatami.
"We have followed his words and actions closely. We watched closely
his unprecedented CNN interview and noted its many positive
statements. We followed his handling of the Islamic Summit in Tehran
last December and its generally moderate tone. And we have noted with
interest his efforts to strengthen the rule of law inside Iran," he
said.
"Most of all we welcome President Khatami's decision to increase the
level of interaction at the people-to-people level between our two
countries," Riedel said, noting in particular the American wrestling
team that was well received in Tehran last month and the Iranian
wrestlers who will visit Oklahoma soon.
While acknowledging that people-to-people dialogue is useful, Riedel
said "the issues that divide Iran and America must ultimately be
addressed by their governments. ... We have no preconditions. We only
insist that the dialogue be authoritative -- that is
government-to-government."
Unfortunately, he said, "there are serious issues about Iran's
behavior that still need to be addressed and need to be changed."
-- First are Iran's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and
long range ballistic missiles. Despite its signature on the NPT and
CWC, our information is crystal clear: Iran is seeking to develop an
arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles
to deliver them.
-- Second, there remains Iran's dangerous connections with terrorist
organizations around the world and particularly in the Muslim world.
-- Third, we remain particularly concerned by Iran's support for
violent opposition to the Middle East peace process.
Riedel recalled President Clinton's Id al-Fitr message to Muslims
around the world, in which he said, "Iran is an important country with
a rich and ancient cultural heritage of which Iranians are justifiably
proud. We have real differences with some Iranian policies, but these
are not insurmountable. I hope that we have more exchanges between our
peoples and that the day will soon come when we can enjoy once again
good relations with Iran."
"We are patient and prepared to wait," to engage with Iran, Riedel
said. "In the interim we will continue to do all we can to constrain
and disrupt Iran's behavior in those areas that threaten our interests
and the interests of our allies and friends."
Speaking briefly on the second side of the Dual Containment threat to
the Gulf region -- Iraq -- Riedel said, "We continue to face a very
serious challenge to the stability of the Gulf from Saddam's Iraq."
Although the crisis with Iraq over the issue of UNSCOM inspections has
been resolved for now, he said, "the track record of the Saddam
government suggests strongly that we need to remain vigilant and
prepare for additional challenges from the Iraqi regime."
Following is the text of Riedel's speech, as prepared for delivery:
(Begin text)
"U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAN"
It is a great pleasure to be here this afternoon to speak to this
audience on the subject of U.S. policy toward Iran. It is a particular
pleasure to have been invited by Ed Djerejian, a friend of many years
and a colleague who taught me a great deal not just about the Middle
East but about the business of diplomacy and government. Ed, I still
remember fondly, our trip to the Gulf and our many meetings to discuss
how best to advance American interests in that important part of the
world.
The Gulf region has been recognized by every American President since
Franklin Delano Roosevelt as an area of absolute vital strategic
importance for the United States. Not only is it the energy storehouse
of the world -- home to two thirds of the proven oil reserves of the
globe -- but it is also the nexus where three continents come together
and the home of three great religions. No where else in the world have
U.S. military forces been more actively engaged in the last quarter
century than here. From EARNEST WILL to DESERT SHIELD AND DESERT STORM
to SOUTHERN WATCH, NORTHERN WATCH and DESERT STRIKE, this is where the
vital interests of the United States have been defended most
vigorously in the last two decades.
When President Clinton was elected in 1992 his first administration
recognized immediately the strategic import of the region and
recognized that there were two central threats posed to the stability
and security of the area -- Iraq and Iran. We also recognized from the
beginning that these threats could not be dealt with in isolation.
Rather the United States needed to understand that dealing with the
threat posed by one could not be done at the cost of neglecting the
other. Consequently, we needed a policy designed to handle the unique
threat each posed but which did so in a coordinated manner.
This was and remains the underlying premise of the policy known as
Dual Containment. That policy understands the unique threats posed by
these two states and seeks to deal with them both, not identically but
in a coherent manner. Early on we rejected the option of trying to
play one off against the other. That policy had been tried earlier and
had resulted in the dangerous imbalance of power in the region that
created the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990.
We are now five years later and much has changed in the world. But
much remains unchanged. We continue to face a very serious challenge
to the stability of the Gulf from Saddam's Iraq. We have just
concluded a prolonged confrontation with Iraq over the question of
whether the UNSCOM inspectors would have full and unrestricted access
to all sites in Iraq. That crisis has been resolved for now with a
clear result -- Iraq backed down and allowed UNSCOM to have the access
it needs to do its job. UNSCOM inspectors, including Americans, have
inspected facilities previously off limits -- like the Iraqi
equivalent of the Pentagon -- in the last few weeks. This is a
significant accomplishment for American diplomacy backed by the threat
of force.
During this crisis we also successfully expanded the UN's oil-for-food
program substantially -- thus securing more help for the Iraqi people.
Saddam's ability to use the humanitarian card to undermine sanctions
has been reduced. This too is a victory for the international
community.
But the track record of the Saddam government suggests strongly that
we need to remain vigilant and prepare for additional challenges from
the Iraqi regime. That will require a substantial-American military
presence in the Gulf to enforce the no-fly zones and give our
diplomacy the muscle it needs.
Today I want to focus our attention on the second threat in the Gulf
region that President Clinton inherited in 1993 -- Iran. How has
containment fared vis-a-vis Iran?
Our most important accomplishment here has been to put an
international focus on Iran's actions and behaviors. Iran's support
for terrorism, its efforts to acquire WMD and its sponsorship of
violent opposition to the Middle East Peace Process have become an
increasingly important part of the international debate since 1993.
Interestingly, virtually every significant player in the region has
concurred with our assessment of the dangers posed by Iran. From
Algeria to Central Asia, from Jordan to Pakistan, regional leaders
have spoken out against Iranian machinations more and more in the last
few years.
And we have had some success in other areas. Japan suspended its aid
program for Iran, citing its support for terrorism, costing the
Iranian regime over a billion dollars. Europe last spring announced an
arms embargo. Russia has agreed to cap its arms dealings and take
steps to control technology transfers with Iran. The Ukraine, Poland
and other states have listened positively to our concerns about
dangerous arms and technology transfers. China has moved away from
cooperation with Iran's nuclear program and the sale of destabilizing
conventional weapons.
Second, our effort to highlight Iran's rogue behaviors and increase
the economic cost of such actions has forced Tehran to make difficult
decisions about where to put its resources. In a country with $30
billion in foreign debt and half the population under 21, economic
decisions about arms purchases can be influenced by outsiders. We have
sought to make Iran think twice about how to spend its money. Hard
pressed for foreign hard currency Iran has had to steadily cut back on
its purchases of foreign weapons in this decade. Foreign exchange
expenditures on arms have dropped from a high of $2.5 billion in 1991
to less than one billion dollars last year. That means the Iranian
military threat to regional security and stability has been slowed and
weakened. A threat still remains but it is not what Iran hoped for
when it sought to rebuild its forces at the end of the Iran-Iraq war.
Now we have begun to see some signs of change within Iran's political
process. The election of President Khatami last spring obviously
marked a milestone in the history of the Islamic Republic. The Iranian
people voted in impressive numbers for a change in Iran's course. We
appreciate the significance of this development. President Clinton
welcomed the election of Khatami and said only a few days after the
votes were counted that he hoped it would begin a process of change
that could end the estrangement of the two countries that began almost
twenty years ago.
Since President Khatami's inauguration we have followed his words and
actions closely. We watched closely his unprecedented CNN interview
and noted its many positive statements. We followed his handling of
the Islamic Summit in Tehran last December and its generally moderate
tone. And we have noted with interest his efforts to strengthen the
rule of law inside Iran. We hope this will lead to protection for all
Iranians, including religious minorities like the Bahai. We hope it
will also lead to an end to efforts to encourage Salman Rushdie's
murder.
Most of all we welcome President Khatami's decision to increase the
level of interaction at the people-to-people level between our two
countries. Last month President Clinton met with the American
wrestling team which had been so well received in Tehran and heralded
their reception. We will welcome Iranian wrestlers in Oklahoma soon.
And we support the efforts of think tanks on both sides to increase
greater contacts between experts across a wide spectrum of
disciplines. As the President said in his Id al-Fitr message to
Muslims around the world, "'Iran is an important country with a rich
and ancient cultural heritage of which Iranians are justifiably proud.
We have real differences with some Iranian policies, but these are not
insurmountable. I hope that we have more exchanges between our peoples
and that the day will soon come when we can enjoy once again good
relations with Iran."
We are prepared to move further. People to people dialogue is useful
but the issues that divided Iran and America must ultimately be
addressed by their governments. The United States has been open to a
government-to-government dialogue with Iran since the Bush
Administration. We remain interested in sitting down face-to-face with
the Iranian leadership to discuss all issues of concern to both
states. We have no preconditions. We only insist that the dialogue be
authoritative -- that is government-to-government.
And, unfortunately, there are serious issues about Iran's behavior
that still need to be addressed and need to be changed. Let me spend a
few moments reviewing these.
First are Iran's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and
long range ballistic missiles. Despite its signature on the NPT and
CWC, our information is crystal clear: Iran is seeking to develop an
arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles
to deliver them. As DCI Tenet has reported to the Congress, this
effort is an aggressive one in which Iran has put considerable
resources.
As I noted earlier, we have an equally aggressive effort around the
world to try to discourage potential sources of technology and
equipment for these programs from selling it with Iran. Our track
record in doing so has been reasonably but not entirely successful. We
will continue to do our utmost. The President frequently raises these
issues himself at the highest levels to discourage such transfers.
Second, there remains Iran's dangerous connections with terrorist
organizations around the world and particularly in the Muslim world.
Despite promises that Iran opposes terrorism, we continue to see
significant connections between Iran and numerous organizations that
engage in terror including Islamic Jihad, Hizballah and Hamas. Iran
still provides such groups with arms, money, training and safe haven.
In Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon and many other states, Iran gives aid and
assistance to groups engaged in acts of brutal violence against
civilians. That is why so many of Iran's neighbors remain so leery of
Iranian intentions despite the changes brought by President Khatami.
Third, we remain particularly concerned by Iran's support for violent
opposition to the Middle East peace process. We have noted Iran's more
moderate declaratory policy toward the Palestinian Authority and the
more flexible approach it took in the Islamic Summit. But we remain
deeply concerned about it's continued connections and support for the
most violent enemies of the process. Its words must now be matched by
deeds.
So in any future dialogue with Iran we will want to discuss these
issues. And we will continue to discourage other countries from
engaging with Iran as a normal partner until we all see changes in
Iran's behavior. In this regard we will enforce the laws passed by
Congress intended to encourage other states to control technology
transfers to Iran and to exercise great care and discipline in what
they trade with Iran.
The United States and Iran have many shared interests and concerns. We
have a mutual interest in seeing the Gulf be open to the unrestricted
flow of its energy resources. We have a common interest in seeing
stability in the region so that its peoples can focus their attention
on human development, not weapons development. We have a common
interest in seeing the Saddam regime in Iraq contained and disarmed by
the UN inspectors. We have a common interest in seeing an Afghanistan
at peace with itself and its neighbors.
The United States stands ready to engage with Iran on all of these
issues and others whenever Tehran is ready. We are patient and
prepared to wait. In the interim we will continue to do all we can to
constrain and disrupt Iran's behavior in those areas that threaten our
interests and the interests of our allies and friends.
(End text)