DATE=4/8/2000
TYPE=ON THE LINE
TITLE=ON THE LINE: THE U.S. AND IRAN
NUMBER=1-00837
EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY - 619-0037
CONTENT=
THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE
Anncr: On the Line - a discussion of United
States policy and contemporary issues. This week,
"The U.S. and Iran." Here is your host, Robert
Reilly.
Host: Hello and welcome to On the Line. The
recent stunning victory of Islamic reformists in
Iran's parliamentary elections has led many to
believe that the time is right for a rapprochement
between the United States and Iran. Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright gave a speech calling for
"a new and better relationship" between the U.S.
and Iran. Mrs. Albright itemized a list of
historical grievances on both sides and identified
current obstacles to improved relations. It
remains to be seen if the climate has changed
sufficiently for the U.S. and Iran to overcome two
decades of hostility.
Joining me today to discuss the history and future
of U.S.-Iran relations are three experts. Robert
Pelletreau is a former Assistant Secretary of
State for Near Eastern Affairs and chairman of the
American-Iranian Council. David Wurmser is
director of the Middle East studies program at the
American Enterprise Institute. And Jon Alterman is
a Middle East expert at the U.S. Peace Institute.
Gentlemen welcome to the program.
Mr. Pelletreau, your organization actually hosted
Madeleine Albright when she gave that very
interesting speech last month. In it, she itemized
the historical grievances: the U-S participation
in the Mossadegh affair in 1953, support of the
Shah, support of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War.
Looking back upon these historical events, does
the United States have something to apologize for?
Were we pursuing legitimate interests at the
time? Have we made a confession now that Iraq is
accepting? What exactly is going on there?
Pelletreau: I would rather put it in terms of the
Iranians feel they have genuine grievances on this
score and they want some recognition that those
grievances are acknowledged on the U-S side. The
United States also has some grievances with
respect to Iran. And this is not an unusual
process when two countries or two peoples who have
been estranged from each other start getting back
together. You've got to begin to remove some of
this underbrush of misunderstanding and emotional
grievance. I think that is what Secretary Albright
was trying to do.
Host: But how do you do that? I mean if they think
we were wrong, we weren't the only players in
1953. Great Britain was, the Iranian people were.
How do you clear that underbrush?
Pelletreau: You begin by recognizing that there is
a grievance. And Secretary Albright did recognize
that the United States has made some mistakes in
its past relations with Iran.
Host: Do you agree that those were mistakes, David
Wurmser?
Wurmser: Well, I think that there might have been
mistakes in the past, but I think that we ought to
put this in perspective. And for that reason I
think probably that what Mrs. Albright did was
inappropriate. Let me put it this way. The Iranian
people are consistently showing the United States
and the world that they are fed up with their
government and they are fed up with excuses their
government is making for their failure. And the
government continues to return to the same old
tired slogans as to why Iran is oppressed, and so
forth. And suddenly, the United States weighs in
and says: "well, your government was right all
along. We've been bad to you and you're right to
feel angry at us." Just at the moment when the
Iranian people are saying: "that's it; we don't
care about that anymore. We care about now, here,
today and the near future." So I think we've done
exactly the opposite. We almost sided with the
government against those forces of change in Iran,
which may drive a revolution in the end.
Host: Jon Alterman, what do you think about that?
Alterman: I don't think that's right. I think what
we are seeing now in Iran is a resurgence of
Iranian nationalism. Iran went through a period,
after the revolution, when Iran was about Islamic
revolution, not only in Iran but Islamic
revolution around the world. They're stepping away
from that. What we're seeing in the streets, what
we're seeing when we talk to people in Iran, what
we're seeing when we listen to Iranians is that
they're talking about being Iranian more. They're
talking about their nation. They're talking about
national interests. I was in Iran two months ago
and this is something that you hear a lot of. The
things she apologizes for deal with Iran's
Iranianness. It deals with their nationalism. It's
not the wrong thing to talk about. In fact, we
should be hoping that Iran becomes a nation with
nationalism, and deal with it on the basis of its
national interests, and not deal with it on the
terms of Islamic revolution around the world.
Those are not terms that help us; those are not
terms that help our relationship; those are not
terms that help us deal with the concerns we have
about Iranian behavior.
Host: Can you just refine that point a little more
for us? In your conversations with Iranians
recently, by saying they were more Iranian, what
does that mean?
Alterman: Iran is a country with millennia of
civilization. It has its own literature; it has
its own language. This is a country which feels a
depth of cultural history that most countries
don't have. China is another example of a country,
also interestingly one with which the U-S had a
long process of trying to right its relationship
after separation. What we are seeing more and more
is people are talking about being Iranian; people
are talking about reintroducing the literature.
People are talking about how it's hard to leave
Iran once you have grown up in Iran; once you've
been educated as an Iranian, you can never leave
your country. You are starting to hear more and
more of that, and that's pushing the mullahs away
from a control over everything and putting them,
in many ways, back into talking more about
religious issues, and not so much about other
issues in society.
Host: Let's get back to Secretary Albright's
speech, which you hosted, Mr. Pelletreau. How do
you think it's been received in Iran? It seems to
have occasioned an extraordinary array of
reactions from within the country.
Pelletreau: That's exactly what has happened. The
newspapers are debating it; the society is
debating it; students are debating it. It is an
element now in Iranian discourse. You can argue
whether that is good or bad at this point. But I
think we have to wait for this process of
absorption to go on for a while before we can
expect more official Iranian reactions. There
should not be an expectation that Iran is going to
step out right away and react in one so-quick
manner to these gestures.
Host: What do you think of their reaction so far
to these specific policy gestures, and that is to
allow trade in Iranian carpets, foodstuff, and
caviar? That gesture has provoked some reaction.
Pelletreau: I think they feel that is a positive
gesture. Likewise, the gesture toward working to a
global settlement of claims is a positive one that
they are responding positively to. What you see in
the debate is whether Iran should be responding in
a more positive way, or whether Iran should
continue to hold back for a while. It's obvious
that in the electoral process, in the evolutionary
process that's going on in Iran, there are higher
priorities than relations with the United States.
Host: It's interesting, David Wurmser, Secretary
Albright also mentioned the grievances of the
United States, and she also pointed out that key
institutions within Iran, the security forces and
the military, are in the hands of a leader who's
not democratically elected. And as a consequence,
some of the responses within Iran are that she is
interfering in our internal affairs. What do you
think of the other aspects of what she said and
how they are being received?
Wurmser: It's a tough point to make, given our
overall policy toward other regimes in the region.
I do think that she was right in making the point
that democracy matters. The voice of the people
matters. And in that, I think there is a major
positive benefit to be had. She differentiated to
some extent between the Iranian people and the
Iranian government. And I think that is a key
distinction that has to be made here, because it
drives everybody's interpretation. Whether or not
there are forces from on the street pushing the
government to reform and the government is in
despair try to preempt this change, and then how
that plays with U-S policy. Or whether the
government itself has realized certain things
aren't working and they are one of the forces
moving this change forward, and that, therefore,
the moderation is genuine, not a reaction to a
pressure that they cannot control anymore. That
drives a different policy. Her differentiating
between the two, I think, is a hopeful sign.
Although I do think, in Iran, the first question
that will be raised is what about our support for
Saudi Arabia, and so forth. So it is going to be a
tough point to make.
Alterman: I think that David Wurmser's point is
exactly right. What we're looking for in Iran is a
government which is responsive to the people of
Iran and accountable both to the people of Iran
and to the global community. There is a tendency
among some people in the U-S government to cheer
for[President Mohammad] Khatami, and he's become a
popular figure, not only tremendously popular in
Iran but also popular around the world. He's a
smiling face. He seems to be a person you can deal
with. But our real interest is not in the triumph
of any individual party or faction in Iran. What
we're looking for is for Iran to become a place
with accountability, with responsiveness to its
people. That's a kind of Iran, not necessarily an
ally of the United States, but an Iran where we
can talk about mutual interests and sort out our
differences. And that's really the goal of this
process.
Host: How far along do you think we have come
toward that goal? And do you think that the
initiatives that Mr. Pelletreau was just talking
about were the appropriate ones?
Alterman: I think they are appropriate. The
Iranians have been talking about them for more
than a year. The Iranians themselves have signaled
that these would be helpful to move this process
forward. We are in a process; we're in a process
that's going to take, I think, a number of years
to work through. We have serious concerns. They
have serious concerns about our behavior. There is
a lot of hope that movement in the Arab-Israeli
peace process may make some of the differences
between us a little easier for both sides to
stomach. I think we are in a multi-year
process, but ultimately a process that will work
out.
Pelletreau: It may not take quite as long as
you're suggesting, Jon, because what is clear is
that change is coming to Iran not so much because
of outside pressures but because of an internal
evolution. And so many of the young people in
Iran, born since the revolution, don't have all
the historical baggage or the historical
perspective. Their focus is internal and they are
really a driving force in this gradual, steady
increase in political power of the reformers in
this obviously non-monolithic government. It's a
government with a number of power centers.
Wurmser: I think this is a very important point.
And I think that this is something that tells us
something about our policy overall in the region.
You are seeing in Iran, as well as in a number of
other countries in this region, a growing sense
among people that, look, you've burdened us with
the Arab-Israeli conflict, you've burdened us with
this hatred of the West, you've burdened us with
all this externally-driven state of emergency.
Enough! When are you going to turn to us? When are
you going to turn and make government function
properly for the governance of the people, rather
than constantly being mobilized in these emergency
states, these unusual sorts of political
circumstances for the sake of some larger ideal.
And I think Iran here represents perhaps one of
the leading forces among the youth in the region,
who are just simply fed up.
Host: Did you get that feeling from your recent
visit?
Alterman: The youth, on the one hand, are fed up.
They are a large part of the population, but more
than being fed up -- and number of people have
talked about Iran sort of seething when there were
disturbances last summer -- some people thought
Iran on the verge of a revolution. When I talked
to people on all parts of the political spectrum,
I saw no support for revolution. Iranians want an
evolution toward a better government, from
everywhere. And what people define as a better
government varies. But everybody wants a better
government through an evolutionary process. How
long that process takes, I don't know. Certainly
the Majlis, after the recent parliamentary
elections, we are going to see a parliament which
will take a different role in the government, a
parliament which may, in fact, be more separate
from the rest of government than any parliament we
have seen in Iran since the revolution. There're
certainly fewer clerics in the government than has
ever been the case before. How all these forces
work out, how the different power centers sort out
their power is something that we're going to have
to watch over the coming months and years. But
that's the crucial issue. And I think we're going
to be dealing with some variant of this system,
rather than some sort of counter-revolutionary
system. I don't think that's in the cards at all.
Pelletreau: Wouldn't it be ironic if what we were
all fearing in the 80's -- that Iran would be the
source of a wave of fanaticism spreading out over
the entire region -- instead becomes Iran as the
messenger of reconciliation of Islam and democracy
that's spreading out over the region. That's
something interesting to contemplate.
Host: Along those lines, could you comment on how
Iran is behaving in the region now, in terms of
its relations with the Gulf States and so forth?
Pelletreau: That's right. Iran, since the election
of President Khatami in 1997, has begun reaching
out across the Gulf to restore a certain
relationship that had been badly disrupted and
broken off. And we've seen some of the Arab
governments responding positively, particularly
the Saudis. And this can have many positive
benefits. It isn't going to remove the mutual
suspicions; it isn't going to remove the history
of Iranian ambitions to hegemony in the region.
Host: It isn't going to remove the U-S troops in
Saudi-Arabia.
Pelletreau: Not at all. But if the states on both
sides of the Gulf are talking with each other and
beginning to develop areas of common interest,
it's going to be a somewhat less acute security
situation than when they were not. There are still
many outstanding issues. The islands issues with
the United Arab Emirates is one that the Arab side
of the Gulf feels very strongly about.
Alterman: The goal of Iranian foreign policy in
the region is reducing tensions. The goal of
Iranian foreign policy is not necessarily to play
a lesser role in the region, but not always to be
chafing at everybody. I think this policy has been
generally successful. It's won them a lot of
advantages in their interaction with other people
in the region. And I think ultimately, it's the
same idea of reducing tensions that will drive
their policy with the United States, not so much
to make agreements with the United States on our
common interests, like Iraq, where we have a lot
of common interests, but rather they don't want to
be fighting the U-S. And ultimately, the U-S
doesn't want to be fighting them in the Gulf
either.
Host: Terrorism, of course, is one of the sore
points between the United States and Iran. And
there were very sharp words last year from our
Assistant Secretary of State, Martin Indyk, when
Mr. Khatami met in Damascus with some of the
terrorist groups. However, the United States
recently said that Iran itself is the victim of
terrorism from the Mujahedin-e Khalq
and that we have common interests in combating
terrorism. My question is: on those really
critical tough points that Secretary Albright
mentioned -- weapons of mass destruction,
terrorism, opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace
process -- do you see an evolutionary improvement
there, a change of policy, or what are the
possibilities?
Wurmser: I think this cuts right down to the
central point. If you look at these issues, they
are almost exact replicas of our debate from 1985
to 1990 about the Soviet Union. The first question
that came up is: is there a third way? Can we see
a moderating way for the Soviet regime to become
Communism or socialism with a human face? What we
learned is that when it goes down, it goes all the
way down. And the first thing that we saw was an
ideological break down inside the Soviet regime.
Communists themselves said: this doesn't square.
The same thing is happening in Iran. This regime
is ideologically in deep, deep trouble. Even
mullahs are saying: you know, we're going to lose
Islam if we don't get Islam out of the government.
And many of them are appealing to the sixth Imam
Jafar, [Sadegh] who laid down the whole idea of
separating Islam from governance and making it
more of an exemplary movement, and so forth. All
these issues will essentially take care of
themselves once there is a substantial change in
government in Iran. But I am dubious that this
regime, given its current construct, which, by the
way, is a very revolutionary interpretation of
Shiite Islam -- I'm not convinced that there is a
third way.
Host: Let me give a quick reaction for Jon
Alterman.
Alterman: I differ with David on two points.
First, I don't think that the Soviet Union is the
appropriate parallel. Generally, if you look at
revolutions, after twenty years, revolutions go
through leadership transitions, they go through
generational transitions. You have a problem
sustaining the ideological vigor of a revolution.
That's true of all revolutions. The Soviet Union
fell after seventy years. I don't think we are
seeing that in Iran. I think what we are seeing is
a need to rationalize the system, a need to make
it work better, and I think that, in the interest
of making it work better, the Iranians certainly
will deal on the terrorism issue. I think that a
move in the Arab-Israeli peace process will make
that a lot easier for both sides. Partly, you have
to agree on what terrorism is. But I think that
there are a lot of encouraging signs.
Host: I'm afraid that's all the time we have
this week. I'd like to thank our guests -- Robert
Pelletreau, former assistant secretary of State
for Near Eastern affairs and chairman of the
American-Iranian Council; David Wurmser from the
American Enterprise Institute; and Jon Alterman
from the U.S. Peace Institute -- for joining me
this week to discuss U.S.-Iranian relations. This
is Robert Reilly for On the Line.
Anncr: You've been listening to "On the Line" - a
discussion of United States policies and
contemporary issues. This is --------.
07-Apr-2000 13:03 PM EDT (07-Apr-2000 1703 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
