Iran-U.S. dilemma ignored

It is unfortunate that during the presidential primaries little attention has been paid to U.S.-Iranian relations, strained since the 1979 revolution and the American hostage crisis. Under the current Bush Administration, the relationship has worsened and Iran remains subject to U.S. and United Nation economic sanctions. Surely the next president elected will have to deal with this critical foreign policy issue.
 
The Bush policy to date has been ideologically driven, characterized by an intense dislike for the present Iranian regime. There have been accusations of Iran's continued involvement in terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. These accusations have been unsubstantiated.
 
For example, not a single Iranian has been arrested in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. The recent Intelligence Report states that more than 40 percent of terrorists presently in Iraq cross over the Saudi Arabian border - not the Iranian border - and most insurgents arrested in Iraq are Saudis.
 
Saudi Arabia is the country that the Bush Administration favors with a whopping $20 billion arms sale. This sale is being made to a country that has both an autocratic regime and one of the worst records of women's rights in the region, if not the world. Of course, we all know too well that 17 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. So why does Washington favor Saudi Arabia?
 
Oil, of course, has been a key factor between Washington and Saudi Arabia. However, isn't Iran one of the largest exporters of oil? And isn't Iran, even under the present regime of Ahamdi-Nejad, a far more democratic society than Saudi Arabia or almost any other Persian Gulf state? Furthermore, Iran has far more overall influence in the region and beyond compared to that of Saudi Arabia.
 
If the U.S. were really interested in promoting democracy and stability in the Middle East, shouldn't the focus be on Iran and not Saudi Arabia? The U.S. and Iran share a common interest in Iraq and Afghanistan in that they both desire stability in those countries.
 
The hostility toward Iran can be attributed to many factors. One is the ideological rigidity of the present administration, which views the world in black and white, good versus evil. Another is likely linked to the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel since Israel, as a very close ally of the U.S., also sees the state of Iran as a major threat to its security.
 
For Israel, Iran represents one of the most serious threats in the region. President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad's well publicized speech questioning the accuracy of the Holocaust, coupled with his questioning of the legitimacy of the state of Israel and Iran's nuclear enrichment activities, have produced current geopolitical tensions.
 
The next president of the United States must recognize that America's present foreign policy toward Iran will have to change. President Ahmadi-Nejad has little popular support and relatively little real political power. The bottom line is that his presidential term ends in one and a half years.
 
In a recent trip to Iran, I found a majority of young educated people in favor of a good relationship between Washington and Tehran. Constant American threats of war against Iran combined with accusations against Iran being part of the "Axis of Evil" have proven counter-productive.
 
Any attack against Iran will only serve to solidify the current hard-liners in Iran and destroy the reformist movement. An informed pragmatic approach is badly needed to mend this relationship.
 
The most successful presidents in our history have been those who jettisoned the preconceived ideological "baggage" in favor of realism, pragmatism and a keen sense of history. Presidents such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, both of whom built their political careers on anti-communism, embraced pragmatism and realism.
 
President Nixon's open-door policy toward China and President Reagan's reconciliation/rapprochement toward the so-called "Evil Empire" have been portrayed by many as two of the most successful foreign policy achievements in the 20th century. Today, both China and Russia have embraced market economies.
 
U.S. foreign policy-makers should realize that the present situation in Iran is but a brief moment in world history, and that America's long-range interests lie in creating a fundamental improvement in this critical relationship.
 
Other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (China, Russia, France and Britain) have strong business ties with Iran, and the United States' drive to adopt any realistic sanction will be blocked. Therefore any prospects for a more constructive dialogue between the U.S. and Iran would be most welcome, especially in light of the recent U.S. intelligence report that Iran "halted active work on its nuclear weapon program in 2003."
 
Let's hope that American voters can choose a president who follows in this tradition - one who will move away from the confrontation/intervention approach of the current administration to a more diplomatically-crafted creative foreign policy.


----
Mohammad "Mo" Bahramzadeh, Ph.D. is department head and professor of political science at Arizona Western College.