This Perspective originally appeared as an editorial in the February 2, 2005, edition of the "Daily Progress" (Charlottesville, VA).
Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney managed on Inauguration Day to focus world attention on Iran.
Bush appeared to have Iran, among other countries, in mind when he said he was committed to "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," and Cheney publicly raised the possibility that Israel "might well decide to act first" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Yet neither clarified America’s Iran policy, partly because of the division of opinion within and outside the Bush administration.
The hawks favor the invasion of Iran, arguing that logistically it would be easier to pull off than the invasion of Iraq because the US could launch land-based attacks on Iran from adjacent Afghanistan, Iraq and Central Asia. They also allege that Iran is a "rogue" state that has sponsored terrorist bombings in Beirut and in Saudi Arabia, and is sheltering al-Qaida terrorists.
In contrast, the doves see tremendous difficulties in attacking Iran as compared with Iraq. Iran, they point out, is four times the size of Iraq and has a population three times that of Iraq. It has missiles capable of reaching Israeli and European targets as well as American interests in the Middle East, and the capacity to instigate Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Israeli-occupied territories against both American and Israeli interests.
Facing the American and Israeli threat of military action, Iranian hawks and doves have closed ranks. They mock the threats as scare tactics, invoke their millennial history of resistance to foreign invasions from Alexander of Macedonia to Saddam Hussein of Iraq, consider obtaining nuclear weapons to be un-Islamic, insist on their right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, point out their ongoing cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, who testify that so far there is no sign of Iranian militarization of nuclear facilities, and warn Israel of dire consequences if it attempts to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, as it did Iraq’s Osirak in 1981.
The Bush administration’s gross misunderstanding of the Iraqi political culture got us involved in the intractable Iraqi situation in which we find ourselves today. This should not be repeated. Iran and the United States must stop demonizing each other, as must Iran and Israel.
The United States should recognize the dynamic social and political changes in Iran that eschew religious extremism, favor a pragmatic approach to international relations, aspire to democracy and opt for relations with America.
Besides acknowledging this, Israel should realize that, contrary to public perception, Iranian leaders do not seek to destroy Israel. I know first-hand from on-site interviews that the Iranians would accept a two-state solution that would provide for the creation of a viable Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel.
The Bush administration should join the European efforts to deal with the Iranian nuclear situation. Perhaps this is more feasible now that both Bush and Cheney have begun to focus on diplomacy.
Bush has already acknowledged that we do not have "leverage" with Iran and that "diplomacy must be the first choice" in resolving international issues, including "nuclear armament."
Despite Dick Cheney’s apparent concern with possible Israeli military action against Iran, he said clearly, "We don’t want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it. In the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically."
If this apparent retreat from the previous focus on military action goes beyond rhetoric, then there is some hope for resolving the Iranian nuclear situation peacefully.
A real test for this would be whether the Bush administration will get off the sidelines and join the Europeans in dealing with Iran, a move which Britain, France, Germany and the European Union have urged. They say their diplomatic efforts could become more effective if America were to join them. Mohammad ElBaradei, the head of IAEA, as well as such ranking senators as John McCain, call for joint US-EU diplomacy.
A joint American-European diplomatic approach would make it far more difficult for Iran to renege on its commitment to Europe. Iran has promised to refrain temporarily from uranium enrichment while discussions for European technological, economic and commercial aid to, and political and security cooperation with, Iran make steady progress.
More important, such a joint approach would redound to the benefit of reformist and secular nationalist forces within Iran. It would deprive the hard-line conservatives of the opportunity to exploit American and Israeli threats to repress pro-democracy forces.
If President Bush is true to his commitment to expand freedom worldwide through diplomacy, support for democratic transition should go beyond Iraq to neighboring Iran, where centuries-old aspirations for democracy have been transformed into a relentless grassroots democratic movement, despite mounting repression.
R. K. Ramazani is a Member Emeritus of the Middle East Institute’s Board of Governors and serves on The Middle East Journal Advisory Board. Dr. Ramazani is also the Edward R. Stettinius Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Virginia and has published extensively on the Middle East since 1954.
Disclaimer: Assertions and opinions in this Commentary are solely those of the above-mentioned author(s) and do not reflect necessarily the views of the Middle East Institute, which expressly does not take positions on Middle East policy.
Related Resources
Countries
Regional Issues
This Perspective originally appeared as an editorial in the February 2, 2005, edition of the "Daily Progress" (Charlottesville, VA).
Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney managed on Inauguration Day to focus world attention on Iran.
Bush appeared to have Iran, among other countries, in mind when he said he was committed to "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," and Cheney publicly raised the possibility that Israel "might well decide to act first" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Yet neither clarified America’s Iran policy, partly because of the division of opinion within and outside the Bush administration.
The hawks favor the invasion of Iran, arguing that logistically it would be easier to pull off than the invasion of Iraq because the US could launch land-based attacks on Iran from adjacent Afghanistan, Iraq and Central Asia. They also allege that Iran is a "rogue" state that has sponsored terrorist bombings in Beirut and in Saudi Arabia, and is sheltering al-Qaida terrorists.
In contrast, the doves see tremendous difficulties in attacking Iran as compared with Iraq. Iran, they point out, is four times the size of Iraq and has a population three times that of Iraq. It has missiles capable of reaching Israeli and European targets as well as American interests in the Middle East, and the capacity to instigate Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Israeli-occupied territories against both American and Israeli interests.
Facing the American and Israeli threat of military action, Iranian hawks and doves have closed ranks. They mock the threats as scare tactics, invoke their millennial history of resistance to foreign invasions from Alexander of Macedonia to Saddam Hussein of Iraq, consider obtaining nuclear weapons to be un-Islamic, insist on their right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, point out their ongoing cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, who testify that so far there is no sign of Iranian militarization of nuclear facilities, and warn Israel of dire consequences if it attempts to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, as it did Iraq’s Osirak in 1981.
The Bush administration’s gross misunderstanding of the Iraqi political culture got us involved in the intractable Iraqi situation in which we find ourselves today. This should not be repeated. Iran and the United States must stop demonizing each other, as must Iran and Israel.
The United States should recognize the dynamic social and political changes in Iran that eschew religious extremism, favor a pragmatic approach to international relations, aspire to democracy and opt for relations with America.
Besides acknowledging this, Israel should realize that, contrary to public perception, Iranian leaders do not seek to destroy Israel. I know first-hand from on-site interviews that the Iranians would accept a two-state solution that would provide for the creation of a viable Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel.
The Bush administration should join the European efforts to deal with the Iranian nuclear situation. Perhaps this is more feasible now that both Bush and Cheney have begun to focus on diplomacy.
Bush has already acknowledged that we do not have "leverage" with Iran and that "diplomacy must be the first choice" in resolving international issues, including "nuclear armament."
Despite Dick Cheney’s apparent concern with possible Israeli military action against Iran, he said clearly, "We don’t want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it. In the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically."
If this apparent retreat from the previous focus on military action goes beyond rhetoric, then there is some hope for resolving the Iranian nuclear situation peacefully.
A real test for this would be whether the Bush administration will get off the sidelines and join the Europeans in dealing with Iran, a move which Britain, France, Germany and the European Union have urged. They say their diplomatic efforts could become more effective if America were to join them. Mohammad ElBaradei, the head of IAEA, as well as such ranking senators as John McCain, call for joint US-EU diplomacy.
A joint American-European diplomatic approach would make it far more difficult for Iran to renege on its commitment to Europe. Iran has promised to refrain temporarily from uranium enrichment while discussions for European technological, economic and commercial aid to, and political and security cooperation with, Iran make steady progress.
More important, such a joint approach would redound to the benefit of reformist and secular nationalist forces within Iran. It would deprive the hard-line conservatives of the opportunity to exploit American and Israeli threats to repress pro-democracy forces.
If President Bush is true to his commitment to expand freedom worldwide through diplomacy, support for democratic transition should go beyond Iraq to neighboring Iran, where centuries-old aspirations for democracy have been transformed into a relentless grassroots democratic movement, despite mounting repression.
R. K. Ramazani is a Member Emeritus of the Middle East Institute’s Board of Governors and serves on The Middle East Journal Advisory Board. Dr. Ramazani is also the Edward R. Stettinius Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Virginia and has published extensively on the Middle East since 1954.