Why It's Time for a New Policy on Iran America Can Better Serve Its Strategic and Commercial Needs - and Its Allies
Alon Ben-Meir. Alon Ben-Meir is professor of International Relations York. This article is drawn from his essay on dual containment of Iran and Iraq published ., The Christian Science Monitor
THE United States policy of containing Iran has run its course. Given the geopolitical changes that have swept the Middle East since the Gulf war, continuing on that course would not only destabilize our allies, but undermine our strategic interests in the region. The Clinton administration must now change its adversarial policy toward Iran and initiate a process of "passive engagement" that could lead to normalization of relations between the two countries.
The Clinton administration's Iran policy rests on an attempt to keep both Iran and Iraq relatively weak vis-a-vis each other, the rest of the Middle East, and United States interests in the region. In short, it is a policy of "dual containment."
A close look at the US and Iranian positions reveals a misunderstanding of each other's motives, compounded by mutual distrust fed by past confrontations. The US continues to regard Iran as a state that sponsors anti-US terrorism, bent on exporting its brand of Islamic revolution and determined to undermine our Arab allies. The Iranians see themselves as reasonable and conciliatory, pointing to their useful role during the Gulf war and efforts to secure the release of hostages in Lebanon.
The litany of charges by each side against the other could be extended almost indefinitely. The point is that we and the Iranians have reached a stage in our relations where hostility no longer serves any useful purpose.
First, our embargo and sanctions have failed to cripple the regime, much less stem the growing trade Iran carries on with our own European allies and the rest of the world. And there is no little hypocrisy in our stance: We have been buying Iranian oil through third parties for several years.
While the Iranian economy is in difficulty, it is by no means in crisis. There is growing international interest in Iran as a potentially lucrative investment area, and many companies that put assets "on ice" during the revolution are now being encouraged to reopen their offices.
Iranians themselves, for all the repressiveness and intolerance of their regime, have begun carving out social and political space for themselves, and it is clear that the religious zeal that characterized the early revolutionary years has begun to diminish. Finally, there is an inescapable fact: Iran, for all its problems, is slowly regaining its position as the hegemon of the Gulf. As it re-emerges, it has begun to signal that given the right conditions, US-Iran relations could improve.
Although Iran and the US are two profoundly different societies, there still exists in Iran a deep attraction for Western lifestyles. Since the country borrowed much of its institutional base, infrastructure, and technology from the West, Iran's clergy knows that major changes will have to take place.
What is needed now is new thinking and initiatives based on the changed realities of the region.
The US should adopt a policy that engages Iranians disposed to seek American contact. There are now self-interested, pragmatic people, both in and out of Iran's government, who can be approached to our mutual benefit. The Iran of 1995 is a far different place from that of 1979. There is a much clearer, less ideological view of the outside world and the "Great Satan."
What should that policy include? …