Iran at a Glance
By Frank Lancaster
President
FSU International Relations Club
The situation in Iran has recently been thrust into the international spotlight. According to the United States, Iran is proceeding forward with its nuclear weapon program despite the wishes of the international community. As a result of this situation, Iran’s relations with the United States are strained more than usual and the European Union has stepped in and negotiated with Iran to try to diffuse this volatile situation. The United States has been threatening for some time now to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Currently, the situation is being overshadowed by the US occupation of Iraq but should not be underestimated as a source of conflict in the years to come. Now is the optimal time to pursue a diplomatic solution amiable to both sides in order to prevent a larger escalation of hostilities.
Iranian History[1]
Iran occupies what was once known as Persia and has a unique history, which its Middle Eastern neighbors do not share. From the early 16th century to the middle 18th century, Iran was ruled by a militaristic group called the Safavids. After the Safavids, Iran was led into the modern world by the Qajars. During the era of colonialism, both Russia and Britain expressed great interest in Iran. In 1909, a popular constitutional movement deposed the ruler but Iran’s hopes for independence were short lived as both Britain and Russia still held great influence. At the beginning of both World War I and World War II, Iran declared its neutrality, but in both instances was dragged into the war by both Russia and Britain. After World War II, Iran enjoyed very close relations with the victorious allies as it spent most of the first three post-war decades under the rule of the autocratic but westward-leaning Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Even though the Shah’s reign was very oppressive, Iran under the Shah was considered by the U.S. to be an extremely valuable Cold War ally. By the late 1970s, however resistance to the Shah’s repressive rule combined with economic distress to create mounting political unrest in Iran, which eventually became too much for the Shah to handle. The Iranian revolution of 1979 brought to power a theocratic Shi’ite regime led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In addition to brutally purging Iranian society of all remnants of the old regime, the new revolutionary government of Iran also stood by while student revolutionaries took dozens of U.S. embassy personnel hostage for over a year. U.S. Iranian relations have never been re-normalized since this incident.
Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has been under the effective control of this same theocratic regime, which is largely controlled by the mullahs. There has been some experimentation with liberalization at the margins recently under the presidency of the liberal Mohammed Khatami. But even during the Khatami presidency, the conservative clerics have held on to control of key legal and national security institutions. Recently there has been some unrest among the student population in Iran but this has been quelled for now because the criticisms of the United States regarding Iran’s alleged support of terrorism and their nuclear program has had a galvanizing effect on Iranian society creating a surge of nationalism at all levels and reinforcing the current regime’s grip on power and ensuring their short term success.[2]
Iran’s economy has, in the modern era, been oil driven. The revenues from oil fund the government and its people, but they are not sufficient by themselves. It is estimated that 40% of Iranians live in poverty and there is an unemployment rate around 15%[3]. To add to these complications, there is a shortage of skilled labor but an ominous youth bulge, which the current economy cannot support. Following the China model, the Iranian government is now offering limited economic liberalization in exchange for a consolidation of political power. This, as suggested by Afshin Molavi in Foreign Affairs magazine, is an unrealistic goal because of the internal divisions in society and the corruption that has become ingrained in society[4].
Iran in the Region
Iran’s position in the Middle East is uncertain. It shares many of the concerns of other Middle Eastern countries, but is also very far from normal in other respects. This paradox is evident in its relations with its regional neighbors.
As a result of the Islamic Revolution, the monarchic regimes of the Persian Gulf region (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) are wary of the rhetoric coming from Iran and keep a close eye on how that may affect their own country. Their wariness has, in some cases, proven to be prudent. Hard-line clerics in Iran’s government worked with Iran’s security and intelligence services to sponsor groups and networks that have engaged in terrorism and subversion in the region in the years since revolution. Iran is also largely dominated by Shi’ites, a specific sect of Islam, which is a minority in the whole of the Middle East. This too has caused tensions in Iran’s relations with the region.
Iranian relations with Afghanistan were strained before and after the US-led invasion. Iran saw the Taliban as a threat. Tensions were very high between the Sunni Taliban and the Shi’ite Iranians. There were many times where both countries amassed forces on each other’s borders. Iran was a strong supporter of the Northern Alliance, a proportion of whose members were also Shi’ites, in Afghanistan who aided the US and other nations in its invasion of Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan further strained relations between the two nations. With a great number of US troops in Afghanistan, Iran felt just as threatened, if not more, than when the Taliban still controlled Afghanistan. The feeling in Iran has been that of trading one great evil for another and drastic measures have been taken on the Iranian side to close the border between Afghanistan and Iran[5].
Another neighbor of Iran with a history of hostile relations is Iraq. In 1980, Iran and Iraq engaged in war caused in part by Saddam Hussein’s regional ambitions and in part by the Iranian governments efforts to stir up a rebellion among Iraq’s majority Shi’ites against Saddam Hussein’s minority Sunni Baathist regime. Iraq invaded Iran and had some early success but soon the Iranian counteroffensive regained all lost territory and brought the fight to Iraq. With Iraq in a defensive position, the Iranian offensive was stopped cold and years of fighting with no clear winner ensued. Towards the end of the war Iraq received more foreign support and was able to continue its offensive into Iran. After the Iraqi offensive progressed, Iran requested peace negotiations to put an end to the brutal war, which had included the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein. With both countries in ruins, Saddam Hussein finally agreed to keep the territorial boundaries where they were before the war[6].
The United States was a strong supporter of Iraq during the war. After the Iranian revolution, the United States looked at both sides and came to the conclusion that Iraq was the lesser of two evils and supplied Iraq with weapons and money. This decision has never been forgotten by Iran[7].
Israel and Iran have historically been at odds. The Islamic fundamentalist clerics in charge of Iran see the presence of Israel in the Middle East as an abomination. Likewise, Israel sees and Islamic fundamentalist regime as a threat to its very survival Observers of the region recall that in 1981 Israel unilaterally bombed a nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq before it could be put on-line to produce fuel for Iraqi nuclear weapons. Israel has recently threatened to take similar action in Iran if it feels sufficiently threatened by a developing Iranian nuclear weapons program. In light of these threats and Iranian counter threats against Israel, many observers fear that tensions may soon reach a dangerous level[8].
Iran in the International Community
The European Union (EU) has taken a special interest in Iran’s affairs recently. In the absence of a strong US presence in the negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program, the EU has taken the lead in diplomacy with Iran. The EU has taken a more conciliatory stance toward Iran than the U.S. whose president named Iran as a part of an axis of evil in 2002. Working independently from the U.S., the E.U. has made some progress at the diplomatic table. The lack of a U.S. leadership role in the Iranian situation is unusual. In every major international situation since the end of the Cold War, the United States has played a role in diffusing the situation. While the negotiations between the EU and Iran will inevitably continue, history dictates that no progress will be made unless the United States either plays an active role in the negotiating process or is informed of and assents to any agreement that Iran and the EU come to[9].
As mentioned before, the United States and Iran have had a sordid history. Since the Iranian revolution which was filled with vitriolic anti-US rhetoric, the US and Iran have usually been at odds. The United States has had sanctions in place against Iran for decades. These sanctions have been justified countless ways ranging from human rights violations to its nuclear program. This remains one of the largest obstacles in the way to normalized relations between Iran and the US. Iran feels that before any progress can be made, the sanctions must be lifted but current US policy is not to offer concessions to members of the “axis of evil” and sponsors of terrorism[10]. Just recently, there has been a sharp exchange between the US and Iran over who is actually more at fault for supporting terrorism and human rights violations. The office of the Iranian foreign ministry has charged the US with supporting terrorism and human rights violations because of its support of Israel and the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Iran went so far as to suggest that America look inward if it truly wishes to combat terrorism. This comes nearly a year after the State Department came out with a report claiming Iran was the most active supporter of terrorism in the world and less than a week after President Bush said in his state of the union address “to promote peace in the broader Middle East, we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists." These latest remarks have been met with more strong words regarding Iran’s nuclear program and support of terrorism as well as the President pledging his support to those elements in Iran that yearn to be free just as elections in Iraq have taken place[11].
Iran and the Nuclear Question
Iran has admitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it has been pursuing a secret nuclear program for the past eighteen years. In response, the IAEA adopted a resolution condemning Iran’s past violations and lauding Iran’s recent cooperation. This decision drew deep criticism from the Bush administration, which pushed for stronger action against Iran. Had the IAEA found Iran in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the matter would have been referred to the United Nations Security Council for action, possibly including comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Iran. Some nuclear experts believe that what Iran disclosed did violate the NPT and is probably part of a nuclear weapons program. The EU has taken a softer stance hoping to appeal to the moderate liberalizing forces in Iran, which it hopes will gain more influence as time progresses. It is unclear where this debate will eventually go, but the Bush administration has made it known that a nuclear Iran is not an option and will use all means at its disposal to ensure the safety of America and stability in the Middle East. If Iran keeps its agreement to ratify and abide by the IAEA Additional Protocol which gives the IAEA expanded intrusive inspection rights, it would be difficult for Iran to complete a nuclear weapons program without being detected. But, many Iranians (including, surprisingly, many in the growing liberalization movement) view possession of nuclear weapons as a national sovereign right .The issue of nuclear weapons is thus serving as a nationalistic symbol around which conservatives and liberals alike are rallying. Thus at any time in the near future Iran could drop out of the NPT and pursue a nuclear weapons program without breaking international law[12].
In a book
entitled The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America, Kenneth Pollack points to the similarities
between the current Iranian situation and the situation that led to the
invasion of Iraq. Among the
similarities are intelligence provided by exiles about Iran’s secret nuclear
weapons plans, hardliners in the President’s staff pushing for a military solution,
and a call from European nations to consider diplomatic means to end this
stand-off. The portrait Pollack depicts
is almost exactly what the Bush administration was facing before the decision
to invade Iraq was made. Objective
reports about the progress in Iraq have been gloomy at best and with the U.S.
Armed Forces stretched almost to the breaking point, a military conflict with
Iran may prove more costly than the invasion and occupation and reconstruction
of Iraq[13]. Additionally, it is suggested that any
military strike by the US in Iran may benefit the hardliners in their efforts
to stay in power and to usher in an Iranian nuclear weapons capability. As
stated before, the war in Iraq has had a galvanizing effect on Iran as a whole
and if the US were to invade Iran, it is likely that all sectors of Iranian
society would come together in an explosive nationalistic resistance movement.
There is evidence that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has significantly added to
support for nuclear weapons development in Iran. [14].
In a Center for Strategic and
International Studies report, an in depth overview of Iran’s nuclear weapons
capabilities is offered. According to
this report, Iran has asked every non-Western nuclear power for aid in building
up its nuclear program. China and
Russia were often asked, and there were even claims that Iran tried to strike a
deal with South Africa for nuclear secrets[15].
As of now, Iran has agreed to freeze
all nuclear activities in exchange for economic aid and help with its civilian
nuclear capabilities. This deal has
been negotiated by the E.U “big three” (France, Great Britain, and
Germany). As part of this agreement,
Iran must submit to thorough IAEA inspections and allow the IAEA to seal any
centrifuges or other nuclear weapons production tools. The economic benefits to be gained are
increased negotiations with the EU about trade agreements and sponsorship to
join the World Trade Organization. But
before the agreement took effect, Iran was already circumventing the spirit of
the agreement and processing uranium into fuel for a nuclear weapon and
changing its mind about several key aspects.
The United States viewed this as further evidence of bad faith on the
part of Iran and again advocated taking a harder stance with Iran on this
issue. The US pleas fell on deaf ears however and France, Britain, and Germany
acquiesced to the demands of Iran[16].
Iran views this conflict as a fight
for its own survival. The Bush
administration has made no secret of its desire for a stable democratic Middle
East and the lesson from Iraq is that regime change is one way of spreading
democracy. This rhetoric of regime
change and evil leaves little room for compromise on either side. Iran cannot be expected to turn the other
cheek in response to this verbal attack and is then forced to adopt policies
more hostile to the US. Hardliners on
both the U.S. and Iranian side are fighting against compromise. So now it is the job of skilled diplomats to
broker a deal between the two sides that will allow each side to gain a great
amount while keeping the domestic effect of any concessions to a minimum. The time is right for action to be taken on
this issue and with well conceived plans and a little bit of luck, a larger
crisis may be averted.
[1] All information in this history section, unless otherwise noted, is from <http://countrystudies.us/iran/>. For further reading, consult that website or view the additional readings on the back of this document.
[2] Source:
Semati, M. "Democracy in Retrograde: The Iraq war has slowed calls for
reform in Iran." Los Angeles Times 24 Sept. 2004. 15 Jan. 2005
<http://http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=15900>.
[3] Source: CIA World Fact Book Iran. 10 Jan. 2005. CIA. 10 Jan. 2005 <http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html>.
[4] Source: Molavi, Afshin. "Buying Time in Tehran." Foreign Affairs Dec. 2004: 9-16.
[5] Sources: Weinstein, Michael A. Iran's Bid for Regional Power: Assets and Liabilities. 6 Sept. 2004. Power and Interest News Report. 17 Jan. 2005 <http://pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=205&language_id=1>. and Simpson, Kevin. Bordering on War - Iran-Afghan, Issue 33. Nov. 1998. Socialism Today. 14 Jan. 2005 <http://www.socialismtoday.org/33/afghan33.html>.
[6] Source: Iran-Iraq War. 7 Feb. 2005. Wikipedia. 7 Feb. 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War>.
[7] Source: Ibid.
[8] Raid on the Iraqi Reactor. Jewish Virtual Library. 5 Feb. 2005 <http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html>.
[9] Typing “Iran and the EU” into any internet search engine will supply a number of results attesting to the accuracy of the information provided in the previous paragraph.
[10] Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iran.htm
[11] Source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/06/iran.bush/index.html
[12] Source: http://www.cfr.org/background/iran_nuclear.php
[13] Source: http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2110538
[14] Source: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16228
[15] Source: http://www.csis.org/stratassessment/reports/iranbackground032100.pdf
[16] Source: http://www.cfr.org/background/iran_nucneg.php