Iran at a Glance
By Frank Lancaster
President
FSU International Relations Club
Note: Footnotes appear as a number surrounded by paratheses - (1) for example.
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. 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 success2. With the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June of 2005,
Iran’s relations with the rest of the world deteriorated. A stark contrast with
ex-president Khatami, Ahmadinejad is an ultra conservative Islamic nationalist.
In his short time in office, he has managed to undo most of the progress towards
normalizing relations with the West that Khatami had accomplished. With incendiary
comments threatening Israel and restarting Iran’s nuclear program, Ahmadinejad
is certainly making no friends in the international community.
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 government’s 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) had taken a special interest in Iran’s affairs. In the
absence of a strong US presence in the negotiations with Iran about its nuclear
program, the EU assumed the lead in diplomacy with Iran. The EU took 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. had 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.
What progress was made was completely wiped away in 2005. Iranian-EU negotiations
have broken down completely and every member of the EU voted, via the IAEA to
refer Iran to the Security Council on February 4, 2006.
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 (9). 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
two years 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 (10). However, much of this
high charged rhetoric has given way to action in early 2006.
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 (11).
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 (12).
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 (13).
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 (14).
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.
Dateline: Iran 2006
Beginning in August of 2005, the IAEA reported that Iran had removed some seals
at the Uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. IAEA Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei implored states to refrain from any action at the time and requested
Iran reinstate the seals and comply with IAEA safeguards. Finding Iran in continued
non-compliance, the IAEA passed a resolution in September of 2005 condemning
Iran and finding them in breach of the NPT. The resolution stopped short of
referring Iran to the UN Security Council. However, on January 3, 2006 Iran
informed the IAEA that they were resuming Uranium enrichment activities with
the intention of creating a peaceful civilian nuclear energy program. On January
10, 2006 the IAEA seals on the fissile material enrichment facilities began
to be dismantled. Finally, on February 4, 2006 the IAEA passes a resolution
referring Iran to the UN Security Council. Members supporting the resolution
were Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, Ecuador,
Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Norway,
Portugal, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Sweden,
United Kingdom, United States, Yemen. Those against: Cuba, Syria, Venezuela.
Abstentions: Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya, and South Africa (15).
The Future of Iran: Questions to Consider
Iran is in violation of the NPT and, as such, has been referred to the Security Council by the IAEA. As the UN Security Council, you are charged with the task of dealing with the situation in Iran. Should punitive measures be taken against Iran in the form of sanctions? Should an ultimatum with the threat of military intervention be established? Or is there another more peaceful alternative available? Sanctions or military intervention may push Iran further towards the fringe. Iran’s nuclear program may, in fact, be for solely peaceful purposes. A military option will produce massive casualties both military and civilian (16). But if nothing is done, Iran may in the near future possess a nuclear bomb which, by its mere presence, would further destabilize the Middle East and, if used, could trigger World War III. The final decision is up to the Security Council. In order to avoid a further escalation of this crisis, a decision must be made quickly and with the maximum amount of consensus. The future of the world rests in your collective hands.
Footnotes: