Teheran writes the script, the US follows it

AMIR TAHERI
Jerusalem Post
Posted on 03/01/2006

Having resumed uranium enrichment, has the Islamic Republic crossed the Rubicon?
Having resumed uranium enrichment, has the Islamic Republic crossed the Rubicon? That
question is dividing commentators and decision-makers both inside and outside Iran.

Some, like former US vice president Al Gore, believe that Iran is a threat to world peace and
must be checked, by force if necessary. Others, like Gore's former boss, ex-president Bill
Clinton, are convinced that the best way to deal with Iran is to negotiate. Both, however, may
be missing the point.

If military action means a few brief air strikes or missile attacks, it is certain to be counter-
productive. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might even welcome such attacks in the hope
that they will lift the uncertainty that is damaging the Iranian economy and undermining his
authority. And he would not be wrong.

The ineffective missile attacks president Clinton launched against the Taliban in Afghanistan
and the Saddamites in Iraq in the 1990s strengthened both regimes in two ways. First, the
attacks demonstrated that when the American sword of Damocles falls, it does only limited
damage. Secondly, they showed that the US did not pursue the broader objective of regime
change, the only thing that would have made the Taliban and the Saddamites pay attention.

TODAY WE face a similar situation with the Islamic Republic. As long as no regime change is on
the agenda the leadership in Teheran will not be swayed by air raids or missile attacks.
Constant saber-rattling by the Iran's genuine or fake adversaries plays into the hands of a new
leadership actively seeking a "clash of civilizations," provided its hold on power in Teheran is
not threatened. The new Teheran leadership is flattered by the fact that the United States is
treating it as an almost-equal adversary rather than a ramshackle Third World regime.

Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi, who recently talked to the Iranian leaders, is quoted as saying
that in today's world only three countries are genuinely free to act as they please: the United
States, China and Iran.

Ahmadinejad agrees, but leaves China out. He believes that the world today faces a choice
between an Americanized existence, or diversity under the leadership of the Islamic Republic.If
Gore's idea of a muscular answer to the Islamic Republic is out, should we adopt Clinton's
scenario for negotiations?

1
Once again the problem is that any diplomatic process Clinton might imagine would play into
the hands of the new leadership in Teheran. Here's why: To persuade Teheran to negotiate, it
would be necessary to postpone referring its dossier to the UN Security Council. And that is
precisely what Teheran is working hard to achieve.

TEHERAN would like nothing better than a resumption of talks with the International Atomic
Energy Agency in exchange for postponing any action by the Security Council. To lubricate
things along the way Teheran might even offer to introduce another "temporary suspension" of
its uranium enrichment program within a year or two. At the same time the Teheran leadership
wants to keep the focus on the nuclear issue.

This could win the regime a measure of popular support inside Iran, where most people do not
know what the fuss is about and resent being treated as "less than the Indians" when it comes
to having nuclear weapons.

At the same time, exclusive attention on the nuclear issue would push other, potentially more
explosive issues - such as violation of human rights, waves of executions, and ethnic unrest in
many parts of Iran - out of the limelight.

Manouchehr Mottaki, the new Iranian foreign minister, has used a Persian proverb to explain
Teheran's diplomacy: "There is hope from pillar to pillar!"

This means that Islamic diplomacy is geared to achieve two things: first, to prevent the
emergence of a consensus among the major powers on regime change in Iran; and second, to
keep the major powers engaged in an open-ended talking process. Thus Clinton's analysis
would play right into Ahmadinejad's hands.

The Iranian analysis is based on the belief that the current American strategy is the product of
"a moment of madness under President George W Bush." Thus it is assumed that Bush has
been acting out of character for an American president, and that once he is out of office his
successor, whoever it is, will revert to the traditional American policy of "conflict avoidance"
and "alliance building" for soft-power action.

ALL THE TALK in Teheran, and by extension in Damascus, where the Islamic Republic has now
established itself as principal supporter of the Syrian regime, is about "the three-year
endurance course" that consists of what is left of President Bush's second and final term in
office. It is on the basis of that analysis that Teheran will not enter any negotiations that would
question its right to develop what Ahmadinejad describes as "a full scientific nuclear cycle."

2
And it is on that basis too that President Bashar al-Assad has decided not only to tell the UN to
stuff it, but also to reassert Syria's dominance in Lebanon through a new Shi'ite-Maronite
alliance underwritten by Teheran.

THE IRONY in all this is that the Bush administration has played the part assigned to it in the
Iranian script. It has thrown in its lot with the advocates of diplomacy and soft power, thus
giving Ahmadinejad the assurance that there will be no unilateral American action against the
Islamic Republic.

At the same time, Washington is doing enough saber-rattling to give credence to Ahmadinejad's
claim that a "clash of civilizations" is under way, with Iran leading one camp and the US
another.

In the set speech he delivers during his campaign-like visits to the provinces, Ahmadinejad
mocks the major powers for their "obsession with passing resolutions."

"They just don't get it," he told an audience in Bushehr earlier this month. "They think that
because they pass a resolution, everyone is obliged to obey it. Our message is simple: Pass
resolutions until you are blue in the face! We are guided by what the Hidden Imam tells us, not
by what you dictate in your resolutions."

IF THE resolutions of the Security Council are meant to serve as sticks, it is already clear that
they do not perform that function as far as the Islamic Republic is concerned. A regime that
claims world leadership in a "clash of civilizations" and promises to "save the world from total
Americanization" will not be swayed by such classic tactics.

When it comes to dealing with Iran, neither the Gore scenario nor the Clinton alternative are
likely to work. The Gore scenario is doomed because even he might not support a full-scale war
to change the regime in Teheran. The Clinton scenario would not work because even he would
not be prepared to grant what Ahmadinejad demands.

So, what is to be done? Ah, that requires another column, doesn't it? The writer, an Iranian
author and journalist, is editor of the Paris-based Politique Internationale.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587625/posts

http://tenteradajjal.blogspot.com/2008/10/ahmadinejad-bush-inspired-by-satan_29.html