Skip to comments.NIAC leader promotes resumption of US-Mullahs regime ties
Posted on 11/05/2004 6:04:07 PM PST by Prince of Persia
Twenty-five years after its revolution of 1979, Iran has yet again become too big of a problem for Washington to play politics with. Fortunately, commencing his second-term, President George W. Bush is in a unique position of strength. On the one hand, he is less vulnerable to special interests in Washington seeking confrontation with Iran. On the other hand, his strong record on national security grants him enough political maneuverability to solve America's Persian puzzle once and for all by easing the increasingly costly and unsustainable policy of isolating Iran in return for an end to Iran's objectionable policies.
President Bush has no choice but to address the Iranian challenge with a sincerity that previous presidents have been unwilling or unable to muster. Three decades of failed, ineffective and non-policies on Iran have led to the situation today in which Tehran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power, while the U.S. is over-extended in Iraq and at loggerheads with its European allies.
Many policies have been tried and have failed. In the 1980's the U.S. sought to balance Iran by supporting Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war. While certainly containing Iran, this policy also led to the unleashing of Saddam and his seemingly unending appetite for conquest and conflict. Today in Iraq, America is still dealing with the consequences of that policy. While balancing Iran succeeded, it led to far worse problems.
In the 1990's, inspired by Israel's need to contain its newly appointed Iranian rival in the post-cold war Middle East, America embarked on the policy of dual containment. The essence of this policy was the construction of a new Middle East order based on the exclusion of the region's two most powerful states - Iran and Iraq - while assuring Israel's security and military edge in the region through the peace process. As the first pillar of this policy, the Oslo process, failed - partly due to Iranian support for its enemies - the second pillar slowly crumbled as well, leading to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Not only did the isolation of Iran fail, Tehran made major advances toward its reintegration into the world economy during that same period.
Finally, during the first term of President Bush, internal rivalry between the realists and the neoconservatives effectively disabled Washington from conducting any policy on Iran, save occasional rhetorical exercises which resembled Iranian statecraft more than American.
While dual containment demonstrated the limits of America's political power, the difficulties in today's Iraq have shed light on the limits of America's military power when used for political ends. The common denominator in these different approaches, however, has been the belief that giving Iran a seat at the regional table of decision making was both unnecessary and undesirable.
Presently, the policy of isolating Iran is becoming increasingly difficult and costly. With the situation in Iraq being unlikely to stabilize in the short and medium term, it may soon become unbearable. With Iran inching closer to nuclear technology, and Iraq more likely to become an Islamic state than a liberal democracy, a new strategy which avoids America's over-extension is sorely needed. While engaging Iran may still be undesirable in some quarters in Washington, it is clear today that it is both necessary and unavoidable.
Fortunately, from Washington's perspective, what Iran is asking for doesn't cost the U.S. a thing - an easing of America's failed policy of isolating Iran and Tehran's inclusion in regional decision making on security matters.
This is the policy option that has yet to be seriously tested by Washington, and much indicates that it has strong prospects for successfully ending intolerable Iranian policies.
Past Iranian behavior has shown that when Washington has sought Iran's exclusion and isolation, Tehran has used its influence to undermine U.S. policies in the Middle East. For instance, in the 1990's, Iran opposed the Middle East peace process not out of love for the Palestinians, but out of fear for regional isolation and exclusion under a new U.S. sponsored Israel-centric Middle East.
Today, Iran's support for insurgents in Iraq is a function of American efforts to deprive Iran of what it sees as its legitimate role in developments in its neighboring country. At the end of the day, the Iranians know very well that instability in Iraq is far more of a threat to Iran than it is to the U.S.
However, when the U.S. has either failed or refrained from isolating Iran, Tehran's behavior has also become much more moderate and amenable toward U.S. interests. Afghanistan is a case in point. Iran played a crucial role in convincing the anti-Taliban Afghani forces to cooperate with Washington after the defeat of the Taliban. Iranian diplomacy even won praise in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The ensuing tension between the U.S. and Iran - prompted by efforts in both capitals to exclude the other from a role in post-Taliban Afghanistan - was not resolved through the elimination of Iran from Afghani affairs, but through Iran's inclusion and the acceptance of Iranian involvement in the rebuilding of Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, blame for the failure to resolve U.S.-Iran tensions lies more in Tehran than in Washington. Internal Persian politics have caused the Iranians to become the masters of missed opportunities when it comes to relations with the world's sole superpower. But with the U.S. and Iran on a collision course due to Iran's nuclear deceptions, and with the war president's strong mandate at the election booths, there is a keen awareness in Tehran that the next missed opportunity may very well be the last.
These factors all indicate that time could not be more ripe for an arrangement with Iran, because the Iranians have no choice but to make a deal, and because America cannot afford to continue the unsuccessful policy of unilateral pressure for much longer.
Recognizing Iran for what it is - a major Middle East power with legitimate security concerns - and granting it a role in regional security matters will both lift a heavy burden off the back of America and help evade nuclear ayatollahs and their disagreeable policies. President Bush will be wise to seriously tackle the issue of security in the Gulf region by initiating a new security arrangement for the region, in which all the states of the region are to participate. Through this multilateral track, an end to Iranian obstructionism can be achieved.
After Tuesday's impressive win, no American president has been in a better position than George W. Bush to navigate through the stormy waters of Persian politics. It's an opportunity he cannot afford to miss.
Daily Star Note: Trita Parsi is a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University SAIS in Washington DC, writing his dissertation on Israeli-Iranian relations. He recently spent several weeks in Tehran and Tel Aviv, interviewing high-level Iranian and Israeli officials on security matters.
SMCCDI Note: Titra Parsi is the facade founder of the self called "National Iranian American Council" (NIAC). He's a notorious apologist and lobbyist for the Islamic regime and one of those few Iranians involved in the promotion of the false idea of the possibility for the Islamic regime to become a Democratic entity.
With a very controversial past, Parsi will appear in Sweden, few years ago, and will promote the Khatami gang before moving to the US where he will be for a while an active board member of the so-called "American Iranian Council" headed by the infamous Hooshang Amir Ahmadi who's qualified as the "Broker of Death" by many Iranians.
The group composed by other very controversial individuals and apologists for the Islamic regime, such as, Akbar Ghahary and Hassan Nemazee will push for the recognition of the illegitimate Mullhacracy by the US Administration but will face a fiasco.
After the mediatic collpase of the AIC, Parsi supposedly splitts and creates the NIAC which will carry a much more subtile and hidden agenda. While the group claims to be non-political in what concerns US Foreign relations, in reality Parsi as its named founder uses its impact to carry his real agenda.
Along with his gang and by paying few money oriented TV, they have been able to use, in the last months, the ignorance of many Iranians and Americans in order to promote their till now hidden agenda.
The publication os such article and pulling off his mask, shows the real desperation of the regime's apologists following George Bush victory. In addition, Parsi known for having influenced Representative Bob Ney, can no more claim not having made frequent trips to Iran and meeting the regime's officials as stated in the bottom of the above Daily Star article.