• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
07.12.2006

The new defense minister of the US and the Iranian problem

   

Sevak Sarukhanyan 

Resignation of Donald Rumsfeld’s from the post of the US defense minister may make changes in the US-Iran relations. As a matter of fact, from the present US administration was excluded a figure who had quite a tough approach to Iran and its administration and though he always avoided of making tough announcements, he was fairly considered to be the adherent of the war against Iran.

Appointment of the former CIA director Robert Gates in the post of the US defense minister indicates that at least in its relations with Iran the US will adopt a new political line.

Robert Gates and Iranian problems

Robert Gates and Zbignev Bzhezinski told about their “new approach” on the problems of the US-Iran relations in the research work “Iran: Time for a New Approach” prepared under the patronage of The Council on Foreign Relations.

Gate’s so called “realistic” approaches to the Iranian problems may hardly be called “new”. Such a policy dates back to 1998, when the state secretary of Bill Gate’s democratic administration Madlen Olbrite appeared with announcements on the possibility of settling relations with Iran.

At the same time Bzhezinski-Gates approach, in comparison with the American announcements in 1998, has become a quite systematized and well grounded political strategy. It is probably reasoned by the fact that in comparison with 1998, Iran is not a country squeezed between Afghanistan and Saddamian Iraq any more and has turned into a regional powerful centre without the participation of which it is not possible to solve any important political problem.

The main idea of the research work “Iran: Time for a New Approach” may be considered:

  1. It should not be expected that by the establishment of Iran-US dialogue absolute harmony will be established between the two states: “during its history the US had normal and constructive relations with the countries the policy and Philosophy (the authors mean ideology) of which didn’t coincide with its”.
  2. US-Iran relations may not be regulated until Iran reckons with the American approaches and interests, that’s to say, gives up the idea of making a nuclear weapon and stops supporting terrorist organizations. At the same time it “can not be a precondition to establish a dialogue”1.
  3. While dealing with Iran, Washington should give up the policy of changing the administration, as it is of no use and makes the relations more complicated.
  4. The US should go on carrying out deterring policy directed not to allow Iran to become a nuclear state. According to the authors of the research work there is only one way to convince Iran not to make a nuclear weapon: by proving that the US doesn’t threaten its nuclear interests. The problem of Iran’s nuclear problem should be solved in a peaceful way. The following idea is very interesting: “Taking into account the fact that in any case Washington will be condemned, even if Israel strikes one-sided blows to Iran, Israel should be forced to understand that that step may directly damage the US interests”.
  5. Iran should be included in inter-Iraqi and inter-Afghan conflict settlement processes.

It’s worth mentioning that Gate’s approach to the necessity of settling relations with Iran undergone little changes even after Mahmud Ahmadinejad won Iran’s presidential elections and later on appeared with a number of anti-American and anti-Israeli announcements. Quite the contrary, the advocates of “the new approach” became indirectly blaming the US in the victory of the extremists in Iran as the US attacking and anti-Iranian announcements made the Iranian internal political processes more radical.

During the year 2005 Gates and Bzhezinski appeared with a number of suggestions for the US to be included in Iran-“Eurotrio” negotiation processes and at the same time undertake some steps advantageous for Iran’s economy. As it is known, since the summer of 2006 the US has directly been included in negotiations with Iran and in October the US at last met Iran’s two years’ claim to resume aircraft equipments’ sale to Iranian airlines.

In this sense one may point out that the position of people adherent to settling relations with Iran became stronger in the US political elite, especially with the appointment of Robert Gates in the post of defense minister.

However, should one suppose that this appointment may make a ground for settling US-Iran relations?2

Iran-2004 and Iran -2006

In 2005, when was prepared the US today’s defense minister’s talk on Iran, the Islamic republic was in qualitatively quite different condition then it is today. The component parts of that condition were:

  • The US success in Iraq and thus the prospective of possible attack on Iran.
  • Strong position of “reformators” in Iran’s internal political field.

In that situation it is probable that Iranian government would eagerly establish a dialogue with the US as it was, for example, in case of nuclear problems with the EU “trio”.

Situation in 2006 is quite different. “Conservatives” prevail in the Iranian political field; the Iraqi government manly consists of the representatives of pro Iranian Shia political forces3. As for attacking on Iran, then at present it is hardly possible and this allows Tehran to be freer in making a nuclear weapon. At the same time, at present the conservatives standing on top of the pyramid of Iranian government don’t have unequivocal approach to the settlement of Iranian-American relations as this or that direction of Iranian internal political processes depend on that relations. The conflict with the US may be considered one of the main legitimizing processes of being on top of the Iranian government.

Today it is already clear that Iran’s preconditions for settling relations with the US will be quite different.

It will make the situation of the ones for settling relations with Iran in the US political field more difficult and it also refers to the US newly appointed defense minister Robert Gates. Failure of his policy of “new approach” will deliver a great blow to the positions of “pro-Iranians”, strengthening the standpoint of the ones supporting implementation of military force both in the camps of neoconservatives and democrats.

1 This approach sharply differs from the ones of the present administration, who consider the solution of nuclear problem a necessary ground for establishing a dialogue.

2 In Gates-Bzhezinski report it was pointed out that Iran will hardily become the US ally as it was in 1979. The conception of “settlement of relations” means not hostile relations, reestablishment of intergovernmental dialogue and economic cooperation. This approach may conditionally be called “saudation” of Iranian-American relations.

3 The other day, at the closed session of the Council on Foreign Relations was discussed the issue the US negotiations with Iran. According to the US ambassador to Iraq Zalmai Khalilzad, during the last year, by Bush’s assignment, he tried to organize Iranian-American intergovernmental secret negotiations aiming at the settlement of Iraqi problem (one of the main issues discussed there was the division of Iraq into Shia, Syni and Kurdish parts: the main author and lobbyist of this program is the US former state secretary , “an old conservative” Games Baker, whose influence in Republican Party has considerably increased during the last year).

However, according to Khalilzad, he had to quit working with the Iranians as he was called and told about it on behalf of the US president by the assistant to the president for National Security Affairs Stephan Hadley.


Return
Another materials of author