Jack Straw’s tour in the Middle East that took him to Egypt and Iran has apparently convinced him of the psychological instability, resulting from the tension in the Middles East on multiple fronts, within the political hierarchies. This instability is demonstrated by the inability of regional governments to influence the course of events in relation to the most high profile crises; Palestine, Iraq and the war on terrorism. This does not, however, prevent these governments from expressing defiant stands and objections to US Middle Eastern policies. Egypt, for example, openly snubbed Jack Straw by declaring its open opposition to any attack on Iraq, as proposed by the United States, outside the UN framework. Its Foreign Minister, Ahmad Maher, went as far as accusing both the US and the UK of trying to flout international laws by insisting on waging war. Thus, when Mr. Straw flew to Tehran, he was already set for at least a similar encounter with Iranian officials.

Tehran went further by insisting that it would not take part in any attack against Iraq, even if the UN Security Council issued a resolution sanctioning the use of force. The Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, told reporters that his country “could not participate in any attack on any Muslim country,” and emphasized Tehran’s rejection of changing regimes by external forces. At the same time, Foreign Minister Dr Kamal Kharrazi called on Iraq to observe UN Security Council Resolutions in order to remove the international anger fed by the US.

The Iranian leadership, on one hand, may be in a comfortable position, as it monitors the encounter between her two arch-enemies, but on the other hand, it does not take comfort in seeing the Iraqi people subjected to endless suffering as a result of Saddam Hussein’s policies. In the 1990/91 conflict following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Iran took a neutral stance, calling for a peaceful withdrawal of Iraqi forces. In the following decade, it took steps to ensure food and medicine got through to the Iraqi people by opening its borders for these commodities. In the present crisis, Iran views US policy with a great deal of skepticism and mistrust. Washington has been selective in targeting Iraq while ignoring Israeli atrocities against the Palestinian people. It is well aware of the American role in propping up Iraq’s military during the eight-year war that claimed up to a million lives on both sides. The removal of Saddam Hussein is thus welcomed by Tehran, although it continues to object to American military intervention. Iraqi groups opposing Baghdad’s regime and operating from Tehran, however, have cooperated with American initiatives to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The new pragmatism in Tehran has thus extended to the Iraqi opposition, which does not want to be left out in any future settlement. Iran is anxious to see its interests secured by any political change in Baghdad. Among its objectives are the stability of Iraq within its present borders, the proper representation of the majority Shi’a Muslims in any future government, the repatriation of Iran prisoners of war, and that previous agreements with Iraq on the demarcation of the border of the Shatt al-Arab waterway be respected.

The Iranians were far more anxious to hear from Jack Straw what he had to say on behalf of the United States. It is suggested that he was carrying a US message to the Islamic Republic. The Bush administration, having failed to secure international support for its proposed war against Iraq, hopes to woo Iran, which has never enjoyed good relations with Saddam Hussein’s regime. On their part, the Iranians have been debating the issue of relations with the US on many levels. Three months ago, Parliament asked three research institutions to conduct opinion polls on Iran-US and Iran-Europe relations. There was fury when the Islamic Republic News Agency published parts of the surveys on its wires and several newspapers duplicated the results. Apparently, the polls showed a sizeable percentage of people in favor of relations with the US. It is such a sensitive issue that the factions of the leadership consider it one of the strategic areas that require unanimity for a decision. The past quarter of a century of disengagement between Tehran and Washington has led to mutual mistrust and a divergence of views on regional and international policies. Iran wants the United States to release its frozen assets, while the US has been influenced by the Zionist lobby, which considers Iran the archenemy of Israel. The Americans have accused Iran of supporting Lebanese and Palestinian armed groups that undermine US-sponsored peace plans. They have also accused Tehran of attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. The US stance has not helped the cause of those calling for an improvement in relations. Successive US administrations have declared their support of anti-government groups and continued to threaten Iran for its position on the Middle East crisis.

The British Foreign Secretary, on his third trip to Tehran in the past twelve months, could be the torchbearer for an improved atmosphere in US-Iranian relations. Britain has experienced difficulties in its relations with Iran, but now the two countries enjoy cordial relations, especially after the acceptance of Richard Dolton’s credentials as the new British Ambassador to Tehran. At the same time, it is difficult to see how relations could be enhanced with Washington while it remains adamant in pursuing its war against terrorism in Muslim countries, while ignoring government-sponsored terrorism in Israel.

Iran has successfully engaged politically with Arab and Muslim countries, while its relations with the European Union countries are flourishing. At the same time, Tehran suffers from its ongoing factional feuding that undermines the unity of its leadership and sends the wrong signals to the outside world. Meanwhile, Jack Straw’s visit may trigger a new era in relations between the West and Iran. He was cordial enough to condemn the attack on Prophet Muhammad by the American ultra-conservative evangelist Jerry Falwell. The hope is that respect for Islam and its followers will be part of the new diplomacy between Muslim countries and the rest of the world. Warmongering inevitably leads to a “clash of civilizations,” and the remarks by the American priest testify to this.

Saeed Shehabi is a Bahraini journalist residing in London. He is the former editor of the Arabic weekly, Al Aala (1983-1999), and is a political analyst and commentator on Arab and Islamic issues, particularly Gulf affairs. He is also a columnist with Al Quds Al Arabi, and a contributor to various Arab and Muslim publications. He is currently Chairman of both the Gulf Cultural Club in London, and the Dar Al Hekma Trust. He is also a member of the Royal United Services Institute.

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses