Opinions | Columnists
Bright prospect in Tehran
The case for deepening a dialogue with Iran has now become stronger.
- By Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 00:10 December 7, 2007
In recent years, it has not been easy to argue that the cause of regional security, which should doubtless be the primary concern of observers from within the area, would be better served by a policy of engagement with Iran. The Iran-US hostility has hung over the area like an incubus. The nuclear issue has been used by the West to demonise the Iranian leadership even more than a quarter of century ago when it was said to be driven by an ambition to engulf the neighbouring Muslim states with its messianic radicalism
It is not to deny that the Iranian revolution did create a frisson in the region and that Iran has explored the nuclear weapon option. The point is about the ripples created by the revolution being deliberately blown up into images of a Caribbean hurricane and the nuclear programme being offered as the herald of a new Armageddon. The Shiite radicalism was projected, before Iraq turned the Sunnis into the new demons, as the great threat to regional and global peace. More recently, Iran's nuclear programme has been the reason for drums of war to beat louder by the day.
The real issue all along has been whether Iran was a responsible nation state located honourably within the international system or was to be rudely ostracised in deference to the unilateral American policy aiming at a regime change in Tehran. So deafening has been the clamour that even a traditional friend of Iran such as Pakistan has agonised over the implications of "the coming conflict" for its own bilateral ties. Pakistan, a frequent destination for world leaders, is yet to invite President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for an exclusive official visit considered de rigueur for decades.
The case for deepening a dialogue with Iran becomes stronger as the dynamics of Washington's Iran policy become clearer. There is a tussle between strategic thinkers in the United States who advocate meaningful negotiations with Iran (and Syria) and others who take the cue from the pro-Israel lobby bent upon exploiting the US President George W. Bush's visceral hostility towards Iran for a massive pre-emptive strike against its strategic assets. The complexity of this tussle can be gauged from the fact that Bush talked of a third world war over the nuclear dispute with Iran even after he had been apprised of the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in August this year.
We are not entirely sure why NIE's conclusions have been declassified at the present juncture. There are leaks that the document was mulled over for ten months and that the US Vice-President Dick Cheney tried to stop the de-classification generally favoured by an over-stretched Pentagon that has a more realistic grasp of what a military conflict with Iran would entail. The NIE conclusions substantiate the main findings of International Atomic Energy Agency's Director-General Mohammad Al Baradei and are unambiguous. They are as follows: Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme in Fall 2003; it has not restarted its nuclear weapons programme as of mid-2007; Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame but it will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015. The NIE does not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to halt its nuclear weapons programme indefinitely but it does not assume, that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons.
In the midst of extensive comments in the West that it dramatically alters the assumptions on which the belligerence of the Bush administration was based, the hawks, particularly in Israel, are trying to rubbish the latest intelligence estimate. Israel clearly wants to retain the option of war. Trying to argue that "Iran was dangerous, is dangerous and will continue to be dangerous" Bush made a point that should cause concern. He maintained that what made Iran dangerous was its acquisition of nuclear knowledge. Considering that NIE's assessment emanated from the determination that Iran gave up weapon-related technology and engineering projects in 2003, it is an observation that would be widely read as nuclear apartheid reflecting a deeper bias against a particular civilisation and faith.
Not possible
It is simply not possible to predict the future course of American policy particularly in the run up to a crucial election. Forces that want Bush to ride into the sunset only after destroying Iran as the last viable threat to Israel will not give up easily. But this uncertainty should not stand in the way of regional states setting up their own agenda for a more constructive relationship with Tehran. Ahmadinejad's presence at the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Doha summit can be the beginning of such an enterprise.
As GCC journeys towards a common market, it should profitably look at new avenues of cooperation with Iran, Pakistan and India within the context of a broader Asian policy. Future politics of oil and gas - discovery, development, pricing and transportation - warrants a better Arab-Iranian understanding. The Iranian president offered some useful ideas to the Doha summit. He will, however, know that the building of trust required for their implementation depends on widening the scope of regional conversations.
Iran should promote regional diplomacy on peaceful nuclear programmes, particularly if it wants to accelerate industrial production of low-enriched uranium. There is no reason why countries such as the states of GCC, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan and India should not sit together to evolve the parameters of mutual cooperation in nuclear power production in an atmosphere completely free of misapprehensions.
At Doha, GCC said clearly that it would not go along with schemes to isolate Iran. On its part, Iran must come up with concrete proposals that make it a welcome partner in a larger framework of security and prosperity.
Tanvir Ahmad Khan is a former foreign secretary of Pakistan. He has served as Pakistan's ambassador to Iran.
Share this article
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: Cyberbullying
How can we protect our children from being Cyber bullied?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Charges are step in right direction
Pakistan is finally taking action against people linked to the 2008 Mumbai attacks
-
Lifestyle changes ward off disease
By living well, people can reduce their chances of suffering heart disease
-
Obama still has leverage over Israel
Netanyahu is smiling now, but Israelis have a record of turning against leaders who place the vital US alliance in jeopardy
