Obama doesn't want to interfere in Iran

Over the past few days, US President Barack Obama has taken a very cautious approach to dealing with the power struggle in Iran. Unlike his European allies, he has remained largely silent on events there and has not appeared to favour one side over the other. Instead, he has expressed his desire to deal with whoever emerges as the winner of the disputed elections. This attitude does not, however, mean that the US is indifferent. On the contrary, Iran's future has always been of major interest to the US. But Obama is wary of repeating past US mistakes in dealing with Iran.

For more than half a century, US-Iranian relations have been determined by who is in power in Tehran. During the British-Iranian dispute over the future of the Iranian oil company, the US stood by its British allies. A covert plan to overthrow Dr Mohammad Mossadeq, then Iran's prime minister, was contemplated by the Eisenhower administration and executed by the CIA in August 1953. The plan marked the first US intervention in Iran's internal affairs, returned the Shah to the throne and made Washington the sole external player in Iranian politics for the next 25 years.

In 1979, the US tried to intervene again on behalf of the ousted Shah, but the circumstances were different this time. The revolt was on a grass-roots level and the military refused to confront the clerics. As a result, the US opted to cut its losses.

When the US embassy was stormed by Iranian students and its diplomats were taken hostages, the Carter administration ordered a rescue operation. Bad weather and a collision between a helicopter and a fuel-laden transport plane saw the mission end in disaster. Secretary of state Cyrus Vance resigned immediately afterwards and Carter lost his bid for a second term in office.

Ronald Reagan had his own Iran-related problems. The Iran-Contra scandal haunted his administration for several years. He approved the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for the release of seven American hostages held in Lebanon in 1984. Indeed, three hostages were released, only to be replaced by three others.

When the affair became public in 1986, the administration was found guilty by a Congressional committee of violating the US-imposed embargo on arms sales to Iran. Public indignation over the scandal was compounded when it was disclosed that proceeds from the arms sales were diverted to Nicaragua's main opposition group - the Contra - in violation of a law barring such support.

The end of the Cold War allowed the US to adopt a tougher approach. The Clinton administration tried to isolate Iran through its policy of dual containment. It exerted huge international pressure to prevent foreign investment in Iran's hydrocarbon sector and blocked attempts to export advanced technologies to the country. Despite this approach, the US did not aim to achieve regime change but to induce Iran to change its policies towards Washington's interests in the region. The US achieved only limited success in this regard, however.

The ascendance of president Mohammad Khatami to power in 1997 marked a shift in US-Iranian relations. A year after taking office, Khatami addressed the American people via CNN. He expressed respect for US culture and his hope for a new chapter in relations with Washington. Yet, apart from a public apology by former secretary of state Madeleine Albright for the role played by the CIA in the overthrow of Mossadeq, Washington's response was mild. As a result, the Clinton presidency ended without much improvement in the relationship between the two countries.

The Bush administration recruited some of the most anti-Iran figures in US policy circles, but its approach towards Iran was quite ambivalent. During the war in Afghanistan, the US sought Iran's support to overthrow the Taliban. Anxious to open a new chapter in its relations with Washington and remove a much detested foe, Iran made significant contributions to the US campaign. The Iranian government was stunned, however, when it discovered that the Bush administration had lumped it with Iraq and North Korea as part of an 'axis of evil'.

When the US started contemplating the invasion of Iraq, it turned to Iran once again for support. US-Iranian talks were held in different European capitals on how Iran could contribute to the overthrow of Saddam Hussain. After the Iraqi regime was toppled, Iran again came in for criticism from the US. It was accused of destabilising Iraq, undermining the Middle East peace process, developing nuclear weapons in secret and sheltering Al Qaida fugitives.

Having learned from the mistakes and disappointments of his predecessors, Obama has adopted a 'wait and see' policy since the current crisis began. He is not expected to take a clear position in the dispute, fearing that this would be interpreted as interference in Iran's internal affairs. Any sign of support for Iran's reformists would also discredit them and undermine their position vis-à-vis the hard-liners.

Dr Marwan Al Kabalan is a lecturer in media and international relations at the faculty of Political Science and Media, Damascus University, Syria.

Obama is so far the best catalyst for peace, unity and harmony in the region. Obama needs the right combination of support from his own administration, the democrats, the republicans who are all influenced by the all pervasive and powerful lobiies. Obama is a ready and able means to an end and will or can not deliver the end on a platter so to speak.
M. Chatur
Dubai,UAE
Posted: June 19, 2009, 14:31