Many analysts viewed last month’s meeting between top U.S. and Iranian officials in Baghdad as a sign of reconciliation between the two countries.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, who led the American delegation, described his four hours of discussions with his Iranian counterparts on bringing stability to war-torn Iraq as "positive", indicating that the talks are an avenue the Bush administration wishes to pursue.
But examining the bigger picture indicates that there are serious and escalating tensions between the two countries. The United States accuses Iran of trying to destabilize its military presence in Iraq, while the Iranians accuse the Bush administration of trying to stir a “velvet revolution” in the Islamic Republic.
What’s happening now is more than a war of words, according to an article on the BBC. It’s a mysterious game that involves overt and covert activities, complex regional manoeuvring and trade-offs, as well as occasional diplomatic overtures.
It’s clear that Washington’s pressure against Tehran is not limited to UN sanctions designed to force the Iranians to abandon their nuclear program. The United States have come up with several other ways to step up pressure on Tehran, including:
• Carrying out covert operations inside Iran. According to an ABC News report, President Bush has authorised the CIA to conduct a series of covert measures to destabilise the Islamic Republic, ranging from propaganda to the manipulation of Iranian currency and banking transactions.
• The use of “soft power"; a term used in international relations theory to describe the ability of a political body, such as a state, to indirectly influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies through cultural or ideological means.
• Intensified efforts to coax its Arab allies to join an anti-Iranian regional alliance.
• The detention of Iranian officials in Iraq, who the U.S. claims are stirring up trouble in the war-torn country.
Tehran, on the other hand, also uses various means of counter-pressure, including:
• The recent announcement by the Iranian intelligence ministry that it uncovered several spy networks run by countries that have forces in Iraq - in other words, the United States and Britain. The Iranians said these networks have been operating in seven Iranian provinces in order to foment ethnic tensions in Iran, particularly in sensitive border areas.
• Iran’s detention of Iranian-Americans and accusing them of spying.
• Boosting ties with the Arab world by offering to restore diplomatic ties with Egypt.
• Stepping up rhetoric against the U.S. military presence in Iraq and the Gulf region.
Given the above-stated facts, how can the contradiction, between the diplomatic talks in Baghdad and the Cold War climate overshadowing U.S.-Iranian relations, be explained?
According to Roger Hardy, BBC Middle East analyst, part of the explanation lies in the fact that, in the U.S. and Iran, there are different centers of power pursuing their own hawkish or dovish agendas.
In the U.S., the Bush administration seems to be pursuing a new mix of policies. It’s willing to hold talks with Iran to test all avenues for stabilizing Iraq, but at the same time maintain its strong position, while insisting that opening dialogue with Tehran doesn’t presage a retreat from a three-decade-old U.S. policy to isolate the Islamic Republic.
The United States is also aware that its military options are not attractive in dealing with Iran. The alternative, therefore, could be a mix of critical engagement and robust containment, according to Roger Hardy.
This approach worked with the Soviet Union in the Cold War. But will it work with Iran?
Add Comments