The Democratic victory in U.S. midterm elections and the increasing pressures of the U.S.’ allies on the Iran issue have rendered the discussion of the possibility of dialogue with Tehran more inevitable. The current situation of the U.S. and the world as a result of Bush’s policies in the last 3 years doesn’t need explanation. The failure to launch democracy in Iraq, and increasing sectarian violence and polarization in that country have depleted the patience of the world. The public opinions in the U.S., which initiated the war, and Britain, one of its closest allies, have demonstrated their dissatisfaction on the issue. In addition, the eruption of the fighting in Lebanon-Israel-Palestine has made the situation worse. The U.S. has been blamed for the increasing chaos in the Middle East and the anti-Americanism has accelerated around the world. These developments have affected the midterm elections in the U.S. and, for the first time since 1994, the Democrats have seized the majority both in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The meaning of this is that Bush will not be able to devise his own policies without heeding the Congress. Because, it will not be wise for the Republicans, who already have gained a negative reputation, to go against the Democrats as this will deteriorate the situation. In this case, there’s no option for President Bush other than collaborating with Democrats. On the other hand, one thinks that Democrats will re-evaluate the Iraq policy and try to improve it. It is not known whether they have any better alternatives on an issue that they heavily criticize (1), but it is highly probable that they will try to engage Syria, Iran and other regional countries to get out of chaos and to end the turmoil in Iraq. For many Democrats were suggesting to include Syria and Iran to end the fighting in Lebanon during the crisis. Many European countries, including Britain, and many analysts around the world also held the same view. Many renowned names were mentioning of solving the issue with the cooperation of Syria, having a considerable influence on Hizbullah, and Iran, one of the important powers in the region.
After the invasion of Iraq, the people in that country have sought ways to rearrange the imbalance between tribes created by the former regime, instead of filling the vacuum created by Saddam’s absence by democracy and liberalism, which was planned by the West. For this aim, power conflicts and struggles have started between the groups. Forming a government with Shi’ite domination, the U.S., intentionally or not, has played in the hands of Iran. As a result, Iran both has got rid of one of its enemies, Saddam, and has won a new neighbor where the Shi’ites was in power. The best part of the story for Iran was that it has acquired all these without involving in any struggle. Therefore, support of Iran, the most important Shi’ite state of the region, has doubtlessly become vital for the elimination of sectarian and domestic conflicts in Iraq. Of course, the Sunni states of the region have been disturbed by the increasing importance of the Shi’ites as a result of these developments. The states most concerned with these developments are Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the closest allies of the U.S. in the region. This is another reason for the U.S. to engage Iran to bring stability in the Middle East.
Though the issue of negotiating with Iran for stability in Iraq has been on the agenda for almost a year, there haven’t been any attempts because of the Iran nuclear crisis and the stance of both countries. As a matter of fact, it will not be easy for these two countries to start direct negotiations which have had no official relations for 27 years. However, at the current situation, there is no other hope for the solution of the problems.
The same suggestion has been submitted during the vicious circle of the Iran nuclear crisis, the same suggestion has been submitted on the issue of bringing stability to Iraq, and the same suggestion has also been submitted during the Hezbollah-Israel fighting: “To sit on the negotiation table with Iran and to cooperate with Iran to ensure regional stability.”
As a matter of fact, all the issues written above are interrelated and resembles to the domino game. Iran should stop some of its nuclear activities (uranium enrichment) for a solution in the nuclear crisis. Iran needs to feel secure for itself and its regime to stop those activities. For Iran to feel secure the U.S. threat should be eliminated and Washington should stop its activities of undermining the regime in Iran. When these conditions are met, Iran will feel no threats, and it will collaborate for the stability in Iraq by exerting its influence on Iraqi Shi’ites. At the same time, Tehran will also use its influence on Hamas and Hezbollah to ensure stability in the Middle East. In fact, Iran had indirectly collaborated with the U.S. in the fight against Taliban in Afghanistan. Hence, it would be logical to ask for the assistance of a country knowing the region very well and having influence on major issues to save the Middle East from turmoil.
The road to this process has been opened by the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s long and philosophical letter being sent to the U.S. President Bush. Though the letter did not make a suggestion or mention the existing problems, some analysts claimed that the letter was a white flag as some others noted that it was an open letter to initiate dialogue. From a general perspective, one can agree for such an evaluation too. President Bush, feeling the pressure of many officials in his own country and from other countries, has only agreed to negotiate the Iraq issue with Iran. Despite all the discourse, the dialogue has not taken place.
In the aftermath of Ahmadinejad’s letter, the Iranian authorities have made similar statements: “We are open to negotiations with everyone on a logical ground.”
But the U.S.’ approval of a negotiation with Iran on the nuclear crisis has been based on a pre-condition unacceptable to Iran: The U.S. would only engage Iran when Iran completely halts its nuclear activity, something that Iran would never agree. First of all, this crisis has turned into a mutual conflict rather than being an international problem. The suggestions for a solution, therefore, were dysfunctional because of this mutual obstinacy. Consequently, Iran’s case has been brought before the UN Security Council, and as the crisis has deepened, there were more stress that there was no other alternative other than the bilateral negotiation of these two countries. Iran would not step back before getting the assurance for its own security, and it was the U.S. who would ensure it.
As the Security Council was divided over the sanction decision to be taken on Iran, there have also been signs for positive steps on the issue after the Democratic victory in the U.S. midterm elections. Even the resignation of the former U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has given the hope that the White House might change its policies on the Middle East and especially on Iraq. The new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ statements on the U.S.’ policy on Iran in a meeting in 2004 entitled “Iran: Time for a New Approach” also gave some clues on the probable policy change. One can say that Gates sticks to a pragmatic approach on Iran. Reminding that Iran was progressing towards being a nuclear power as the U.S. deployed troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and was busy with the events in these countries, Gates pointed to the fact that waiting was illogical and that focusing on the U.S.’ interests and national security and discussing these issues were necessary. He finally said that it would be in U.S.’ interest to negotiate with Iran.(2) On the other hand, the White House has been under serious international pressure, mainly from Britain and Australia, regarding negotiating with Iran and Syria to stop violence and ensure stability in Iraq.
On November 13, 2006, President Bush met with the Iraq Study Group. According to some sources, the Group, studying under the leadership of the former State Secretary James Baker and former Democrat Congress member Lee Hamilton, suggested Bush to organize a regional meeting on Iraq and to invite Iran and Syria to the meeting. According to the BBC, this would mean a radical shift in the U.S.’ Iraq strategy. The White House, stating that such a conference would be possible upon Iraq’s demand, did not reject the idea of inviting Iran and Syria.(3)
But Iran has stated that they expected the U.S. to make an official request. The Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini has stated that “if the U.S. is really considering negotiations with Iran, it must make an official request. Iran will consider this suggestion.”(4) So, the possible U.S.-Iran negotiations, which have been on the agenda for a long time, have gained more importance after the elections in the U.S. But one can say that Iran will demand a guarantee for its regime and commercial concessions from the U.S. in return for the alleviation of violence and for bringing the stability in Iraq. The U.S.’ willingness to give these concessions will become clearer in the coming days. Because changing the strategy would be difficult for the U.S. after threatening Iran by stating that “Iran should stop its nuclear activity, otherwise it will face both military operation and economic sanctions” and “the real problem is not Iran’s nuclear activity but its regime.”
In the final analysis, the current situation is crystal clear. The U.S. needs the assistance of influential countries with a deep knowledge of the region to improve the situation in Iraq. As Syrian Ambassador to Washington D.C., Imad Moustapha, has stated: “There are no other alternatives to this. The U.S. will eventually have to cooperate with Syria, even if not today or two months later. This is inevitable. And the same thing is also true for Iran.”(5)
Hence, the U.S. should give security guarantees to Iran if it wants Iran’s cooperation. In the next step, Iran, instead of unnecessarily deadlocking the process with the “they need me in any case” approach, will have to negotiate by taking into account the fact that the instability in Iraq and in the region also harms itself, and none of the countries can survive in isolation. Otherwise, the negotiations will be fruitless even if they take place. Sine qua non for this situation is logical approaches on both sides.
International Strategic Research Organization
Middle East Studies Centre
celalifer@yahoo.com
Translated from Turkish by A. Noyan Ozkaya, ISRO
NOTES
(1) For a detailed analysis on the issue, see Sedat Laciner, “Amerika Ara Secimleri: Dunya ve Turkiye icin Olası Etkileri” (The U.S. Midterm Elections: Likely Effects for the World and Turkey), USAK Stratejik Gundem, www.usakgundem.com, 11 November 2006.
(2) Elaine Shannon, ‘Will Robert Gates Sway the Iran Debate’, Time, 9 November 2006.
(3) آمادگی آمريکا برای گفتوگو با همسايگان عراق (The U.S.’ Preparation for Negotiations with Iraq’s Neighbors), Baztab News, 13 November 2006
(4) حسيني: آمريكا پيشنهاد مذاكره را رسما مطرح كند (Hosseini: The U.S. Must Make an Official Request for Negotiations), Baztab News, 13 November 2006.
(5) Yochi J. Dreazen and Neil King Jr., ‘Why Iran Shares U.S. Spotlight With Iraq’, The Wall Street Journal, 14 October 2006.
