آیا ایران وآمریکا به سوی درگیری پیش می روند؟ -بخش اول

Six years after Mohammad Khatami election as president of Iran, and its popularity both at home and abroad for the first 2 years in office, it was never expected that the relationship between the two countries continuously circling in vain, particularly during the last year of Clinton presidency, When US took realistic steps to meet some of Iran demands in order to relax the tension (thaw the ice) between the two country, by officially admitting the USA role and accepting the mistake to support the 1953 coup against Iran democratic government. More over calling Iran a non-evil state and indicating Iran as a state, not supporting Terrorism. However consequences of action taken by conservatives in Iran political circles, sensing to loose ground and leadership in internal affair, failing to maintain the majority in parliamentary election; and on the foreign affair, relaxation of tension with Europe and State, culminated in terrorist attempt on Dr. Hajarian life, a senior advisor to president Khatami and campaign to close the reformist newspapers on a bulk scale!, but the real intention was to undermine any attempt by the reformist to hold talk with USA to open the avenue for a new start. The precautions to prevent, the pre-arranged fortuitous meeting between president Clinton and Khatami, by conservatives in Iran is a clear evidence for such conclusion.

Although this is the reality of politics between the two countries, but it is more complex and clear that real issue is that both American and Iranian lack a clear and precis understanding of the challenges in essence and form, thus unable to tackle and narrow the differences in right time. This is primarily due the fact that there is a gap between their understandings. If both side is asked to delineate in writing of their intention and request, it will be seen, that there exist a wide open of differences even in the same sides. This is an attempt to revise and model the challenge on a question form, hence opening for solution.

Delineation of Challenge or crisis:

From American in particular and western officials in general the pivotal challenge lays in the differences of western and Islamic values, known as the conflict among civilizations, culminating in instability in the ME, the region that known as a platform for Islamic Civilization, rich of Energy Resources,huge consumer market for western goods beside of big chalanges in tradition and moderate, democracy and dectatory ,poor and rich

So far there are 4 classified issues to discuss has been drawn between Iran on one side and American and European on the other side as: 1) Human right violation, 2) support for terrorism, 3) resisting against ME peace process and 4) attempt to obtain weapon of mass destruction.

Although categorically western allays value the same principles on above issues, but they follow their own preferenc~s and views vary on everyone of the above issues. The ambit of each issue is not clear to what degree is smoke screening their real intention.
Despite of all challenges between Iran and Europe culminating once in the winter of 1996 and unprecedented union against Iran nuclear issues, even before any resolution passed by UN nuclear agency, the fundamental point is, there has always been difference of opinion between Europe and USA. And Europe has never shared the same interpretation of the 4 issues with the US at any time (during constructive political dialogues or conditional or critical). Even these differences pushed to the limit in year 2001, when Europeans oppose the Human right commission watchdog over Iran. However due to decline in Iran approach over the 4 issues, European have drifted, especially after 2nd war with Iraq, towards USA in campaigning against Iran, while maintaining their role on a united platform in their relationship with Iran as Carrot against USA bludgeoning threat.

Another point in current form is that all groups and their wings in Iran, now acknowledge the importance of relationship with USA and its effect (like a sand clock) on their and state (existence) survival, hence it is obvious to seek for a solution to maintain their stability and the political system they wish to have, otherwise if their existence and desired state is threatened, then there is no meaning in relationship, hence ,any attempt has its own anti-sentences.

On the other side, the same challenge exists, particularly unpredicted tactical condition created, by events such as victory in Afghanistan and Iraq has obstructing parasites over the whole process. (Nevertheless) Thus if the replacement of democrats by neo- conservatism proves to be the main challenge in USA ruling system, consequently it can be seen as another essential challenge can effect the whole process. This is the same process as far as situation in Iran. Therefore both side are facing (puzzled) with a matrices with many variable, ignoring anyone changes the whole matrix.

In USA, which is the champion of using multi-variable systems and creator of commanding, control and communication systems, in practice have reached this conclusion that due to lack of consolidated leadership in Iran, it is seeking to transfer (convert) the multi variable matrices into a many matrices with single variable. And this is operating first by functionally disuniting opportunities from threats or interest from conflicting interest and then try to find solution for everyone variable, in other word instead of middling with a multi-variable matrices, they brake it into matrices with only one variable to pave the way for distinction, hence separation, control and consequently resolving the crises, as both on issues like Afghanistan, Iraq and drugs with common interest and issues related to nuclear power and Human right, where there is a conflict of interest. However it is obvious that the leadership (USA) is not yet free from sporadic and isolating events and shock pulses, and are influenced from such events for a short period, as it is the case after explosion in Riadh culminate in interruption of talks on Afghanistan, which was entering into a new phase of talk on Iraq, a reaction which was condemned both by democrats and neo-conservatives, because a corridor of talks between the 2 country, considered as the most important tool, was jeopardized.

Delineation of “axis of evil” one year after 11 September terrorists’ attacks, which somehow is an indication to prescribe the possibility of invasion to topple the government by force from outside, was hampered by the chain of events and development in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the other word it shows a sinusoidal tactics of
neo-conservatist led by some think tanks like Candoliz Rice and Paul Volfovitz. to evade the resistance to their militarist policies in the region, appointment of George bush special envoy to Afghanistan, Zelmi Khalili Zad as permanent ambassador to that country can be evaluate in this respect.

George W. Bush team is after consolidating what is considered as their achievement, overthrowing 2 regime in less than 20 months. Then how to change the ME map (re- mapping middle east) by focusing on Iran and Syria as the next step is another scenario, which need to first evaluate its merit and then find a logical analytic conclusion.

Iranian and American statesmen have acknowledge that due to complexity of flow of circumstances in Middle East every merits and points can turn on itself, or other way round. In the past Imam Khomaini’ s view on braking American power myth as a natural consequence of Shiite ideology, openly considering it as major threat to their interest, however today by facing the international terrorists and internal developments in Iraq in this respect, the Shiite (shia’a) community shows to be their allays, while the spear of their attention is targeted against a particular fiction of Sunni and KSA, and in practice seeking instability in that country her ex -allied or suspected allied.

Over decades, USA from the beginning of State of Israel, considered Lebanon with its complexities and varieties in political groups, as a center for its lab to practice its crises diplomacy, but now it has expanded this territory into the whole region of ME.

In their eyes the demise of the USSR, the concentrated and unified cold war has replaced with warm war but widespread and non-concentrated. And if USA does not take the initiative, considering the technological threats nature such as weapon of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical a
nd biological warfare, she will be on the losing side. And this is contrary to the historical image of unified world and the unique role considers for USA. A world as the global village a question emerged after the WW2, however its foundation was materialized during Reagan and Bush the father presidency; the era of IT is one of the pillars of such concept.


What USA Wants:

The first assumption is that American give in, for Iran to take a path to avoid threatening the strategic objectives of the only remaining super power, the same expectation exists on North Korean case.

The second demand is for Iran to comply with recognized international political, economical and cultural systems, in order to accept a stray child back into the family under the supervision of its baptized father (i.e. USA). The child to play according to the rule of widespread family and avoid considering itself as an isolated Island in oceans.

The third demand is to pave the way for a system of ruling proportional to Iran internal condition (to avoid being fragile) and maintain stability, with no prospect ofturning to valiant regime such as Sadam or Tallaban. A country of 70 million, with 70% young population, a potential far above the regional Arab and non-Arab states.

The fourth demand is the rational control of flow of oil and energy from region to keep the daily balance between supply and demand in the world, especially US market as the most powerful economy in the west. USA is neither after cheap, nor expensive oil. The cheap oil price will undermine the oil producing country’s purchasing and the market will fall into recession, and expensive oil will culminate into increase of industrial product of industrial countries and in long term will have a reverse impact on global economy. The
argument on oil reserve and the balance in price over the last 50 years has followed a specific nature, and to cate~orize it as the “WAR for Domination”, on Iran or Iraq is over simplifying the issue. This is well delineated by Zaki Yammani ex minister of oil in Saudi Arabia.

What is to be done in to control the crises?

1-Iran involuntary started to protect herself by the effective strategic defense supported by worldwide and Europe against US neo-conservatism, when in 1999 elected president Khatami introduced, now ill fated the dialogue of civilizations. However due to immaturity of plan, and not being well planed in advance from one side, and resistance of conservatism hierarchy in Iran and their attempt to turn it into their own hemisphere of interest, it is now fading to dead end, a strategy which there is no prospective to revive, considering Iran low rating of Iran Image in the world. Thus a new idea is required. A requirement that conservatism are unable to produce and the reformist with theories, however suitable, but with no power in Iran will render the pans to end up in the history dust bin. Hence the only path is for both conservatist and reformist to reach a common platform,learning from experience of sore and sweet of lastl 00 years of reform in Iran.

2-Accepting in principle negotiation with USA, and not considering this as weakness. Negotiation must be part of process to narrow the differences in a oivilized manner without war, otherwise the crises deepens day by day.

Unfortunately in Iran due to lack of the knowledge of diplomacy (as it is with technology and management), every new move is considered as a retreat or threat. Ironically when consequences of wrong understanding attempt to join GATT surfaced, suddenly a deadly silence haunts those who opposed such move and start to blame USA for its ill intention moves to obstruct Iran integration. The same doctoring existed when Iran signed the NPT, while the objective for Iran leaders was clear then. Less than a decade this become the Achilles’ heel of Atomic progress. Such naivety and mismanagement cannot be matched anywhere but in Iran, and even more sad to see that the system is ready to repeat the same experience, wasting Moslems capitol and life.

Such emphasis on a ill fated experience can not be observed anywhere else. Europe after the events in Iraq, without losing any time by becoming aggressive towards Iran, surprised the world and by doing this dragged Iran in line to its policies, and compensate its betting on losing horse.british primes Minster clear statement that “ripping the fruit of Iraq war in Iran” explains everything.
In the other word Iran is the only country in the world that due to lack of definition of state as a system, has not feedback to avoid committing the same mistake again and again even in the period 90f the same ruler, or manager. And this is that the Moslem prophet warns of people of principle never get hurt from same source, this is where Iran is hurt for many times in the same manner is an epidemic and more interesting that Iranian official consider this as their good faith to cover up the scandalous outcome.

3-To believe in need of unified sovereignty and attempt to unite different economical, political, cultural and social systems deems necessary to reach objectives.
In current situation every political sector are seeking to find their desired political model by “try and error”, while due to localization of politics and lack of real contact with international community and political parties and on top of that due to managements and basic terms definition there is a organized anarchy. It is seen that sometimes that conservatist take an action in a course expected from left that even the most radicals in left would not dare to do so, or vise versa. This is the characteristic of Iran political history and is showing immaturity of politics, as it is the same for economy and culture.

A section recommends the Chinese model, and trust the free market but closed door on politics by simplifying the massacre in “Tian An Men” square as the secret of 2 digit rate of progress, on the other hand the other looks for Indian model to open political window but keep a tight control over economy, others wish to have a model likes former Soviet Union a totally closed political and economically system, or others after to have open even more that that in USA and Europe. Some recommend partial such as Japan and South Korea. Thus all the existing models are in the agenda, by various sections, except for the Islamic republic model, and this is a fact that this is due to lack of clear definition in Islamic so
vereignty model and nothing else.

4-to avoid using institutions and national facilities to eliminate the political rivals is the most urgent necessity and demands discreet decree.

A dangerous course, which has been dominating Iran recent politics taken on the both side of political spectrum, however it is more with conservatist, but the reformist is not immaculate and this is a syndrome residue of pre-revolution. Hence to organize an pan- sectarian overlook is and accepting the national interest over personal and party interest is the first condition to re-strength the sovereignty. This is the only way to provoke and collect thought and the latten potential within the nation as the capitol for talk with USA on a platform of integrity.

5-To take a strategic look for the future instead of balancing past accounts and to avoid the consequences of such thinking, is one of the first priority to restructure country’s position both inside and outside.

Unfortunately one of the political group capitalizing on keeping the past issues hot, and causing obstacle for the society to concentrate on major issues, thus the country and its leaders always to think in the past rather than future, hence lagging behind the what is happening and crisis, more over this way of thinking in the past has been institutionalized. Such institutionalization is a criteria and the cause to remove elite people, who consider taking a pragmatic approach instead of current flow, from office. Whereas in America and Europe, employment of past politicians however out of date are being delegated to for national interest. (Presence of Bush and Hillary Clinton in Easter ceremony among US arm forces Kabul at the same time.).

One of the reasons for progress of big nations is, generally, in their look forward to re-construct the country, instead of breeding on the past and misery ofthe war and moaning on what has been lost. That is why, despite the Marshal plan in Europe half destroyed or surrounded and devastated Japan by the war, now after few decays these countries are serious political and economical competator to of USA, some thing impossible to sea in this region even in Lebanon,once known the bride of the Middle East.

6-Finally, while resultant of three forces of International, State Sovereignty and the Society is acting about the stability of the system and its leadership, no other forces can match and destabilizes the system, however if the leaders take a philistines approach and try to ignore the three above said essential components, (as the ex regime), no forces can hold the system in power. And it should never be forgotten, that what has been axes of the need of the society in the past one hundred years as this is the prevailing factor in survival of all governments. The need of society and their social background will be examined latter.
16/01/2004 Tehran