Western Disunity and Persian Skepticism

Foreign relations between Iran and the international community are deteriorating day by day – primarily due to Tehran's uncompromising position in the conflict over its nuclear program as well as Western sanctions. A report by Philipp Schweers

Conference panel in Tehran (photo: Philipp Schweers)
The Theran conference showed that the unstable geopolitical environment allows Iranian authorities to oversubscribe to the nationalism of the Islamic Republic

​​Regardless of whether one follows the tabloid press or exclusive academic weekly journals, Iran has since become a regular item in the daily flood of news. The standard reports on Iran, particularly in the yellow press, range intellectually somewhere between the rhetorical propaganda of the Cold War to the witch-hunt of the late Middle Ages.

Beyond the sensational demonizing stereotypes and the Western quest to find arch-enemies, foreign policy realities are, however, far less contradictory than the usually simplistic news reports would have us believe.

The positions outlined during the 18th International Conference on Security and Cooperation on the Persian Gulf, held just over two weeks ago in Tehran, form an almost symbolic picture of the structural differences in perception held by the various participants.

Western disunity

The positions of the attending parties range from the European orientation of consensus to Chinese pragmatism, yet all stand out with respect to their basic cooperative approach. Many Western experts saw an opportunity for peaceful de-escalation of the tensions between Iran and the international community if both sides would adhere to certain codes of conduct.

Nuclear power plant in Southern Iran (photo: AP)
Persian riposte to Western pressure and the US military threat: nuclear power

​​In a remarkable presentation, the American representative, the Woodrow Wilson scholar Dr. Selig S. Harrison explained his conception of a gradual withdrawal of all foreign troops from the region should Iran's regional strategy start to conform to that of its neighbors and other external players in a spirit of partnership.

The sticking point of most of the Western approaches, however, requires Iran to acquiesce on key points as a basic condition for further engagement. This position doesn't exactly correspond to a scenario of dialogue among equals.

"Omnipresent threat"

At the same time, the Iranian position threatens to tear itself apart by zigzagging between signals for peace and the defiant nationalistic rhetoric of a great power.

On the one hand, Tehran strives towards international integration as well as participation in economic prosperity. On the other hand, from the Iranian perspective, the omnipresent threat on its own borders allows authorities to oversubscribe to the nationalism of the Islamic Republic.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush (photo/image: AP)
Political paranoia or realpolitik assessment? The Iranian leadership clearly sees itself as encircled by more or less aggressively inclined powers

​​This ambivalence was also evident at the conference in Tehran, which bore the promising subtitle "Grounds for Regional Cooperation, Stability and Security."

Many Iranian speakers expressed a great interest in the negotiation package offered by the European Union as well as direct dialogue with the USA. However, they simultaneously insisted upon Iran's claim to disputed islands in the Persian Gulf and argued for the legitimacy of their country's nuclear program.

The core element of the Iranian position is not enmity with the West or its demonization. Even the danger of a revolutionary "spill-over" of the Iranian theocratic model hardly seems realistic. After all, the revolutionary attractiveness of Iran as a Shiite hierarchical one-of-a-kind is currently not something that is going to sway Islamic societies with Sunni majorities.

Iranian foreign and security policy seems to be dominated above all by a fear of being surrounded by an "external enemy." Over the course of the conference, Iranian Foreign Ministry staff displayed maps showing the positions of foreign troops in the region. From Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia, from Iraq to the US fleet in the Persian Gulf – the Iranian leadership clearly sees itself as encircled by more or less aggressively inclined powers.

The quest for understanding and compromise

As a result, the question remains as to how a sustainable dialogue and policies promoting stability in the region can emerge from the conflicting perceptions.

The West is caught between half-hearted attempts at dialogue and a Cold War containment policy. Iran, by contrast, vacillates between a policy of skepticism and direct rejection of Western negotiation initiatives. American verbal attacks provide nationalistic forces in Tehran with additional impetus.

After almost 30 years of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, a renewed tightening of the blockade would be one of the worst possible solutions. What is needed much more is an intensive policy of regional integration. A readiness for dialogue without any preconditions on the part of Western players, particularly direct negotiations between the USA and Iran, would be a first step in a positive direction, which could also result in undermining the new Iranian nationalism.

Philipp Schweers

© Qantara.de 2008

Translated from the German by John Bergeron

Qantara.de

The Iranian Nuclear Programme
Contradictory Strategies
The veto powers of the United Nations meeting with the German government in Berlin have agreed on a new UN resolution against Iran which will include a provision to "moderately strengthen" sanctions. Bahman Nirumand looks at the contradictions in policy towards Iran so far

US Support for Militant Groups in Iran
Washington's Dubious Allies
The USA is funding underground activities in Iran with a view to toppling the regime in Teheran. In doing so, it is supporting groups that Washington would normally classify as Islamist and terrorist. Peter Philipp reports

"In the Rose Garden of the Martyrs"
Iran's Lost Generation
Though Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's thinking may be hard to tolerate, Christopher de Bellaigue does enable us to understand it. Katajun Amirpur has read his recent "Memoir of Iran"