Home >> Middle East >> Iran

     Email   Print 

Western Failure to Contain Iran

Dr. Sharam Taromsari - 4/20/2008

Since the 1979 revolution in Iran, international political systems have witnessed dramatic changes. The cold war was declared over after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Given the nature of these changes, terms such as critical engagement and constructive engagement became buzz words amongst foreign policy decision makers. A new world order was declared and in the UK, New Labour went as far as declaring "ethical foreign policy".

In terms of threats that the world is facing it can be said that the world is now a less secure place to live in. The rise of extremist, fundamentalist Islamists who have declared war on western civilisation and values, now employ tactics such as the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and many more dangers whether they be economic, social or political in nature which have made the world a more dangerous place for all. So how effective has the new world order through critical engagement and constructive engagement really been? How ethical has the UK's foreign policy truly been?

Iran for more than two decades has been the centre of international attention. The taking of US hostages, eight years of war with Iraq, the funding and arming of Hezbollah as its spiritual mentor as well as involvement in terrorist attacks directly and indirectly. Iran's behaviour is now such that the president Ahmadinejad feels free to call for the destruction of another state, namely Israel. In Iraq according to all intelligence available, the regime is actively involved in supporting elements determined to prevent stability in that country. In Sudan and elsewhere, the same behaviour seems to be the norm. Another area of concern is Iran's persistence on the development of nuclear technology. This aspect of Iranian activity seems to have raised greater concern that anything else that Iran has done over the last two decades.

The problem in relation to Iran and the manner in which other states relate to it shows a lack of focus on what should really be done against such a regime, which has no regard for international conventions. This problem stems from a failure to understand Iran's intentions and their view of the new international architecture post cold war. A country that applies violence as an instrument of foreign policy and remains unpunished knows that it can continue to do so with little if no punishment and in fact is rewarded by the inaction of the international community. The hostage crisis in Lebanon and Iran's role in the funding and training of the Hezbollah was the greatest test for the West. The lack of a clear and positive reaction against Iran showed the inconsistency of various foreign policy approaches adopted by the West.

Present challenges that are the combination of many complex factors requires a new approach towards Iran. The energy dependency of the developing world and demand for oil requires a stable political region which Iran constantly tries to undermine. The war in Iraq and the potential outcome which will be decided through coming months makes it even more urgent for a solution, given that Iran is the "main" actor in Iraq. The fall of Iraq into the Iranian sphere of influence will have devastating results for the rest of the region which in turn will impact on global security.

Previous approaches of dialogue and incentives by the British and the EU towards Iran have failed. The option of external military intervention is unreal given the experience of Iraq. Only one way forward remains. The solution that is proposed by the Iranian opposition is a real and credible way out of the mess created by the lack of action and the failed policies of the last two decades. Democratic change by the Iranian people for a secular republic is the only "viable option" given the failures of western diplomacy in addressing Iran and the threat it posed and continues to do so. This option was proposed by the president elect of the Iranian resistance, Mrs Maryam Rajavi in 2004. Since then many in the west were either unable to grasp the real problems or still were in search of a way to alter Iran's destructive behaviour. The time has clearly come to realise that if there was a way to influence Iran's behaviour, it would have been found by now. There is "no other way". The sooner the policy makers realise that appeasing the Iranian government bears no fruit the sooner they can close the failed chapter of their diplomacy with Iran.