Home >> Middle East >> Iran

     Email   Print 

Appeasement Business as Usual

Prof. Kazem Kazerounian - 8/3/2008

White House has announced that the Undersecretary of State William Burns will attend talks between the EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran’s negotiator Saeed Jalili. While Iran’s lobbyists in Washington are celebrating, many political observers are puzzled by the unexpected change of hearts of the Bush administration that had maintained that no talks would be held until Iran halted its uranium enrichment. A few hours after the US announcement, the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated that Iran will not pass its read line (namely halting uranium enrichment), but nevertheless he permitted the negotiations! While the US actions seem paradoxical, by no means it is divergence from business as usual. US administration is now even considering opening a an interest section (code for a low level consulate) in Tehran.
Five US administrations (Carter, Regan, Bush senior, Clinton, and now Bush junior) have followed a path of confusion, commotion and lack of a cohesive policy against Iran. Despite what the proponents of the appeasement policy with Iran recite, all of these administrations have negotiated with mullahs and offered carrots by the tons. The results have been embarrassment and retreat of the US administration on one hand and emboldened theocratic dictators in Tehran and their terrorist proxies in the region on the other hand. We have closed our eyes on Iran’s blowing up the US base in Lebanon, taking hostages in Tehran, blowing up the US compound in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, proxy terrorist insurgency in Iraq, and Lebanon, providing safe haven for Al Qaeda, instigating unrest and impediments to the peace process in the Middle East, hosting holocaust denying conferences in Tehran, assassinating opposition figures worldwide, and barbarically treating its own people. As a result we now find ourselves at a table appeasing a nuclear bully. We have negotiated to avoid war, and we find ourselves closer than ever to an ugly and disastrous war with Iran.
But why is the sudden burst of affection? Have the Iranian mullahs suddenly abandoned their ideological aspirations for becoming a regional and international super power? Have Tehran dictators suddenly decided to become peaceful citizens of the world and co-exist with the West? The answer is clearly no. Not even the supporters of the appeasement policy with Iran dare to take the rest of us that naïve to tell us that. The root cause of Iran’s willingness to negotiate (albeit not in good faith) should be sought elsewhere.

Tehran’s mullahs have taken a series of serious blows from the Iranian resistance in recent weeks. The British parliament forced their government to remove Mojahedin-e-Khalgh’s (MEK) name off the terror organizations list, citing that the reason their name was on the list to begin with was to appease the Iranian regime. Following the support of 5.2 million Iraqi citizens last year for MEK in Iraq, a national effort has curbed the infiltration of the Iranian proxies in Iraq. Last month, 3 million Shia Iraqis (seemingly Iranian mullahs stronghold) expressed their support for MEK as the front line defense against the penetration of the Iranian Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Last month in France, 70,000 Iranians in exile gathered to hear Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President elect of the Iranian resistance. This meeting historically was the largest gathering of dissidents outside their own country. This week, 290 French parliamentarians (a clear majority) expressed support for the Iranian Resistance (MEK) as the legitimate alternative to the Iranian theocracy. News of numerous unrests in various cities inside Iran with strong presence of the Iranian resistance supporters have been reported by the Press over the last few weeks. Constraining MEK has been on the top of the list of demands by the mullahs at every negotiating table they have ever sat at.

Recent events have sent a shivering shock down the mullahs’ spines. Consequently, Tehran has attempted a strategy that has proven successful for them over the past three decades: Bait-and-Switch. Iran will start negotiating. The act of negotiation by itself is a victory for Tehran, as they have forced the West to drop all of their demands before they come to the table. A few weeks or months in the negotiations, Ayatollahs will find a way out. Rationale for walking out in the past has been as ludicrous as “wine served”, or “red dress of a violinist” or as mysterious as the supreme leader suddenly becoming aware of the interests of “Islam” and “nation”.

Nevertheless, we must welcome this round of engagements. The dream of some moderate mullahs that will negotiate in good faith and will keep their word had become a mental block in the mind of our policy makers. Although costly, it seems that we have to pay the cost for this yet another growing pain. Maybe, then the West realizes that regime change in Iran, by the Iranians and their resistance is the only viable option.