[Mb-civic] Declining options on Iran - H.D.S. Greenway - Boston Globe Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

  Declining options on Iran

By H.D.S. Greenway  |  January 31, 2006  |  The Boston Globe

DAVOS, Switzerland

A FEW YEARS ago the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, with its 
unparalleled convening powers, produced an Iranian foreign minister, 
causing anticipation that Iran might be finally coming out of its 
revolutionary isolation to engage the West.

Last year the Iranian government was well represented in Davos, and the 
message was conciliatory, though even then there was a problem with 
Iran's nuclear program. But in discussions with US senators there was a 
clear mismatch of historical memories. The Americans dwelt on the 
Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in 1979, and the 444-day 
incarceration of US diplomats, while the Iranians wanted to talk about 
the CIA-directed coup against Mohammed Mossadegh in the 1950s. Despite 
their differences, however, there was a public dialogue between Western 
and Iranian officials in a setting that often brings together people who 
might not otherwise meet.

What a difference a year makes. At this year's meeting, which ended 
Sunday, there was no one from the Iranian government. And back in 
Tehran, the new president was setting a whole new tone by making 
outrageous and unacceptable remarks about the destruction of Israel. At 
this year's meeting, a major crisis with Iran played just offstage -- a 
crisis that Senator John McCain told me was the ''single greatest 
challenge since the end of the Cold War, aside from the overall war on 
terror, and the one with the least options."

As if the absence of Iranian officials wasn't enough of an indication of 
troubling times, absent delegates from Hamas figuratively strode through 
the halls leaving as much worry and consternation as if they had 
actually been here. But as troubling as the Hamas victory is, it pales 
beside the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran, even for the Israelis.

This year's forum saw more recognition of Iran's historical phobias.

The British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, found some common ground with 
an Iranian academic, Mahmood Sariolghalam, who was the sole Iranian 
present. Starting in the early years of the 20th century, Britain helped 
itself to Iran's oil without giving much back, and World War II saw a 
joint Soviet-British occupation, Straw said.

In the postwar years, the anti-Mossadegh coup brought what many Iranians 
saw as the dictatorship of the shah. Years of humiliation played a role 
in both the nuclear ambitions of Iran and the victory of Hamas in last 
week's Palestinian elections.

In the 1970s I could fly direct from Tel Aviv to Tehran, and there were 
friendly relations between Israel and Iran based on their mutual 
suspicion of the Arab powers that lay between them. But anti-shah 
revolutionaries believe that Israel helped set up the dreaded Iranian 
secret police, Savak, who imprisoned and tortured dissidents. Iran's 
revolutionaries still lump Israel and America together as oppressors, 
although there is no real hatred for either among the Iranian people.

In playing the anti-Israeli card some believe that Iran's president, 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is trying to distance Iran from the conciliatory 
years -- forcing Iran into the status of pariah state so that there will 
be no going back. The only solace is that in Iran the president cannot 
make war and peace decisions, and the mullahs who hold real power may be 
more circumspect, if not more friendly.

At heart, Sariolghalam said, Iran's strategic posture is defensive, and 
all the influence with Hezbollah and Hamas are chips to be played to 
protect the realm and the revolution. If you were told that you were 
part of an ''axis of evil" by a US administration practiced in regime 
change, and if you saw your country encircled by American armies to your 
east and west, you too might want to arm yourself with nuclear weapons 
as quickly as possible. Once again the perception is different in 
Washington than it is in Tehran.

The Bush administration seems to be playing its hand with caution in 
cooperation with its allies, a far cry from its pre-Iraq invasion 
stance. This time it is the US Congress that is more bellicose. However, 
all agree that a military campaign to knock out Iran's nuclear 
capability would do great collateral damage to Iran and to the West's 
interests. And even then it might not succeed. If the coming rounds of 
diplomacy fail, there will be, as McCain said, no good options.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/01/31/declining_options_on_iran/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060131/cbd529ea/attachment.htm