Regional Security
IISS- The Fifth IISS Global Strategic Review,
Geneva, Switzerland, 7-9 September 2007
Prof Seyed G Safavi
London Academy of Iranian Studies
When talking about regional security, we should at first identify whom we refer the “security” to? Nations, governments, international powers or the world super power? It is my belief that the clash of most nations with their governments, clash of interest of Iran and few Arab governments on Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine, clash of Muslim countries and Israel on Palestine, diplomatic war between Iran as regional key player and U.S as the world super power bring instability and insecurity to the Middle East and Central Asia.
Here I aim to present the Iran-U.S disagreement in the region and America’s strategic mistakes in the Middle East, namely misinformation, misunderstanding, miscalculation and the paradoxical policy.
*:3 Mistakes by USA on Middle East: misinformation, misunderstanding, missed calculation.
*: The Paradoxes of U.S policy on the Middle East:
Let me start with Iran and the USA. From the beginning of the Islamic revolution, most of Iran was against the Shah, who was a dictator, with a hated secret police (SAWAK), trained by Israel and U.S. So from that time Iran had a difficult sense of to certain parts of the US government. Some part of the Shah’s collapse was due to US foreign policy.
Yet, after the revolution, Imam Khomeini said: We will keep all our relations with all countries except Israel and South Africa, which was racist. This being the leader’s viewpoint meant that we could continue our relationships with all other countries, including the US.
After that, some problems started between our government and the US, some students attacked the US embassy and kept some staff for a long period. But it was the US, not Iran, who cut the relationship. The students were not representative of the government, and there were so many false stories. Slowly US – Iranian relations got worse and worse.
In the beginning, there was no problem between Iran, and the World powers as with France, Germany and Russia, we had differences of opinion, for example with Russia over Afghanistan, but we kept our relationships. The US made a big mistake in cutting off relations. They left Iran, closed the embassy, missing out on the relationship – and on understanding.
Hence, with the diplomatic and business contacts missing, the sources of US information on Iran were principally Israel, Iranian opposition groups and regional countries with a clash of interests with Iran – who wanted to introduce Iran as a danger. But in the meantime so many countries, including the US, Britain, Russia, and the Persian Gulf States, supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. Saudi Arabia alone gave 30 Billion to Saddam for him to Attack Iran. General Rumsfeld went to Baghdad to offer support and military equipment.
As a result of the misunderstanding that the Iranian revolution is a danger to everyone, they invited and supported the big dictator Saddam – who was a killer and murderer. Saddam killed millions in Iraq. It is unfortunate that the US and France, Germany Soviet union and Britain supported this dictator.
I say this so we can get some experience from history. They did not succeed. The war [between Iran and Iraq] was useful to us, during it we established the Islamic revolution Guard. We became independent of military equipment from others. During that time we got a little equipment from North Korea, China and a few others, but little by little our experience led us to establish self-sufficiency. We are alone because we are a Muslim country, not part of NATO or the Warsaw pact. For the West that is criminal, so we must be independent. We pay a heavy price. The West supports its friends well – even giving chemical weapons to Saddam. My brother and five family members were killed in the war. I am an anti-war activist. What did we learn from the war? You cannot change Iran with military operations. The West and the East united for eight years to fight war against Iran and got nothing. But we got so much.
After the war it seemed Iran had a common interest with the US. Iran and the US have common interests. As regards Bosnia Iran’s position was closer to the US than to Britain. Later there was some cooperation with the US over Afghanistan, and recently against the Taliban government. This was successful and productive. Unfortunately later we did not receive any positive feedback from the US. There was a negative reaction from the Arab States as a result of Afghanistan. Then President Bush makes his ‘Axis of Evil’ speech. That was our payment for cooperation!? The result of constructive cooperation – No Arab comment, no US acknowledgement – and the subsequent US attack on Saddam left Iran with a number of options.
Saddam had sent a message to Tehran: We should be united and start a war against the US. Iran did not accept because Iran knew who we were dealing with and you could not trust him.
Iran encouraged her Iraqi allies to cooperate with the US because this meant opposing Saddam, and after he would be gone a powerful central government should be established to rule Iraq. We did not call for an Islamic republic there. We could have done but we didn’t – because we cannot expect all parts of Iraq to accept this. Iran supported an Iraqi democratic constitution and elections and told her allies to cooperate with the US. But what is the problem with the US in Iraq?
The US believes that for the greater Middle East they can establish all their policies with military solutions. So if a military solution in Iraq is successful, this means they could repeat this in other countries – Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. They come and ask for democracy according to their ideas to be established. If not, look at what happened to Saddam… This logic applies to everyone; it could be anyone in the Middle East. Iran does not accept this. The Middle East according to US intentions? No, the Middle Eastern people choose their future – Monarchy, Democracy, Islamic, whatever.
Here is the problem: Iran wants security for Iraq. But in same time wants to teach the US that there is no military solution to the Middle East, American cannot achieve their aim by bringing soldiers. The US should leave the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. Nor does Iran accept NATO there, because it is against Iran’s national security.
President George Bush says: When we catch you playing a non-constructive role, there will be a price to pay. You cannot talk arrogant like this. You lost Iraq.
The US needs to understand this reality. They are our gust not host in Iraq. They cannot leave because they didn’t achieve their aims. They cannot stay because their soldiers are dying.
The American war in Iraq is illegal, immoral, and counterproductive, making the United States and the world less secure.
Iran is ready to cooperate on Iraqi security issues. Iran has a common interest with the US both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We want security there. But there are many questions. Are you [the US led coalition] occupier or is there a UN sanctioned mission? Who is responsible when civilians are killed? Who is behind the killers in Iraq? I believe Iran is willing to act constructively. Yet diplomacy is based on exchange – always on a basis of you changing your behaviour in the Islamic world, and we change our behaviour vis-à-vis you.
(They also apply double standards. Call for democracy but refuse to accept Hamas? ‘Whoever follows you’, this is democratic? ).
No Military Solutions but Diplomacy:
U.S. military spending, global military presence, and international arms sales have increased global insecurity. U.S. military interventions, directly or through proxies, have thrown whole regions into a downward spiral of conflict. In the Middle East, in particular, the U.S. emphasis on military rather than diplomatic solutions has prevented regional peacemaking from moving forward.
We believe there is no military solution for the Middle East. There is only one solution: Dialogue. Look at Israel, no peace and security, not for Jews, not for Muslims. Stop supporting Israeli occupation and instead support an international peace process under the sponsorship of the UN. Did the US bring security? Did they stop terror? They were not successful in Iraq. If the violence there is resistance, then it is legal. If the violence is terrorism, then the US caused an increase in terrorism. They even caused its transference to Europe.
The Bush administration's declaration that American forces are no longer an occupation force but are there at the request of a independent Iraqi government has not been enough to assuage most Iraqis. This is the same rationalization used by the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
The US doesn’t have a real understanding of the Middle East’s situation. It’s all misunderstanding, miscalculation, and misinformation. They thought the Iraqis would roll out the red carpet for them. They had no realistic plan for the future after Saddam. Iran always said so, but they didn’t listen to us.
There is no military solution for the Middle East. When the security in Iran – Shah Period was guaranteed by force, the [Shah] regime collapsed. In Iraq, there is no security. Why do we see security in Iran but not in Iraq? Because the people of Iran established city defence communities after collapsed of Shah. If this had happened in Iraq, if security there would have been passed to the people, we would not have this problem. They [the US] thought they would establish security. And now they are in Vietnam. The US is in a bad situation; they don’t know what they should do.
The US is making mistake after mistake. They supply gasoline for the fire in the region. “the Bush administration's recently announced plan to provide some $65 billion worth of advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel over the next 10 years represents a reckless, poorly considered attempt to mitigate the consequences of its ill considered invasion of Iraq. The deal also represents an admission of failure of several of the key elements of U.S. security policy in the Middle East, and, perhaps most significantly, it represents a clear abandonment of President Bush's democratic reform agenda in the region”. (Matthew Duss, August 2, 2007). They want to shift the central problem in the Middle East which is Israel, and want to make Iran the problem. And some Arab countries are following them in this plan. Remember what happened to Saddam. We advise these countries not to follow the US in their plan.
We believe only the Middle Eastern countries can manage security of the region. The Middle East’s security will be guaranteed by us. We do not accept any Western soldiers in the Middle East, that’s our strategy.
Iraq is the best opportunity to start a new relationship with the US and to bring about a new balance of power. The US came as a superpower and now five years later they have gotten some experience. We can cooperate with them or we can damage them. My answer to President Bush is this: If you have a constructive role to play in the Middle East, we will cooperate. I believe that if the US engages in constructive behaviour with Iran, we can cooperate and establish security, disarmed militias and a decrease in attacks.
Some experts say: We are seeing the same dynamic vis-à-vis on Iran today by U.S.A, as we saw before the Iraq war. UN resolutions, military build-up, and eventual war. This would be destruction for Iran.
We reply; But we are Muslim and we have experience. We caused the collapse of the Shah’s regime and managed eight years of war. Iran is not Iraq and not Afghanistan, Iran is three times bigger than Iraq, both in terms of population and geography. Ask any military expert, the US cannot effect regime change in Iran means of a military operation. Yes, they can damage us. But they couldn’t repeat the Iraqi scenario. We will retaliate in the region, American camps in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan, and in their land. We would not tolerate a burning Tehran, whilst people in Washington are relaxing.
There are two ways for Iran and the US. Constructive or damaging. If they damage us, we will damage them. They have some areas and we have some areas [of action / vulnerability] that can cause damage. Iran is not Libya. Lebanon is celebrating one year since Hizballah’s victory. Israel, the fourth most potent army in the West attacked Hizballah and couldn’t damage a movement – to which the West refers to as a ‘militia’. How will you deal with 12 million ‘militia’ men in Iran? There is no military solution.
Anyone who helps the US we see as an enemy. We would attack them. But we think it is better to negotiate. In the US there is no clear policy on Iran. They debate. One time they call for this, then for that. For example, as regards the Revolutionary Guard, one part of their government wishes for dialogue with the Guard, another wants to designate it as a terrorist organisation. The designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation would be a problem for future negotiations. The US needs the Revolutionary Guard’s cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq.
According to me, the problem of US policy is that their strategy on Iran is confused. Dr Rice has one strategy, the Pentagon another, Cheney a third. So Iran sees different messages and hence cannot know what to do.
If really U.S interests on democracy in the Middle East, then should support Iran.
Because Iran is the only country in our region where each year we have an election. We are definitely a democratic Islamic country. We (Islamic Republic System)were chosen by 98 percent of our people in1979. Based on that we have a democracy. Iran is not the EU, that is a reality, but we are far from many of the Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia.
Iran Nuclear program and Security:
The fact that there is no evidence that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons in the first place, the Bush administration and Congressional leaders of both parties argue that simply having the technology which would make it theoretically possible for Iran to manufacture a nuclear weapon at some point in the future is sufficient casus belli. As part of his desperate search for enemies, President Bush claimed in January 2006 that a nuclear-armed Iran would be “a grave threat to the security of the world,” words that echoed language he used in reference to Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion of that oil-rich country. Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney vowed “meaningful consequences” if Iran did not give up its nuclear program and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton claimed there would be “tangible and painful consequences” if Iran did not cooperate.
Why is there a problem? Iran is part of the NPT, IAEA did not find anything, but the West are shouting at Iran. There are two countries, mainly, complaining. Israel, who are not part of the NPT and according to NPT already Israel has 75-200 Nuclear weapons (Norris, Robert S., William Arkin, Hans M. Kristensen, and Joshua Handler. "Israeli nuclear forces, 2002," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 58:5 (September/October 2002): 73-75). Israel is widely believed to possess a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons,[1] and maintains intercontinental-range ballistic missiles to deliver them. Officially Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons. The U.S. CongressOffice of Technology Assessment has recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared chemical warfare capabilities, and an offensive biological warfare program.[2]. And the US! They are a member of the NPT according to which they should decrease stocks of nuclear weapons. But they are increasing them. The United States of America was the first country in the world to successfully develop nuclear weapons, and is the only country to have used them in war against another nation. During the Cold War it conducted over a thousand nuclear tests and developed many long-range weapon delivery systems. It maintains an arsenal of about ten thousand warheads to this day (5,735/9,960 Warheads active/total). And the US and Israel say that Iran is a danger! Are they danger for the world security or Iran? Our program is peaceful. We have no plan for weapons. This is a diplomatic war of the US against Iran. They see a strategic challenge coming from Iran and use the nuclear issue to challenge Iran.
According to Prof Stephen Zunes: “A military strike against Iran, either directly by the United States or through Israel, will not likely succeed in curbing Iran's nuclear program. Indeed, it will likely motivate the Iranian government, with enhanced popular support in reaction to foreign aggression against their country, to redouble their efforts.
Iran has deliberately spread its nuclear facilities over a wide geographical range, with at least nine major locations. Even the bunker buster bombs may not fully penetrate a number of these facilities, assuming all the secret sites could be located. The only real solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program is a diplomatic one”. (April 28, 2006, Foreign Policy in Focus).
There are two scenarios. One is that the US and Iran sit and talk and see our shared interest and whether we can find a solution. The US will see we can have a constructive role. It is true we called for the export of the revolution. But we have changed with experience. We were idealistic and now we are more practical. Security and stability in the Middle East and Central Asia are a central aim for Iran.
Two, we could call into being an international consortium between, for example, Iran and the members of the UN Security Council, etc, and put the nuclear issue under its management. That is a realistic way to go forward.
And support Iran’s suggestion which has called for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone for the whole Middle East in which all nations in the region would be required to give up their nuclear weapons and open up their programs to strict international inspections. Iran has been joined in its proposal by Syria, by U.S. allies Jordan and Egypt, and by other Middle Eastern states. Such nuclear weapons-free zones have already been successfully established for Latin America, the South Pacific, Antarctica, Africa, and Southeast Asia.
It is not right for the US to ask us to give up our rights. The best way forward if you are worried is constructive cooperation.
We suggest Nuclear disarmament as Security Alternative as following:
1. Cancel U.S. plans to upgrade its nuclear arsenal and resume negotiations with Moscow over further reductions in strategic arsenals.
2. Expand existing arms control mechanisms such as test bans and nuclear-free zones.
3. support international institutions that can create the groundwork for disarmament.
In conclusion:
Current U.S. foreign policy is unjust and breeds insecurity for all.
International community must focus instead on a just security, because there can be no real security without justice.
Iran has strong will to have a positive and constructive role for establishing security in the region based on the balance of power, rather than U.S hegemony.
Iran has the capacity and ability to be the bridge of security and peace in the Middle East and central Asia. We recommend that Washington act as a global partner not a global boss.
References:
Safavi. Seyed G, “Past and Present of Iran’s Nuclear Talks with the West” , 02 March 2006 at “Defense & Security Forum (DSF)”,London, www.iranianstudies.org.
Safavi. Seyed G “The Future of Quds”, 2003, London, www.iranianstudies.org.
Safavi. Seyed G, “Terrorism”, London, 2001, www.iranianstudies.org.
Zunes Stephen, “The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is it Really?” May 16, 2006, Foreign Policy Forum. U.S.A.
“Just Security: Executive Summary”. 19 June 2003, Foreign Policy Forum. U.S.A.
John Cavanagh, Anita Dancs, Miriam Pemberton, “Just Security Budget”, July 5, 2007. Foreign Policy Forum. U.S.A.
Zunes Stephen, “Iran in Iraq?”February 14, 2007, Foreign Policy Forum. U.S.A.
Matthew Duss, “Gasoline for the Fire”, August 2, 2007, Foreign Policy Forum. U.S.A.
Norris, Robert S., William Arkin, Hans M. Kristensen, and Joshua Handler. "Israeli nuclear forces, 2002," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 58:5 (September/October 2002): 73-75.
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks, U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, August 1993, OTA-ISC-559, <http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/disk1/1993/9341_n.html> (retrieved on 2007-05-27).
Norris, Robert S. and Hans M. Kristensen. "U.S. nuclear forces, 2006," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 61:1 (January/February 2005): 68-71.
