Regional relations: Iran and Iraq
The nature of the IISS Regional Security Summit – indeed, a primary purpose – is to allow difficult issues between neighbours to be discussed privately and informally.
The role of Iran as a neighbour, and more broadly in regional security, was a matter of some concern to a number of the countries represented. In private discussions during the Dialogue, Iranian representatives sought to rebut the concerns of others and to present their own ideas on how to improve the regional security situation. This plenary session, however, was the occasion for the public airing of views – of Iran’s vision of the future and the worries of other nations about its approach. The topic of the session set the debate firmly in the context of the future of post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and the impact these changes had on Iraq’s relationship with Iran. The geopolitical effect of Iran’s approach to Iraq’s domestic politics was seen as an important element in the evolving regional security situation.
Mohammed Reza Bagheri, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, began by suggesting that it was necessary to safeguard the security and stability of the Persian Gulf region because of its oil and gas reserves and the crises and conflicts that it had seen in recent decades – a period in which shortsightedness in handling security issues had been exposed. Iran, believing that a new, effective structure for the region was needed, had signed conventions and memoranda of understanding with most countries of the region and had declared ‘its constant readiness to build a new security structure’.
Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, began by suggesting that it was necessary to safeguard the security and stability of the Persian Gulf region because of its oil and gas reserves and the crises and conflicts that it had seen in recent decades – a period in which shortsightedness in handling security issues had been exposed. Iran, believing that a new, effective structure for the region was needed, had signed conventions and memoranda of understanding with most countries of the region and had declared ‘its constant readiness to build a new security structure’.
As a first step, it was necessary to make the Persian Gulf region and the Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction. Iran, a victim of weapons of mass destruction, was committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and would strive to create a WMD-free region. The NPT, the corner stone of prevention of nuclear weapons, ‘should be applied with no discrimination’. Nuclear-weapon states should fulfil their undertakings to eliminate nuclear weapons and to ensure the right of other countries to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Mr Bagheri said: ‘We will not surrender to threats and pressures, or compromise the legitimate rights of our country, and we will not accept duality of measures in dealing with other countries.’
For its part, Iran would take action to increase international trust and confidence in its nuclear programme and would cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). More than 1,400 people had inspected Iran’s nuclear installations, and Iran had responded to the IAEA’s inquiries. Iran had signed and implemented the NPT Additional Protocol. Mr Bagheri said Iran did not want a ’climate of confrontation’ to prevail in its relations with the IAEA and other countries. ‘But we have to consider that building trust is a two-way street.’
Iran, Mr Bagheri said, invited continuing discussion ‘based on the principles of equity, justice and international law…within the efforts of the IAEA to solve the issue of the peaceful nuclear activities of Iran.’ Tehran would welcome the partnership and investment of regional countries and their private sectors in peaceful nuclear projects which, Mr Bagheri said, would build trust and confidence.
Turning to the Middle East, Mr Bagheri said that settlement of the Palestinian issue could only be reached by ending Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories and establishing a democratic Palestinian state. The withdrawal from Gaza, while maintaining the occupation of the remaining territories, ignored the rights of the Palestinian people. The United Nations should find a comprehensive means to settle the issue permanently. Meanwhile, increasing pressures on Syria, and what Mr Bagheri called ‘irresponsible interventions in the internal affairs of Lebanon’, would broaden the region’s instability.
‘The Islamic Republic of Iran thinks that [the] new Iraq could be considered as an important basis for boosting regional peace and security, therefore, following the collapse of the former autocratic regime, Iran has been keen to support the political process in this country. We believe that Iraq can reach peace and progress in light of new structures of democracy and by the withdrawal of any foreign forces to be able to retrieve its real status and undertake a crucial role at the regional and international levels. No doubt, reaching this stage will only be possible in light of the unity of the Iraqi lands with all its segments and creeds.’
Iraq, as a free and independent state, could play a role in establishing political, economic, social and cultural development for the entire region. Therefore, Iran ‘believes that all forms of terrorist action, sectarian wars and conflicts aimed at killing innocent people and destroying economic, social and industrial establishments, are destined to failure and unacceptable’. The aim of such acts was to weaken Iraqi sovereignty and its ability to reach its proper regional and international status. A secure, free and reconstructed Iraq ‘can undertake a decisive role in boosting a collective security system hand in hand with other countries of the region’.
Sustainable security was in the interests not only of regional states, but also of the countries wanting access to their energy resources. Achieving it required a collective, cohesive approach. The chances of this would be greater than ever following the collapse of the previous Iraqi regime ‘which caused three wars in the region’; formation of a democratic government in Iraq; and determination of a schedule for withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq.
The following actions were required ‘in order to reach comprehensive cooperation, regional cohesion and sustainable stability and security’, Mr Bagheri said:
• Carry out internal reforms in the social, political, economic and cultural domains, avoiding models from societies outside the region.
• Support democracy ‘based on customs and traditions and culture of the peoples of the region’.
• Avoid ‘stirring up’ national and creed differences, and confront all types of extremism.
• Avoid actions that would damage Iranian–Arab or Arab–Arab relations, or actions that affect the historic and geographical foundations of the region, including borders and historic names dating back thousands of years, such as the name of the Persian Gulf.
• Eliminate differences and misunderstanding among Gulf littoral states through direct and sincere talks. Avoid the imposition of third parties that could widen and deepen differences.
• Rediscover the human, economic and technical potential of the region, and use it to cooperate on sustainable development.
• Build a new economic bloc with the participation of all countries of the region.
While the conditions necessary for enhanced regional security could be created in this way, Iran believed it was also necessary to obtain the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the region; to end the ’regional balance’ theory, a legacy of the Cold War; to end confrontation among states of the region; to end bilateral military agreements between foreign countries and regional states; and to end the purchase by regional states of large amounts of weapons that could threaten the region. The countries of the region should cooperate to combat ’governmental and non-governmental terrorism’.
Mr Bagheri said: ‘The Islamic Republic of Iran believes it is possible to reach sustainable stability and security in the Persian Gulf region.’
Abdul Karim Al Anazi, Iraq’s Minister of State for National Security Affairs, spoke briefly again in this session because an Iraqi colleague had been unable to attend the conference.
Iraq’s Minister of State for National Security Affairs, spoke briefly again in this session because an Iraqi colleague had been unable to attend the conference.
He said countries of the region shared ‘a common history, long common borders, mutual interests, and also common threats’. There was an international need for regional stability ‘as it is a vital artery for the world economy’. Cooperation was essential. ‘Growing threats against the security and stability of this region force us to aim for common programmes in order to establish strong regional and international institutions able to achieve development in the region.’
Iraq’s government had stressed that it would not allow the country to become a launch pad for threats against other countries, whether in the region or among those that had helped in the fall of the previous regime. ‘Iraq’s cooperation with countries of the world, and particularly of this region, is a necessity for security and cooperation, and also for reconstruction.’ A region free of weapons of mass destruction was among Iraq’s priorities.
Iran, the Iraqi minister said, was at the forefront of countries fighting terrorism and drug trafficking. The basis for cooperation in this field had been laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding between Iraq and Iran. Iraq had also received firm assurances from Iran that it would cooperate in the efforts against terrorism and drug trafficking. This was urgent because Iraq ’stands at the threshold of a new phase of construction and development, and confronts challenges of terrorism and the daily killing of its people. We therefore express a genuine desire to build up true relations of cooperation between Iraq and its neighbours, including Iran.’
Questions and answers
Mr Bagheri’s speech, though it kept to lines familiar to those who have long followed Iran, sparked some probing questions. The audience was keen to know in more detail about Tehran’s relationship with the new Iraq, about its position on Israel and the Middle East peace process, and about its nuclear programme.
There were also lingering questions about the capabilities and military dispositions of the new Iraq.
It was perhaps not surprising that the most detailed and demanding question to Mr Bagheri should come from Ambassador Robert D. Blackwill, former Deputy National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush – a position in which he coordinated the administration’s policies on Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr Blackwill made a series of allegations of extensive Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs. Tehran was engaged, he said, in covert intelligence activities inside Iraq. It was transferring weapons, including advanced technologies for improvised explosive devices, to enemies of the new Iraq inside the country. It was providing, Mr Blackwill said, substantial financial assistance to sympathetic Iraqi political parties – a senior Iraqi politician had described to him the Iranian political machine inside Iraq. Iran had large-scale commercial activities in the Shi’ite south. It was supporting new mosques and radical religious instruction in Shi’ite Iraq. Mr Blackwill was also concerned about ‘the activities of some of the thousands of Iranians who cross the border into Iraq every day’.
Mr Blackwill said: ‘It is difficult for me to escape the conclusion that the government of Iran apparently regards success by the new Iraq and its international coalition partners as a mortal danger to the current regime in Tehran’. He asked whether, given the differences between the US and Iran, Iran would be willing to take part in a bilateral dialogue with the US regarding Iraq.
Others raised additional issues about Iran–Iraq relations against the background of the continuing presence of foreign forces. Khaled Al Duwaisan, Kuwait’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom, sought clarification of Mr Bagheri’s suggestion of a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops. If Iraqis were not yet able to secure their own country, would withdrawal not create a security vacuum? Dr Gregory Gause, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont, asked whether Iran’s collaboration with the US in helping to stabilise post-Taliban Afghanistan could be a model for stabilising Iraq. Waleed Al Banawi, Executive Vice President of Banawi Industrial Group, Saudi Arabia, asked whether Iran could play a role in ensuring a safe Iraq by strengthening cooperation on the sharing of intelligence; by boosting its ‘preventive capabilities‘; and by putting pressure on factions alleged to be responsible for Iraq’s instability.
Mr Bagheri responded vigorously to these questions. The Deputy Foreign Minister agreed with the thrust of many comments at the conference that cooperation was essential to establish an independent, sustainable Iraq. Iran had been doing just that: it had begun economic cooperation, was helping with reconstruction, and would continue to help. ‘We are not interested in interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs’, he said. Iran had already made clear that it was not willing to enter into bilateral negotiations with the US about Iraq. Mr Bagheri noted that President Bush had termed Iran a member of the ‘axis of evil’, thus giving Iran a ‘negative reward’ for earlier cooperation with Washington. He did not believe foreign forces should be abruptly withdrawn: he had been talking of a gradual withdrawal, and the coming elections should pave the way for this. The suggestion that Iran was supporting terrorists was ’a mere accusation: we are against any form of terrorism’. On Iranian visits to Iraq and support for mosques, Mr Bagheri noted that Tehran had an agreement with Baghdad for thousands of people to go every week on pilgrimage to the holy cities. This was what was happening, and both governments were determined that there should be no problems because visits to Karbala and Najaf were sacred. There was nothing wrong with people either giving or receiving money to help rebuild a shrine: this was a popular practice.
responded vigorously to these questions. The Deputy Foreign Minister agreed with the thrust of many comments at the conference that cooperation was essential to establish an independent, sustainable Iraq. Iran had been doing just that: it had begun economic cooperation, was helping with reconstruction, and would continue to help. ‘We are not interested in interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs’, he said. Iran had already made clear that it was not willing to enter into bilateral negotiations with the US about Iraq. Mr Bagheri noted that President Bush had termed Iran a member of the ‘axis of evil’, thus giving Iran a ‘negative reward’ for earlier cooperation with Washington. He did not believe foreign forces should be abruptly withdrawn: he had been talking of a gradual withdrawal, and the coming elections should pave the way for this. The suggestion that Iran was supporting terrorists was ’a mere accusation: we are against any form of terrorism’. On Iranian visits to Iraq and support for mosques, Mr Bagheri noted that Tehran had an agreement with Baghdad for thousands of people to go every week on pilgrimage to the holy cities. This was what was happening, and both governments were determined that there should be no problems because visits to Karbala and Najaf were sacred. There was nothing wrong with people either giving or receiving money to help rebuild a shrine: this was a popular practice.
Delegates sought elaboration from Mr Bagheri on other issues. Ambassador Abdulla Bishara of Kuwait said calls for a nuclear-free Gulf should not be mixed up with arguments about the Middle East peace process. What about a nuclear-free Gulf, he asked. Secondly, he demanded a strong expression of Iranian support for the road map to which the Palestinians, among others, had signed up. Xan Smiley, Middle East and Africa Editor of The Economist, commented that Mr Bagheri had not repeated the recent words of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’. Was this because Iran spoke with more than one voice, or had the President changed his mind, or had he been misunderstood? Ambassador Robert Hunter asked whether Iran would allow inspectors to go anywhere that they wished, thus removing Iran’s nuclear programme as a bone of contention.
On the Palestinian issue, Mr Bagheri said there was no difference between Iran and Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), the Palestinian leader. He asked why President Ahmadinejad had received such a negative press, with allegations of cheating, after an election in which he had won 17m votes. There was no change in Iran’s foreign policy, Mr Bagheri said – and this included the position on Israel. In a detailed justification of the President’s remarks, Mr Bagheri claimed that Palestine had been ‘wiped off the map’ in 1948, and no objection had been raised then. There should be a full referendum on the future of Israel and Palestine, he said.
There were also additional questions for Mr Al Anazi on the situation in Iraq. Fleur de Villiers, Vice Chairman of the IISS, asked what steps Iraq would take against independent militias, and would they be integrated into the security forces. Mr Al Banawi questioned whether, as US forces pulled out of Iraq, Baghdad would have the capability to ‘smoke out the terrorists’. If it did not, how would the saga of bloodshed be ended and economic development begin?
Mr Al Anazi said the government was determined that all militias should be removed. This process was linked to progress on the political and security fronts. Political parties had announced that they were dispensing with their militias and giving up their weapons.
said the government was determined that all militias should be removed. This process was linked to progress on the political and security fronts. Political parties had announced that they were dispensing with their militias and giving up their weapons.
The government had ruled that militia members should be rehabilitated and integrated into the armed forces. They would undergo vocational retraining so that they could take part in the reconstruction effort or in government departments. However, the possibility that political groups would use militia forces to impose their will remained a threat. There was no justification for militias, and the government was continuing to look at how best to prevent their existence.
Mr Anazi said Iraq had asked Iran and Arab states to intervene with countries that gave support to terrorism. There was a need for strategic cooperation with neighbours: Iraq had guaranteed never to threaten the security and stability of neighbours, and those countries ‘should respond accordingly’. Iran, he said, had promised to take part in this lobbying effort. On weapons transfers and political influence from Tehran, Mr Al Anazi stressed the freedom of the Iraqi political process and said foreign ‘meddling’ may be due to instability in Iraq. ‘We reject plainly and frankly and do not accept any external interference in our internal affairs … There is a new situation in Iraq at present and we hope all our brothers realise there are political changes taking place. The new Iraq is serious about building democracy.’
