U.S. leaders need constructive, understanding Iran policy

In his recent speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush called for a democratic revolution of sorts in the Middle East. He hailed Bahrain for electing "their own parliament for the first time in nearly three decades," and Jordan for having "historical elections this summer." He praised King Mohammad's attempt to forward the rights of women in Morocco. Kuwait, Qatar, and even Yemen were also due for a White House pat-on-the-back, but Iran was once again castigated for its lack of democracy. Yet, many Americans would be surprised to find that Iran has a strong civil society, an 80 percent female literacy rate, elections every four years, and permitted — albeit not enthusiastically — demonstrations.

Iran has been an important and strategic country in the eyes of American policymakers for years, yet as a result of poor analysis, misunderstanding and arrogance, the United States has maintained policies towards the country that have created more problems than they have solved. Today is no different. Although much needs to change within Iran, it is more democratic than most of its neighbors, and its pursuance of security in light of regional threats must be considered.

Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh was the democratically championed leader of Iran in the early 1950s, yet he made a 'mistake' when he approved the Oil Nationalization Bill in 1951. Not only was the traditional rule of the Shah threatened by this populist figure, but the United States and other Western countries, saw a threat to their hegemony over Iran's oil resources. Unfortunately, the CIA helped orchestrate a coup, which placed Iran under the brutal leadership of the Shah for a quarter century. The United States went on to support the Shah's repression, and then when he was overthrown, allowed him to take refuge in the U.S. rather than be tried for war crimes. Yet, the policy fumbling did not stop there, as under successive U.S. governments, Iraq was favored in their invasion of Iran. One of the bloodiest wars of the last 20 years, hundreds of thousands of youths were unnecessarily killed by a needless conflict. The pure hypocrisy of American leaders such as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and others to wring their hands in condemnation of Iraq's prior use of chemical weapons is laughable. When Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons against Iran, not only did the Reagan Administration lead an effort to end any UN Security Council investigation, but he also blamed Iran for the serious contravention of the international norms of war.

For too many years, the misguided policy of the United States has led to extremism, volatility, distrust, and an emboldening of the rule of the clerics today. Policymakers must realize that there are legitimate security needs that Iran has. Flanked by three neighbors with nuclear weapons — India, Israel, and Pakistan — its avowed enemy is now based on either side of its borders, Iran feels increasingly under threat. Such circumstances must be taken into account when dealing with Iran. Moreover, in the effort to push Iran to be more open with its nuclear programme, the Unted States should follow the lead of the European Union that uses both a carrot — efficient, non-weapon, nuclear technology — and a stick — revocation of trade agreements.

The policy of vilification on both sides of this divide has proven counterproductive. Iranians did not take lightly to being labeled as part of the axis of evil. Yet, the regime is emboldened each time by Washington's interventionist tone. The ideological tone of the debate needs to shift to address real problems. U.S. policy is hardly believable when it is condemning Iranian democracy, which has had elections for years for a parliament and president (although the Council of Guardians still holds a veto on decisions), while praising Jordan, which is a monarchy without any serious civil society, and a parliament that seems to be dissolved until the country hosts the World Economic Forum. Moreover, there are tremendous problems in Iran that need to be addressed, such as the corruption of some of the elite, a growing drug problem and a slugging economy.

There should be no reversal of policy towards supporting the natural transition of Iran to an Islamic democracy. However, the tone and nature of that support needs to change, and the civilizational battle lines need to dropped. Iran, after all has hosted the most refugees of any country in the last twenty years — from Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere — is adamantly and ideologically opposed to al-Qaida, and is still struggling to revive its economy in a region where war has taken root more often than peace. Never can the autocratic and corrupt nature of the clerical rule in Iran be excused, but in order to press for change, the United States needs to take a more constructive and understanding approach towards Iran.

Taufiq Rahim is Wilson School major from Vancouver, B.C.