Interviewer:
Ali Goldoust
Department of Leadership Studies
University of San Francisco
doustcompan@yahoo.com
Ali Goldoust: Dr. Amirahmadi, I am basically looking at the issue of mistrust and its roots in the U.S.-Iran relations and the possibility to move beyond this stagnated paradigm of accusation and mutual demonization that the two states are in it. I follow your website a lot and know that you have been very busy in the last several years to find a way to mediate between the United States and Iran. You organize meetings and conferences, and give lectures, etc. Yet, the situation between the two countries is not very encouraging. I begin with this question: Why have the United States and Iran not been able to engage?
By William Luers, Thomas R. Pickering (of AIC board of directors), Jim Walsh
The recent National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Tehran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003, together with the significant drop in Iranian activity in Iraq, has created favorable conditions for the US to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program. The Bush administration should act on this opportunity, if for no other reason than that its current position is growing weaker, and without such an initiative, Iran will continue its efforts to produce nuclear fuel that might, in the future, be used to build nuclear weapons.
Currently, Iran has approximately three thousand centrifuges, which it has used to produce small test batches of uranium that has been enriched to a low level (which cannot be used for nuclear weapons). Until now, Iranian engineers have not successfully operated a centrifuge cascade (a collection of centrifuges working together) at full capacity--which, as a practical matter, would be needed to enrich nuclear fuel to the level necessary either to establish an effective nuclear energy program or to manufacture nuclear weapons. But the Iranian government has declared its ambition to build more than 50,000 centrifuges, and recent reports also suggest that Tehran is testing a modified "P-2" centrifuge, a more advanced version of its existing centrifuge technology, which can produce a larger volume of enriched uranium.
Barrages of rockets have recently been launched at the fortified "Green Zone" in Iraq. The green zone is the base of American troops in the country along with the headquarters for the current Iraqi government and US embassy. General David Petraeus, the most senior military office in Iraq, had stated that he believes that the rockets launched at the Green Zone in Iraq were Iranian made and supplied weaponry used by groups trained by the Iranian Qods Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guard.
Petraeus accused the Iranian regime of violating promises made in the past to the Americans and Iraqis to prevent any attacks that could be contributed to certain Iranian elements. Iran has consistently denied any involvement and considers such accusations as pretexts designed to serve as pressure tactics against Iran. Meanwhile Iran has joined the US in Iraq, discussing ways they might utilize to enhance security in Iraq.
Us-Iran relations have recently been plagued with numerous reports of dangerously hawkish rhetoric which are serving as catalysts in the advancement of the current spiral conflict. This month, Iran celebrated the successful launch of a rocket into space; however, the rocket, named Kavoshgar, is merely preparation for the launch of a permanent satellite in the near future. Now that this rocket has successfully transmitted data back to earth after reaching orbit, many reports now say that Iran should be placed among the top 11 nations that enjoy such advanced space technology. Still, Iran's triumph was not greeted with tribute and honor by the United States and some of its allies. Iran was actually heavily rebuked; Washington reacted by saying Tehran's rocket test was "unfortunate," and that it was another step in Iran's weapons development program although these are allegations that Tehran has strongly denied. Such instances of harsh rhetoric have resulted in a spiral of negative language back and forth between the two capitals. Most recently, in what can be considered a counter-rhetorical stab, Head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Mohammad Ali Jafari claimed that "In the near future, we will witness the destruction of Israel, the aggressor, this cancerous microbe Israel, at the able hands of the soldiers of the community of Hezbollah." Although these comments were not made directly in response to any particular comment made by a United States official, the tort is still legitimized by similarly offensive remarks made by both Israeli and American officials on other issues. This sort of language from both sides is only serving to give efficacy to the suggested policies of extremists in Iran and warmongers in the United States. It has been proven time and time again that domestic extremism breeds more extremism abroad, and it appears like the United States and Iran are fueling each others' fires.
On February 22nd, the International Atomic Energy Agency released its latest report.
The report noted increased efforts on the part of Iran toward clarifying the extent of its nuclear enrichment program. "Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities." Although the agency states that it has not able to fully resolve all issues related to the nature of its nuclear program, neither was it able to show clear and convincing evidence that Iran has been engaged in the development of nuclear weapons technology.
The relationship between the United States and Iran has now entered treacherous waters, both figuratively and metaphorically. The recent release of contradictory videos from both sides regarding the skirmishes in the Strait of Hormuz has left the media and on-lookers perplexed. The Pentagon originally released a video which showed Iranian fast boats circling Coalition Warship 73. The video contained a heavily accented voice threatening the US Warship, which the Pentagon claimed was coming from one of the five Iranian patrol boats.
The Iranian government would later release a video which depicts a much more routine and standard encounter between the two sides. Shortly after this release, unnamed Pentagon officials claimed that the voice on the original tape could not be directly traced to the Iranian patrol boats, and it could have possibly come from another ship nearby or even from shore. As a result the media has published conflicting reports questioning the authenticity of the videos released by both the US and Iran.
When all is said and done, the unequivocal genuineness of both accounts are not available, but that is irrelevant to its negative effect on US-Iran relations in both the immediate and long-term future. Prior to these reports, the NIE had set an optimistic atmosphere for those who favor increased diplomacy and normalization of relations between the two nations. Unfortunately the naval skirmish has somewhat curbed this enthusiasm, while increasing the legitimacy of warmongers on both sides of the fence.
Given the volatile state of US-Iran relations, the window of opportunity that the NIE has provided for reconciliation should be widened and utilized with due urgency rather than narrowed and disregarded. A strategic imperative now exists for both sides to make time of the essence, and perhaps utilize the 'Big Push" approach that AIC President has outlines in a recent article. The alternative, I am afraid, is a destructive encounter between the two great nations.
The recent diplomatic trip by President Bush to the Middle East, including the Persian Gulf, Arab states, and Israel, has become a new source of tension for US- Iran relations. The President pursued three inter-related goals during his trip: First, to bolster the Administration's pledge in restarting the Israeli-Palestinian "peace talks;" second, to express the American commitment to the security of Israel and the Persian Gulf Arab states; and third, and most significant of all, to campaign and press for a desired containment policy in the region centered on the perceived Iranian threats and the Islamic Republic's "unconstructive influence." As President Bush put it throughout his trip, "Iran was, is, and will be a dangerous nation!"
The American Iranian Council invites applications for the position of Executive Director. AIC is a non-profit (tax-exempt) and non-partisan educational and research organization dedicated to promoting dialogue and understanding between the United States and Iran. The Council is led by a prestigious Board of Directors and is headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey. The Executive Director will serve as the chief executive officer of the Council, with primary responsibility for managing the organization's day-to-day operations, preparing the Council's annual budget and program of activities, leading the organization's fundraising and membership drive, producing and distributing AIC publications, directing and coordinating the work of a small professional staff, and serving as the primary spokesperson for AIC. Reporting to the President, the Executive Director will ensure that the organization is fiscally sound and that its internal and external communications, fundraising, and programs are meeting the needs and interests of its mission...Please send all applications to admin@us-iran.org
Iran is currently a world-class foreign policy challenge for the West and the US in particular. The country stands before the UN Security Council for its alleged "potential threat to world peace." The Council has already imposed two political-economic sanctions on Iran and intends to continue along that path until the Islamic Republic stops its uranium enrichment programs. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has been threatening Iran with the use of force if "diplomacy fails," and has successfully convinced many financial institutions to break ties with the country. These multilateral sanctions are in addition to the unilateral economic embargoes that the US has imposed on Iran since the Islamic revolution in 1979. Iran is suspected of pursuing nuclear weaponization, a charge that the Islamic regime has consistently denied. Even though the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate has allayed that suspicion by revealing that Iran "stopped" its alleged weaponization programs in 2003, the more difficult issues of nuclear enrichment and Iran's future intentions remain, making 2008 the most dangerous year in the US-Iran spiral conflict.
In order to promote dialogue and understanding, AIC president Professor Hooshang Amirahmadi proposes the "Big Push" approach. The idea centers on a concerted non-conditional diplomatic effort to prepare for normalized US-Iran relations that begins with a change toward a more respectful tone. The initial steps will also include to effectively convincing the stakeholders in Iran-US relations that their interests will be protected. This will precede the imperative move of simultaneous acknowledgement by both parties that they are prepared and willing to normalize relations once conditions permit them to do so.
Let us begin by sending you our warmest greetings and best wishes for a Happy New Year. At the American Iranian Council we are hoping that 2008 will be a year of peace and prosperity. It will not be an exaggeration to state that much of this will depend on how the US-Iran spiraling conflict is resolved. For example, a grand bargain between Washington and Tehran could ensue in a sea of opportunities for their nations and the global community.
The year 2007 was packed with dreadful news for US-Iran relations but ended with a glimpse of hope for a new beginning in the foreseeable future following the National Intelligence Estimate report this past November. The NIE "judged with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its Nuclear weapons program." Before that news was public, a US or Israeli military strike against Iran's uranium enrichment facilities was considered imminent.
Let me begin by thanking Mr. Crispin Blunt, Member of the House of Commons and Chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council, for mediating this invitation and for his kind introduction. I am also grateful to Ms. Faezeh Faiz, Iran Program Director for the CMEC, for coordinating the various aspects of this meeting. It is indeed an honor to speak at such an illustrious gathering of Honorable British MPs and the distinguished audience of invitees. I bring this discussion to you from across the Atlantic and hope that a trialogue between Americans, British and Iranians will ensue in the wake of this meeting. I am particularly hoping to engage the parliamentarians in these three countries in serious brainstorming on what might be done to resolve Iran's nuclear dispute. Let me thus focus my talk today on this same subject as well, looking at it from the angle of Iran's relation to the nuclear geopolitics in the Middle East.
Introduction (Mr. Salar):
Thank you Mr. Ali Shakeri for agreeing to this interview with the AIC. We appreciate this opportunity very much, especially as the event of your imprisonment at Evin Prison in Iran is still so recent. It must be very fresh to you and we know that all of this must be very difficult. All of us at the AIC were very concerned for you and we are deeply proud of you. It is wonderful that you are here with us today. Thank you for discussing this event with us.
Mr. Shakeri: Thank you.
Mr. Salar: You were in the notorious Evin Prison, specifically the Ward 209 attachment to Evin which is specifically designated for high profile detainees. You were there for 140 days, with 114 of those spent in solitary confinement. Evin prison is north of Tehran and was founded by SAVAK, the Sha's secret police. After such a difficult ordeal, how have you been? Has your health held up? Have you been experiencing any lingering effects of imprisonment?
Many of you have called and emailed in recent weeks to find out where I have been or what I and AIC have been doing in the last few months. I thank you for your attention to our absence! Let me assure you that I have been busy engaging in strategic meetings pursuing understanding and dialogue between the United States and Iran. Our silence reflected a change from a traditionally high-profile and open strategy to a more low-profile but high-impact and off-the-record strategy that better reflects the tense environment at hand. We have also been busy with restructuring the AIC so it can better pursue its mission.
Now that the summer is over and the US-Iran spiral conflict has heated up unlike never before, let us get connected again. I am sending you an update to keep you abreast of the most important developments involving the American Iranian Council. In the update is a report on some of the key events and debates in which the AIC has been a participant in concerning US-Iran relations. The crux of the debates comes down to whether the parties will make peace or the US will take some sort of military action against Iran. It is disheartening to report that the overwhelming majority of opinions I heard expressed on the subject believe that the war is increasingly a real option. What is of greater concern is that many of the people who think war is a real option are many former officials and very informed experts. Thankfully, there are also individuals who wish to see the two nations make compromise and normalize relations.
Iran is often said to live in a "dangerous neighborhood." As a consequence of this geographical misfortune, the thought continues, the country intends to build nuclear weapons for the purpose of security. This suspicious thinking is further hardened given the seeming contradiction of Iran's stature as an energy-rich nation. Yet, a more productive application of the "dangerous neighborhood" concept would be to use it for a deeper appreciation of Iran's security concerns. Indeed, it is critical that Iran's nuclear ambition is considered in the context of the regional nuclear geopolitical situation. Nuclear geopolitics is a new concept and I believe placing Iran's nuclear programs in that context can help with a more realistic assessment of its purpose and future direction. Geopolitics refers to the political significance of places and spaces in international relations. Thus, nuclear geopolitics would mean the spatial distribution of nuclear facilities, its significance and the problem it creates, or solutions it offers, for international relations.
*The following transcript has been edited, in accordance with the Chatham House Rule, in order to preserve the identities of those involved.
Introduction
by Person A
Good
afternoon...Let me welcome you ...I have so many distinguished
people, that I don't want to take the time to recognize them all...
Person
B
Thank you very much. ...As someone ... who has been very involved with issues relating to the United
States Administration's policy and Iraq, I'm quite concerned about the direction
the administration has taken over the last year, and I believe that all of us
are people of goodwill, that understand that differences that do exist can be
resolved peacefully. I have to say that it is very important that our
administration understands that the world is watching with respect to the
consistency or inconsistency of our policies.It is not appropriate for our nation to pick winners and losers in
nuclear nations. That it's not appropriate for us to use threats to coerce
other nations.That such threats will
ultimately lead to conflict and are designed to do so.So we need to insist upon the primacy of
diplomacy.We need to insist that we
take a new direction that explores the tremendous economic opportunities which
do exist through peaceful cooperation with United States and Iran.And we must not accept any saber rattling or
brinkmanship with respect to any of the policies.We know now, reflecting upon the sorry
trajectory of events in Iraq
that this administration does not have the capacity for thoughtful and patient
negotiation.Yet all of you who have
contact with it must encourage them to do so, particularly at this time.So I remain committed to the cause of peace
and I believe the only way we can achieve security is to work for peace and
diplomacy.I want to thank you for the
opportunity to come here and to pledge to you my ongoing commitment and that of
my wife.As well, to continue to
communicate, to continue to promote understanding, to continue to insist on
lowering the volume, lowering the rhetoric, working patiently to resolve the
differences which I think can be resolved, which I think can lead to
cooperation which I think can help us solve the war in Iraq and to help us lead
to a new day for peace in the entire region.Thank you very much....I look forward to continue to work with
you.Thank you.
Note to the English Version: The following is an English translation of an article originally written in Persian (http://www.iran-emrooz.net/index.php?/politic/more/12464/. The primary audience for the article is Iranian, but I hope that non-Iranian readers will find it interesting as well. I would like to thank my colleague who helped translate the article, but did not wish to be named.
Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, Iranian society has existed in an abnormal state. Consequently, the country's political, economic, social, and cultural structures, as well as its international relations, have been significantly harmed. To embark on a program of progress, Iran needs to adopt a policy of "normalization" which focuses on its national life and the country's international relations. Such a program can guide Iran toward a national reconciliation and an international symbiosis. The most important aspects of this normalization are the relations between state-religion and state-society (including the political opposition), capital and labour, the US and Iran, gender and generations, modernity and tradition, state and ethnic groups, and state and expatriates. Fortunately, the majority of Iranians have become aware of the need for such normalization, and aims to achieve national reconciliation and international cooperation. This majority believes that only a normalized situation can make it possible for Iranians to achieve freedom, justice, welfare, security, and national sovereignty. The currently popular slogan of the state propaganda machine, "national unity and Islamic solidarity," which appears regularly these days on Iranian television, can only become a reality when Iranians attain a multifaceted normalization in their society.
The UN Security Council has through three sanctioning resolutions (1696, 1737, 1747) demanded that Iran temporarily halt its uranium enrichment operations to allow for the resumption of negotiations with its five permanent members (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China) and Germany (the so-called 5+1 group). The Council has also agreed to a "suspension for suspension" formula by means of which Iran's suspension, as a precondition, will be followed by the suspension of the UN resolutions. Iran has until May 24, 2007 to comply with the latest resolution adopted on March 24.
The nature of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran is not one of recent origin. In order to understand this conflict, it is critical that recent developments in the U.S.-Iranian relationship not be taken as fundamental. The contemporary U.S. argument against Iran is based upon two propositions: (i.) that the Iranian nuclear enrichment program is merely cover for a clandestine military nuclear weapons program; and (ii.) that the Iranian government is clandestinely supporting terrorists and insurgents in Iraq thereby killing U.S. soldiers and harming U.S. interests. The actual source of the U.S.-Iranian conflict does not rest within these two propositions; in fact, it exists within an historical relationship dating back at least to the 1953 U.S. supported coup against the democratically elected Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh.
As the chess game continues to play out between the U.S. and Iran, it is important to understand that neither of the two players is monolithic. Both the U.S. and Iran have numerous factions of varying strengths vying for dominance. Each wants to control or influence the debate within their respective debate arenas. The U.S.-Iranian relationship is, at the moment, best characterized as being in a state of "neither war nor peace." Such an indeterminate form of relationship is, of course, difficult to maintain. It is far more stable to put the relationship onto a more determinate path - whether it is the road to war or the one to peace. It may be that keeping the U.S.-Iran relationship in this "neither peace nor war" state is too difficult to control and will, within the year, move forward onto one of these two roads.
