9/11 AND WAR ON TERROR
The terrorist attack on 9/11 unquestionably altered the shape and thrust of US foreign policy in the short to medium term and have raised many questions, not just about the direction of US foreign policy but also about the shape of the international system itself. Iran was apparently included in the black list of US administration. The then President Bush’s historical speech in 2002 to congress sheds the light on this matter. To prevent the spread of weapon of mass desertion and elimination of terrorism, the US would take action. The President Bush proclaimed.
“Our goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction, Some of these regimes have been pretty quit since September the 11th .But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for election……………..state like these , and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to black-mail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.”
By this speech of war on terror, it was clarified that Iran would be the target of US direct confrontation. The United states identifies three major areas of concern with Iranian policy; (a) opposition to Israel and the Arab0Israel pace process; (b) support of terrorism; and (c) pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and development of long range missiles. The first is clearly related to Israel. Charges of terrorism focus almost entirely on Iran’s support for Hizbullah and HAMAS and also are therefore most directly associated with Israel, while the threat of Iranian missile and WMD development are normally measured in terms of their proximity to Israel. It is evident that Israel’s concerns will feature prominently in any US-Iranian rapprochement. That is likely to complicate the process on the US side, not only because of Israel’s considerable influence in Washington but also because Israel’s nuclear status will be a factor in any serious discussion of Iran’s prospective WMD development .For the same reason US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. But the situation went from bad to worse. Even after the occupations, the US had to face the counter attacks and the killing of its army .Iraq became another Vietnam. Increasing US causality figures are also beginning to take their toll on domestic opinion. In spite of all these failures, now US is getting ready to attack Iran militarily and diplomatically as well. Therefore the US went further to polarize the world and demands the strong cooperation of all countries. Bush underlines that point:
“Our response involves far more than instant realization and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include traumatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, and drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime”
Adding to the policy of Bush, Hilary Clinton has argued: we did not face World War 11 alone, we did not face the Cold War alone, and we cannot face the global terrorist threat or other profound challenges alone either”. For this strategy US put India and other countries under pressure made them to vote against Iran. In spite of some problems, Iran can keep some amazing relations with European Union. The ‘charm diplomacy of former Iranian president khatami and his idea of dialogue of civilization created notable impacts in European capitals since 1997.Tehran and EU signed in a series of energy, tourist and investment agreements. Though the continued US-Iran hostility ,Iran’s pro- Palestine stand, and its support for shia groups in Lebanon , Tehran has every reason to expect the EU will continue to ignore Washington’s policy of isolating Iran, as it has since the mid-1990s. Therefore the opposing of US to Iran will not be easy.
IRANIAN FOREIGN POLICY AND US
Iranian foreign policy during the first term of president Ahmadi nejad was based on two components. First, Iran sought to deal with new security dilemma brought about the US presence in both Ira and Afghanistan after2003 .Iran responded with an accommodating policy which consisted 0f expanding cooperation after Saddam’ fall with the main Arab world actors, principally Egypt. Saudi Arabia and seeking direct talks with the United States. In this way Iran wished to get rid of a new round of rivalry with its Arab neighbors and a new security dilemma in its relations with the US. The second policy was alliance policy by building relationships with friendly states like Syria and political movements like Hizbullah. Iran tries to deter US or Israeli military threat in the short term and to prevent the institutionalization of a US role in its backyard in the long term.
US administration cannot divide the political elites of Iran easily. Iran’s June 2009 presidential election, western policymakers have speculated to exploit the internal disputes to gain leverage on Iran’s nuclear program and regional disputes. Though there are of course differences of style and approach among the elite, it is clear that Iran’s nuclear program has the capability to unite them, especially in the face of foreign threats of increased sanctions and military attack. Due to the insecure neighborhood, Iran is paying a great price for preserving regional security. The continued instability and sectarian conflict across the western border(Iraq), failed and unstable states on the east (Afghanistan and Pakistan),transforming states of central Asia and Caucasus in the north, and authoritarian and security dependant regimes in the south and Persian gulf, each political –social changes in the future, have formed the basis for Iran’s insecure and unstable backyard. Such an insecure environment has the potential to spread regional rivalries, military conflict, crises, and subsequently foreign power’s presence.
If regional security is significant to the US and regional states, then one thing should be aware that Iran is an essential part of the region’s security system. Knowing this security strategy, Iran also aims to warn the other states in the region of the cost of helping the US in any possible future military operations against Iran, making it clear that such actions would result in greater insecurity for the entire region. Therefore with other military capacity nowadays the nuclear program is perceived as a national pride and solidarity that uplifts the Iranian identity and status regionally and internationally. Hence all political parties are in defense side of nuclear program. Moreover Ahmedi nejad has the confidence and the support of Iranian supreme leader Ayathullah Ali khamenei.
Comments