By: David Johnson
Source: Global Politician
Talks between the U.S. and Iran on Iraqi security came at a crucial time for all parties involved. Right now, Baghdad is a bull’s-eye in a decisive competition for influence in the Near East . In our increasingly globalizing world, the stakes are higher than ever. While the United States is using talks to clarify necessary steps toward sustainable peace in Iraq , Iran is using talks as a means to acquire official legitimacy to sustain violence.
To that end, Iran is training, arming and funding sectarian militias. Iranian backed militias not only isolate Iraqi communities from their neighbors, they regularly conduct deadly incursions into neighboring communities. The long term result will be the Balkanization of Iraq, creating hotspots of violence lasting decades as well as breeding grounds for the next generation of anti-American terrorists. The pattern of Iranian interference can be seen with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine . The pattern of Iranian interference is the creation of states within states.
Like cancer, Iranian-backed Iraqi officials and fighters grow until they become an existential threat to the host nation in which they reside. If the Hezbollah pattern progresses in Iraq , expectations of sustained conflict should follow. The fragile multiparty state we see in Iraq today will be overthrown. Only Iran ‘s proxy parties will remain in power. If any speech or assembly challenges the authority of Iran ‘s proxy state, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly will suffer to the point of non existence. Political dissent will be met with life threatening reprisals in Iraq , as it was under Saddam Hussein or as it is in Iran today.
Under these circumstances, military and diplomatic officials cannot afford casual misunderstandings. Given the gravity of the threat to the region’s civilian population, clarity of mission must be priority one for the United States.
From the perspective of the Iraqi people and the United States , Iran must not interfere with progress toward sustainable peace in Iraq . By all indications, Iran ‘s vision for Iraq is to establish a client state there, keeping the most political and resource lucrative areas to itself. While Iran ‘s vision cannot be fully accomplished during an American military surge, Iran ‘s leadership appear to be making progress towards their ultimate goals.
After meeting with the Iranians, The American Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said, “The fact is, as we made very clear at today’s talks, that over the roughly two months since our last meetings, we have actually seen militia-related activity that can be attributed to Iranian support go up, and not down.”[1] The fact that these fresh talks have failed to improve Iran ‘s behavior in Iraq indicate Iran responds negatively to normal dialogue. It isn’t that dialogue is not important, it is; in the case of Iran dialogue has failed to produce positive results.
An explosive crisis between Iran and its neighbors around the Persian Gulf looms larger by the day. In this mess, American Diplomats have centrally positioned themselves, with the United States Army and the majority of Iraqis who want a consensual government that represents them. There are ill-advised suggestions that U.S. Diplomats could resolve disagreements with Iran before they spin dangerously out of control. Given Ambassador Crocker’s evidence, familiar diplomatic tools of de-escalation are likely to backfire. The Iranian government is very good at gaining concessions for recklessly creating problems around the world. Iran is heavily involved in South America , Lebanon , Sudan , The Gaza Strip, Pakistan , Afghanistan , recently disputes the sovereignty of Bahrain as well as islands belonging to the UAE.
The regime ruling Iran represents a unique and existential threat to its own people and to the world. While the United States should capitalize on every opportunity to clarify their mission to Tehran , dialogue with Iranian officials may accelerate negative trends. Given the history of negative results described by Ambassador Crocker, the United States should consider the possibility that direct talks with Iran ‘s democratic opposition could elicit a more positive response from the Iranian government. In other words, if the U.S. consistently fails to earn respect at the negotiating table, then the U.S. should seek a table surrounded by Iran ‘s legitimate opposition.
Despite the usual controversy surrounding calls for U.S. support of dissidents to overthrow rouge regimes, Iran’s preeminent democratic opposition group, the Mujahedine e Kahlq (MEK) breaks historical precedent. The MEK has an international support structure among the Iranian Diaspora estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands[2], primarily Iranian-European and Iranian-Americans. Under the tyranny of the Iranian government estimates of support for the MEK inside Iran are more difficult to estimate. Still there are many indicators of widespread support for this group. Jean Lure, the Africa-Asia Monthly’s correspondent reported from Tehran in the recent issue of the magazine that “The truth is that the mullahs are fearful that peoples’ demands will spread throughout the country and get out of control as they did at the end of the Shah’s era thus bring down the regime. The launch of writing slogans on the walls in big cities in favor of Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) brings back bitter memories in mullahs’ minds.”
The report adds that “As the Americans and Europeans haggle over the success of talks with Iran and are dreaming about a respectable result in the nuclear dossier and Iraq , the Iranian rulers are very concerned and alarmed. Not because of unfeasible foreign military attack but because of peoples’ support for Mojahedin-e-Khalq. Today, MEK is highly capable of attracting the young people born and raised after the revolution.”[3]
MEK members inhabit Ashraf City in Iraq , located north of Baghdad near the Iran-Iraq border. While under US shield as “protected persons” under the Forth Geneva Conventions, the MEK has been on the U.S. State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Oddly, the MEK has been sidelined in the Global War on Terror. To that end, time is running out to change Iran ‘s behavior through talks. Unless something new is put on the table, the security situation in Iraq is likely to degrade. Treated as neither friend nor foe, the MEK cooperatively waits at the insistence of the West, for the U.S. to recognize why Iran , and for that matter Iraq and the region, desperately need the MEK to add momentum to Iran ‘s democracy movement.
U.S.-Iran talks may end up as that wake-up call.
——————————————————————————–
REFERENCES
[1] On-the-Record Briefing: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker on His Meeting With Iranian Officials; 24 July 2007 – http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/2007/88999.htm
[2] Ealing Iranians Demand Change; 12 July 2007 – http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1539231.0.ealing_iranians_demand_change.php
[excerpt] A BUSINESSMAN joined thousands of fellow Iranians last week to campaign against his country’s government. Mojtaba Rabiee and his family closed down their Acton coffee shop to travel to Paris for the conference attended by 50,000 people. [excerpt]
[3] Iran – Indications of a Volcano; 22 July 2007 – Translated Excerpt at: http://www.afrique-asie.fr/article.php?article=176
David Johnson currently serves as the Director of Operations of the U.S. Alliance for Democratic Iran. He has been published in the Wall Street Journal, Front Page Magazine, Intellectual Conservative and American Daily. Our organization is based in Washington DC and can be found online at www.USADIran.org.
