EVENTS
The Imam Returned: Thirty Years of Revolution in Iran
|
Date:
|
Friday, January 30, 2009
|
|
Time:
|
10:00 AM -- 4:15 PM
|
|
Location:
|
Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
|
WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 9, 2009--While President Barack Obama has pledged to change U.S. policy toward Iran and renew diplomacy toward Tehran, a wide array of challenges lies ahead. It has been thirty years since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran, marking the climax of the Iranian Revolution and the chill in U.S.-Iranian relations after the embassy seizure and hostage crisis. At an AEI conference on January 30, speakers assessed the implications of the past three decades for future relations with the Islamic Republic.
As debates are heating up about how to engage with the Islamic Republic, Jeffrey Gedmin, the president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, advised against a new hunt for moderates within the Iranian government. Instead, he said, the United States needs to work with Europe to engage trade unions, initiate cultural and religious exchanges, use the blogosphere, support women's struggles, and step up broadcasting within Iran.
Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies stressed that the new administration should not expect very much from its engagement with Iran. "We can't fix the U.S.-Iranian relationship because anti-Americanism is so deeply-woven into the DNA of the Iranian revolution," he explained. "But relations could be better managed through bilateral talks." The panelists emphasized that the United States must engage Iran from a position of strength. "The U.S. needs to be self-confident and should not fear Iran. Iran has much more to lose than the U.S.," Alterman added.
AEI's Michael Rubin offered historical reasons for the failure of diplomacy with Iran, suggesting that questions like when to engage, how to engage, and with whom to engage must be clearly defined. Limbert was more sanguine about engagement, however. He expressed surprise that the estrangement between Iran and the United States had lasted so long and argued that both parties need to set aside historical grievances and talk about the future, not just the past.
Another complication in attempts to engage Iran is Tehran's continuing failure to provide a secure environment for foreign embassies and diplomats, said Michael Metrinko, who was among the U.S. diplomats held hostage. "I fully believe that we have to have relations with Iran," he said. "But given the security environment, I think it is going to be a difficult task." John Limbert, another hostage who now lectures at the U.S. Naval Academy, said that the United States miscalculated the nature of the revolution.
Mohsen Sazegara, who joined Khomeini at the time of the revolution, said that the hostage crisis was Iran's biggest foreign policy mistake and that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government is now repeating the same mistakes in its approach to the United States. But he did not think that the current regime enjoys the same level of public support that Khomeini had in the heyday of revolution. Metrinko added: "The vast majority is certainly under the age of forty. This means that in the Iranian army, in the Iranian police, and in the Iranian student body, just about nobody is around who was even there for the [revolution]."
Just where is Iran going? Arash Sigarchi, an Iranian journalist who has been jailed for breaking censorship rules, said, "If you at this very moment ask Mr. Ahmadinjad or Ayatollah [Ali] Khamenei in which direction the Islamic Republic is going, I'm very sure that they have no idea of it." The Islamic Republic is facing increasing domestic pressure, however. Democratic change in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq poses serious threats to Iran, Alex Vatanka of Jane's Information Group said. The lack of political freedoms have turned public sentiments against the government. According to AEI's Ali Alfoneh, Ahmadinejad is facing the same challenges and problems that the shah faced in the late 1970s, mainly because his regime refuses to allow liberalization.
Panelists also debated the dangers the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) poses to U.S. and allied interests in the region. In addition to its military role, the IRGC has permeated the government, including the economy and politics. Since his appointment as the commander in chief of the IRGC, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari has fundamentally restructured the IRGC, intensifying the crackdown on reformism and civil society. The military is more worried about internal threats and coups than external aggression, Michael Connell of the Center for Naval Analyses said. The IRGC has accelerated integration of local militias, control over missile sites, and activity in the Persian Gulf. Alfoneh suggested that even Iran's nuclear program might be under the IRGC's control, not the clergy's.
Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service, however, disagreed with the hawkish assessment of the IRGC's adventurism. Describing the IRGC as "Iran's barking dog," Katzman said its commanders exaggerate its abilities and would not engage in serious actions against the United States. He, however, admitted that the elite Quds Force still remains a huge problem and that the IRGC is able to engage in a proxy war with the United States in Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan and to increase its support of Hamas and Hezbollah.
--AHMAD MAJIDYAR
For video, audio, and event information, visit www.aei.org/event1856. For a related AEI event on Capitol Hill featuring Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), visit www.aei.org/event1884.
You may find these Middle Eastern Outlooks of interest:
For media inquiries, contact Veronique Rodman at 202.862.4870 or vrodman@aei.org.
###
(78)
|
Sunday, November 22, 2009
EMAIL
PRINT
SAVE