THE AXIS OF EVIL REVISITED: IRAN

SUMMARY.

The uncertain outcome of the Gaza war, as well as the political changes in the United States and in Israel, should facilitate an essential rethinking of Iran's role, clearing the air of all the old clichés and allowing Iran to play its obvious and essential role in the Gulf Region.

TEXT.

There is some hope – albeit very slight - that the murderous events currently taking place in Gaza will contribute to clear the air around the only remaining active member of the “Axis of Evil”; I refer, of course, to Iran. The conventional wisdom about Iran, carefully nurtured in the United States and now adopted by many obedient Governments around the world depicts that country and its regime as a diabolically wicked historical enemy of the “Democratic West” and its values, armed to the teeth and ready to strike at our vital interests with ruthless efficiency. This, according to the same scenario, is compelling us to build “star wars” type barriers, which, of course by sheer coincidence, pose a direct threat to Russia, at the moment on the borderline and about to cross into – or, rather, return to - the “Evil” family of Nations.

This circumstance throws my mind back to the build-up for the invasion of Iraq, when Prime Minister Tony Blair could be seen wildly pacing the Parliament floor, hair flying in disarray ranting about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and not hesitating to compare the situation to the infamous appeasement associated with Munich, 1938. I was amazed, at the time, that not one of the major commentators or columnists came out with a simple assertion, just to say: “Mr. Blair, you are not Winston Churchill, and President Bush is definitely not FDR. Iraq is not Germany. Saddam is not Hitler, and, above all, the Iraqi army is not the Wehrmacht, nor is Saddam’s Republican Guard comparable to the Waffen SS.”

The mainstream international press remained stunningly and obsequiously silent, while leading columnists, perhaps fully convinced by the spin doctors, all seemed ready to rewrite the history of World War II. As a result the new Crusaders enthusiastically went to war, in a Quixotic endeavour to eliminate nonexistent Weapons of Mass Destructions and to eradicate imaginary terrorist bases.

There are striking parallels between those attitudes and the ones prevailing today In spite of the recent lesson of Iraq, none of the major international Newspapers or Periodicals have undertaken serious attempts at a cool, detached analysis of the Iranian situation, before embarking on grandiloquent tirades against the arch-enemy of the moment (things were easier during the Cold War when the arch-enemy’s identity didn’t change so often). This constant, mantra-like repetition of clichés, once the speciality of totalitarian regimes, once again seems to be an accepted substitute to investigation and research as an instrument for bringing correct information to the general public.

It is, for example, absurd to depict Iran as a military threat to Israel, the Middle East or Europe, for the simple reason that Iran’s military capacity is actually rather limited in comparison to most of the other countries in the area such as Saudi Arabia, The Emirates, Egypt and, of course, Israel itself. This can be deduced by the relatively low military expenditure in Iran, both in terms of total amount spent and in terms of percentage of National Product.

Iran is also depicted as an authoritarian dictatorship, while, of course, the above mentioned countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt are models of Democracy. In reality, the Iranian Government is one of the most democratic in the area, in spite of its theocratic origins and superstructure, and Iranian leaders are much more accountable to public opinion than the leaders in many other countries in the area, as can be witnessed by the political changes which occur at almost every general election.

Is Iran, finally, such an implacable and intractable enemy of the West? I would say that the situation is quite the reverse. At the onset of the 2001 military action in Afghanistan, Iran offered its assistance in combating the Taliban, of which it does not approve, and, similarly, Iran has offered to help stabilize the situation in post-invasion Iraq, an offer which was refused with contempt. It is probable that what Iran was hoping to obtain in exchange was nothing unacceptable to the West, but rather a recognition of the legitimate role it has to play in the Gulf area and of its interest in being bordered by a stable and peaceful Iraq and Afghanistan. It is even possible that important concessions could have been obtained in terms of a weaker support to organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, but this, of course, is only speculation.

It is perhaps not too late to engage Teheran in serious negotiations, which will not be easy, but will certainly alleviate the tensions which exist in the area and which have been exacerbated by the recent events in Gaza, which, if nothing else, with the impending political change in Israel, could have considerably diminished the political clout and the prestige both of the Fatah leadership and of some of the nearby Governments who chose to ignore popular feeling in their respective countries..