http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,648683,00.html

Iran says defence, US says aggression

Membership of the 'axis of evil' is a matter of perspective, and a US foreign policy based on such a one-eyed viewpoint promises disaster

Brian Whitaker
Monday February 11, 2002

Last week an acquaintance of mine, who recently graduated from Oxford University, received an email inviting him to apply for a job ... making weapons of mass destruction.

Since the invitation came from the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Britain - which operates under the reassuring slogan "excellence in innovative science and technology" - President George Bush is unlikely to be troubled by it. But imagine the fuss if equivalent organisations in, say, Iraq, Iran or North Korea had started recruiting by email.

Those three countries, of course, are founder-members of the "axis of evil". Iraq is an old foe and an obvious choice for membership of the axis, while North Korea - one of the last surviving communist regimes - seems to be included to stop it looking too Islamic. But what exactly has Iran done to deserve inclusion?

Part of the answer is that the US has quietly extended its "war on terrorism" to include weapons of mass destruction. One of the war's new aims, Mr Bush said in his state of the union speech, is "to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction".

He added: "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom."

Viewed from Tehran rather than Washington, Iran's interest in nuclear weapons is not entirely unreasonable. Two of its neighbours - Pakistan and Russia, across the Caspian sea - are already nuclear powers. Iraq, a neighbour with whom Iran fought a bitter eight-year war, would dearly like to become one. And Afghanistan has a new government, installed through military force, by the world's largest nuclear power - the US.

As to how far Iran has got in its "aggressive" pursuit of these weapons, nobody really knows. According to the Federation of American Scientists (a reputable and unhysterical body), the US government's view in the mid-1990s was that Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon within five years - ie by 2000. In 1998 the US central command pushed the likely date further into the future - to 2005. Two years ago, the CIA concluded that Iran might be capable of producing a nuclear weapon at any time.

The CIA's reason for saying this was not that it believed Iran had made a breakthrough but that it was unable to track Iran's nuclear efforts with any great certainty. "Analysts at other intelligence agencies believed that Iran's efforts were still moving slowly," the federation says.

Another factor in the verbal onslaught against Iran is the war in neighbouring Afghanistan. Iran is accused of "meddling" by trying to undermine the new government, allowing al-Qaida fugitives to slip through its 600-mile border and providing recalcitrant warlords with money and weapons.

Again, it's instructive to consider how the Afghan situation appears from Tehran. Iran's right to "meddle" is surely no less than that of the US and, in common with other countries surrounding Afghanistan, it wants to have some influence over what happens there.

For a start, 15% of Afghans - like almost all Iranians - are Shia Muslims who suffered under the Taliban. Iran still hosts 2.8n Afghan refugees and wants them to return home when conditions are suitable.

Meanwhile, Iran has promised $560m (£394m) over the next five years to help rebuild Afghanistan. That sum, Iranian officials are quick to point out, is "only a bit less" than what the whole of Europe is contributing. We can safely assume that this is not purely an act of generosity and that Iran hopes to get political benefits from it - but so do the other donors.

Last week the Washington Post reported that Iran was giving aid of a more surreptitious kind to General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who rules the strategic northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. Although the interim government has tried to pacify him by making him minister of defence, General Dostum remains an unpredictable and dangerous man. Iran, according to the Washington Post, is supporting him with cars, trucks, firearms, ammunition and cash for the soldiers in his private army.

This might be considered shocking were it not for a report that appeared on the same day in another American paper, the Washington Times. The Times's story, which appeared to be well researched, said that the US had spent more than $10m bribing at least 35 Afghan warlords. In return for supporting the US against al-Qaida and the Taliban, they had each been given $200,000 and a satellite phone. The state department denied the report and the CIA refused to comment. But the paper quoted a western diplomat in Pakistan as saying: "It sounds like someone in the state department has finally learned how Afghanistan works."

The demonisation of Iran is certainly not new, but it has been stepped up dramatically in the US over the last few weeks. In the early stages of the Afghan war, Iran reaped modest praise for being helpful - which indeed it was, because it wanted to be rid of the Taliban. Now that the Taliban have gone and a new regime is being installed, the time has come to squeeze Iran out of the game.

The campaign against Iran reached a crescendo in the American media last week, coinciding with the visit to Washington by Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister. It might sound excessively conspiratorial to suggest any connection between these two events, but the Los Angeles Times spelled it out on February 6 with a headline which read: "Israel seeks to turn Iran into outcast."

The story, written by Marjorie Miller from Jerusalem, began: "Emboldened by President Bush's 'axis of evil' speech, the Israeli government has launched an international campaign against Iran ahead of prime minister Ariel Sharon's trip to the US ..."

It went on to say that the Israeli foreign ministry was "preparing a letter for Israeli ambassadors to present to foreign governments urging them to cut ties with Iran if it doesn't stop developing missiles and nonconventional weapons". An Israeli official was quoted as saying: "It is essential that we get the point across that the Iranian government is a wolf in sheep's clothing."

The "Iranian threat" is a tried-and-trusted Israeli card. Domestically, it helps to rally Israelis round the government when the going gets tough. Internationally, it helps to keep the military aid flowing into Israel from the US. Those F-16 warplanes are supposed to protect Israel from the likes of Iran, not to attack the Palestinian population.

This is not to deny the animosity between Iran and Israel, but Israel has its own reasons for hyping up the actual military threat. If you believed all the extravagant reports that appear in the Israeli media you would end up imagining that Iran's Revolutionary Guards held daily parades along the seafront in Beirut and Gaza.

The real issue with Iran is whether to isolate and - if necessary - punish it, or whether to seek engagement and rapprochement in the hope that this will become a moderating influence.

Those who advocate engagement highlight the positive signs: Iran has a reformist president, its elections are far more competitive than in most parts of the Middle East, and women play an increasingly important role. So far, reform has been impeded by the religious hardliners but Iran's population is young (more than 30% under the age of 14) and hungry for change. Ultimately the hardliners are going to lose, but it will take time.

Britain is among those supporting "critical engagement" with Iran, but the US is moving in the opposite direction. This is partly attributable to the view that terrorism breeds in failed states or weak states, where the government is unable to assert full control.

According to this argument, President Mohammed Khatami of Iran may be democratically elected and well intentioned, but if he can't run the country what's the point of having him? Some on the American right even suggest that it's time to bring back the Shah.

One recent example is the affair of the Karine A, the ship intercepted by Israel in the Red sea carrying 50 tonnes of weapons which it says originated in Iran. Israel has been trying to interpret this as evidence of a political alliance between the Iranian government and the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, but there is widespread scepticism, particularly in Europe.

So far, Israel has produced no evidence that Arafat or the Iranian government approved the shipment or knew about it. But according to some analysts, if they did not know or were unable to prevent it, that is all the more reason to take action against them. In a recent report for the Washington Institute (a thinktank with a rightwing American-Israeli perspective), Patrick Clawson wrote: "Some in Europe have argued that there is little evidence to substantiate Iranian government involvement in loading the Karine-A ..."

While disagreeing with the European view, Mr Clawson continued: "If the Israelis are correct, it would mean that Iran is a country with vast amounts of modern weapons readily available to terrorists without government permission. This is a truly frightening prospect - one that would merit establishing a maritime blockade of the Iranian coast so as to prevent the world's terrorists from loading up on heavy mortars, advanced explosives, automatic rifles and the like."

What the US appears to be on the point of doing is extending the "Sharon doctrine" - as practised against Yasser Arafat - to the rest of the world. The Sharon doctrine holds Arafat responsible for everything done by Palestinians. Sharon presumably knows that Arafat is not actually responsible for the activities of Islamic Jihad, etc, but according to the doctrine it's still Arafat's problem: either he should control his people or make way for someone who can.

The doctrine has already been applied in Afghanistan: the Taliban were unable to control Osama bin Laden and refused to hand him over, so they were removed and replaced. If we apply this to all the countries in the world where armed groups flourish because the government is incapable of controlling them, then the problem becomes enormous and it's easy to see the "war on terrorism" lasting for several centuries.

After Afghanistan and Iran, there would be Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and many others. Some countries might be blockaded and sanctioned until they changed their ways (though it hasn't worked too well with Iraq). Elsewhere, governments that showed willing - such as that in Yemen - would be given the means to assert control, but those that did not would have to be replaced.

Take this to its logical conclusion and we'll soon be in the business of installing authoritarian regimes in all the fragile countries around the world, and propping them up endlessly with dollars and weaponry in order to preserve our liberty in the west.

It's a Lone Ranger approach to global politics, which in the short run may play well among American voters. In the long run it is not only ludicrous but dangerous, and will surely breed more "terrorists" than it eliminates.

Today's huge anti-American demonstrations in Iran to mark the 23rd anniversary of the revolution provide a timely warning of how even the moderates can turn defiant in the face of an overbearing foreign power.