An Iranian Perspective: Obama and the Middle East

Iran Review has just posted an article by Dr. Mahmoud Reza Golshanpazhooh of the Tehran International Studies and Research Institute, on President Obama's foreign policy and the Middle East. I found the analysis intriguing both in its expression of Iran's interest in the region and in its "window of hope" for the new Administration. At the same time, there is an uncertainty about the substance of US policy and a warning that the window can be closed: "The US president must remember that candle of hope is not eternal and can be put out easily and due to a single incident."

Middle East: The Difficult Test of Hope in Obama

There may be no escaping of the fact that in the extremely realistic world of international relations the presence of a window of hope may be a source of optimism and pessimism at the same time. In fact, to the same extent that positive forces may be encouraged over the possibility of change and pin their hope in future horizons, uncertainty and suspicion plus bitter realism may work to eliminate the same window of hope. Here in addition to honesty and truthfulness whose requisites is the window of hope, hard work and faith in the path chosen as well as firmness in treading this path is vital for the strength of positive forces and thwarting its negative impacts.

“Change” and “hope” were two main points in the statements Barack Obama made before and after US presidential election. His words for many people of the world breathed life into the last rays of hope which were gradually fading away under the eight-year rule of the Neo-Cons.

In the Middle East region, the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan apparently shifted the battlefield from the American soil and the heart of New York but for the people of the region they had no outcome but death and destruction, floods of refugees and escalation of ethnic and religious disputes. Contrary to the propaganda, neither Iraq became safer compared to the time of Saddam Hussein nor Afghanistan became more stable than what it was under the Taliban.

As far as the Israeli-Palestinian differences were concerned not only they were not settled but were further aggravated. In fact, the two recent Israeli wars in Lebanon and Gaza were added to the list of unending tragedies in the region. Arms purchases severely increased and the climate of the region became strictly security oriented. Iran’s nuclear issue quickly turned into a security matter from a technical and scientific case. Four UN resolutions plus numerous other sanctions imposed by Europe and US increased the pressures on Tehran.

With the coming to power of Obama the crisis-riddled Middle East region had just one expectation from the American president: “Materialization and application of rationality in the US foreign policy in the region.” The kind of rationality to understand why the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has remained unresolved for 60 years; why the region has become a hub for training extremist religious forces; why Iran despite all the sanctions and pressures considers access to nuclear technology its unquestionable right; why the liberated Iraq cannot leave one single day behind without witnessing confrontations and bombings; why America’s biggest enemy, i.e., Al-Qaeda hails from Saudi Arabia, a formal US ally; why Israel is facing more complicated and tougher security problems every day; why suicide operations against US and NATO forces would never end; and why the idea of a stable and tranquil Middle East is becoming a dream never come true.

At present, one cannot perceive a specific sign from Obama’s foreign policy. The new US foreign policy team has tried to get to know the issues and cope with them cautiously and refrain from taking hasty decisions. Probably this is the same window of hope glimmering in the heart of inhabitants of the Middle East region. Can one hope that a sound and intelligent policy based on recognition and taking into account all the open and hidden potentials in the complicated issues of the region would show to the Middle Easterners that rationality is back in the US foreign policy? Can the taboo of Washington’s unsparing and unconditional support for Israel be broken in the mind of the regional people? Can something be done for the people of the region to believe that the US military presence in the region does not serve its personal interests or is not for control and supervision over the oil production and supply routes? Can the belief in America’s double standards in dealing with political, security and human rights issues of the region be erased from the people’s mind? Can the emotional and irrational approach towards Iran’s nuclear issue lead to clearing the region of nuclear arms? Can one be hopeful that IAEA inspectors would conduct at least one snap inspection of Israel’s nuclear installations? Can Hamas and Hizbollah be seen from a new and different look?

I am confident that the regional people’s candle of hope is still burning and many of them are precisely and carefully scrutinizing all the behaviors and reactions of President Obama to get a scent of change and rationality out of them. However, the US president must remember that candle of hope is not eternal and can be put out easily and due to a single incident.

Meanwhile in Iraq: Iran Looks for a Border Settlement

Iran Review has posted an intriguing article, translated from the Iranian newspaper Tabnak, by Mirmehrdad Mirsanjanri on "Undecided Fate of Iran’s Longest Border". As Iran pursues its own political reconciliation with a Baghdad asserting its independence from US oversight, the thorough review has a clear objective:

Implementation of the 1975 Algiers Accord and precise demarcation of joint borders 20 years after the Iraqi war against Iran (1980-88) will help forge a formal and lasting peace between the two neighboring countries and lead to the Iranian people’s trust in the Iraqi government’s goodwill.

Undecided Fate of Iran’s Longest Border

Iran’s 1485-km border with Iraq is the longest land border in the country. At the same time it has been one of the most disputed borders between Iranian and Ottoman governments over the past 100 years from the Safavid era onwards.

Following disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in 1920 and creation of a state called Iraq, the dispute continued under all the Iraqi governments from the monarchy to the republican rule of Abdul Ghasem and after him under the Baathist rule. The 1975 Algiers Accord which was inked between Iran and Iraq after lengthy talks between leaders of the countries put an end to the border dispute forever. The agreement specified the land borders with slight changes in favor of Iraq and the Arvand River (Shatt al-Arab) was divided between the two countries through the Thalweg line.

It is to be noted that Iran’s western borders are the only borders shaped without intervention of British colonialism and Russia. The Russians took Aran and Shervan (present day Azerbaijan Republic) through the Golestan Agreement in 1813. They also separated Armenia and Nakhichevan from Iran through the Turkmanchai Accord 15 years later, namely in 1828. Britain too took Herat and Afghanistan away from Iran by imposing the 1850 Agreement. They also separated a major part of Baluchestan from Iran in 1905 and annexed it to their East India Empire.

Contemplation on the situation of Iran’s borders with Iraq located in the Kurdish regions in the north and Arab populated regions in the south makes implementation of the 1975 border agreement inevitable. The successor Iraqi government’s refusal to fulfill its commitment to the accord has received little attention due to the brotherly aids of Iran to the Iraqi people. Failure in border demarcation has caused the Iraqi troops and coalition forces stationed in Iraq to penetrate 500m to 1 km into the Iranian borders on some occasions in open violation of IRI’s territorial integrity.

In the meantime, Iraqi troops maintain a presence in the Iranian section of Arvand River (Shatt al-Arab) every now and then claiming to be in the Iraqi waters. To this we must add repeated violations by Iraqi thugs of Iranian waterway in Arvand River. Under the critical conditions in the region where foreigners intend to harm ethnic solidarity of Iranian tribes it is imperative for the Iranian government to make the Iraqi side respect the 1975 Algiers Accord.

Implementation of the 1975 Algiers Accord and precise demarcation of joint borders 20 years after the Iraqi war against Iran (1980-88) will help forge a formal and lasting peace between the two neighboring countries and lead to the Iranian people’s trust in the Iraqi government’s goodwill.

Meantime, establishment of security in the western borders of the country in addition to thwarting global threats against Iran’s territorial integrity will result in an economic boost for the people of these regions. Let’s not forget that to safeguard every inch of Iran’s land and water borders, the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranian youth has been shed. Therefore, the Iranian nation will accept no negligence towards practical execution of the 1975 Algiers Accord.

Before waging his war against Iran in 1980, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein appeared before TV and news media and impudently tore up the 1975 Algiers Accord on the pretext that Iraq’s rights had been overlooked in the international agreement.

And now six years into the fall of Saddam Hussein, the successor Iraqi government has not only failed to show its practical commitment to the agreement and pay war reparations to Iran but we hear Iraqi officials speaking about the need to revise the agreement and urging Tehran to forego the war reparations Baghdad must pay after it was identified by the UN as the aggressor party in the war.

A prominent Iraqi official said in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV network that he had explicitly asked Tehran to skip the war reparations. He also said those who are seeking war reparations are agents of Israel!

However, I would like to drawn the attention of the Iraqi officials to the following points:

1. The 1975 Algiers Accord is a formal and international agreement prepared on the basis of international law; it can neither be abrogated unilaterally nor can it be altered or revised with the change of governments.

2. The war reparations Iraq must pay to Iran do not belong to certain individuals or groups so they would have the right to forgo them. The money rather belongs to each and every Iranian who has tolerated the sufferings of the war with their flesh and blood. In the Iraqi imposed war which is known as the longest classic war in the 20th century, about one million Iranians were martyred, injured, maimed or suffered chemical wounds. The number of those suffering from the mental and psychological impacts of the war is much higher. Moreover, many Iranian families are still looking for their beloved ones who are missing in action. Therefore, it is the Iranian nation who has a right to make a decision on how to deal with the war reparation issue.

3. The refusal by the Iraqi establishment to pay war reparations to Iran is not called courage. Courage means for the Iraqi government to formally apologize to Iranians and announce its readiness to pay the war reparations. On the other hand, real courage by the Iraqi government would be in its firm decision to oust the American and British troops from its land.

4. Undoubtedly for the countries present in Iraq which have drawn up long term plans to plunder Iraq’s abundant wealth the payment of war reparations would be a bitter pill to swallow. By resorting to various schemes, including pressuring the Iraqi officials who have close ties with Iran, these countries are trying to make the Iranian government give up the rights of the present and future generations.

5. The Iraqi war against Iran, according to estimates of experts, caused a delay of 50 years in Iran’s economic and social development. Therefore, the war reparation of 1000 billion dollars would make up only for part of the damage the Iranian people have suffered and will suffer in the future.

6. Leveling “Israeli agents” charges against advocates of the Iranian people’s rights is just a ploy to deceive the people and would have no result for the Iraqi government but to provoke the pan-Arab sentiments of Arabs.

7. While reparations of the short war (Persian Gulf War) amounting to billions is being regularly paid by Iraq to other parties and considering that Iraq is in possession of the largest oil reserves (approx. 200 billion barrels), the Iraqi officials’ refusal to pay war reparations to Iran is not acceptable nor can it be justified in any way.

8. There is no doubt that there are numerous cultural and historical commonalties between Iranians and Iraqi Shias, but what can really establish peace between the two countries after 20 years is for the Iraqi government to respect the UN Security Council Resolution 598, pay war reparations as the aggressor party, and show practical respect for the 1975 Algiers Accord.

9. According to the international law, the change of governments would not clear their successors of respecting the commitments of their predecessors. The Japanese government had to apologize to the Korean people 40 years after committing crimes against them. After the lapse of 60 years since the World War II and despite the coming to power of many governments, the German government is still paying compensation to the war victims.

10. After the goodwill of the Iraqi side in execution of the 1975 Algiers Accord is proved and after Baghdad officially apologizes to the Iranian nation and declares its readiness to pay war reparations, the Iranians could also prove their goodwill through some proposals on mechanisms of payment of war reparations. This could include payment on long term installments; exclusive and long term development by Iran of Iraq’s rich oilfields; or contributions by the countries which aided Iraq in its war against Iran to pay the reparations.