|
|
|
|
Middle East Review of International Affairs
Tehran, Washington and Terror: No Agreement to Differ
by Abbas Samii
*
Abstract
The U.S. accuses Iran of being a state-sponsor of terrorism, and Iran levels the same accusation at the U.S. The U.S. says that Lebanese Hizballah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad are terrorists, while Tehran sees them as liberation movements. This is more than a disagreement over terminology -- state-sponsors of terrorism are subject to legal sanctions. Washington has indicated its willingness to hold a dialog with Tehran about terrorism and other issues, but Tehran demands the lifting of sanctions beforehand. What is the potential for a dialog under these circumstances, and what will be the effect of Iranian officials giving aid or sanctuary to al-Qauda personnel who are fleeing Afghanistan.
Tehran and Washington have not held an official and open bilateral dialogue for some twenty years, and one of the biggest obstacles to such a dialogue is Iranian support for what the U.S. sees as terrorism. Since 1984, the U.S. government has described Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. The Iranian government levels the same accusation at the U.S. Washington describes organizations that Tehran assists, such as Lebanese Hizballah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC), as terrorist groups. Tehran sees them as liberation movements.
The Iranian government feels obliged to support these organizations. According to Article 154 of the Iranian constitution, while completely refraining from any interference in the internal matters of other nations, [Iran] supports the rightful struggle of the oppressed people against their oppressors anywhere in the world. In the words of a former Iranian president, "We support those people who are defending their rights. In Islamic countries, we stand behind the struggling and combatant Muslims. In other places, such as Palestine, we do not recognize the legitimacy of Israel."
American identification of any country as a state sponsor of terrorism means that it must be subject to certain legal penalties, and Iran's involvement with terrorism has made it the subject of additional legal penalties and sanctions. Washington has expressed a willingness to engage in a dialogue with Tehran. Tehran has set as its precondition for any dialogue the lifting of these sanctions.
This article will contrast Iranian definitions of terrorism with the American definitions of that phenomenon. This article also will discuss Washington's perspective on Tehran--direct involvement with and support for international terrorism. A discussion about alleged Iranian involvement with al-Qauda, the organization responsible for the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., will follow. Iran and the U.S. may continue to discuss issues of mutual interest, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Nagorno-Karabakh, in multilateral fora, and they may hold unofficial bilateral discussions in places like Cyprus and Switzerland, but disagreements over the fundamental issue of terrorism militate against a more substantive and open dialogue in the near future.
Full PDF Document, 14 pages, 87kbs
Endnotes
Note *: Dr. A. William Samii is a senior regional analyst with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and he writes the weekly RFE/RL Iran Report http://www.rferl.org/iran-report. His previous articles for MERIA are: "Sisyphus' Newsstand: The Iranian Press Under Khatami," MERIA Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3 (September 2001); "Iran's 2000 Elections",MERIA Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1 (January 2000); "The Contemporary Iranian News Media, 1998-1999," MERIA Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4 (December 1999). Samii contributed a chapter to The Region at the Center of the World: Crises and Quandaries in the Contemporary Persian Gulf, Barry Rubin, ed. (London: Frank Cass, 2002), and he has been published in the Middle East Journal, Middle East Policy, Middle Eastern Studies, The Weekly Standard, and The Wall Street Journal Europe. Back