Hassan Dai, February 2015

Experience of Rafsanjai.’s overture in the 1990s and current Rouhani’s detent have the same message that the smile diplomacy in one hand and the use of terror and spread of fundamentalism to dominate the region on the other hand are leverages used by Iranian regime to advance its strategic goals

———————————————

In early 2006, as the Iranian proxy militias in Iraq were killing US troops and a short time before the Lebanese Hezbollah waged a decisive war on Israel at the behest of Iran, Ali Akbar Velayati former Iranian foreign minister and a current top advisor to the Supreme Leader published an article in “Shargh” newspaper and tried to explain Iran’s foreign policy. He wrote:

“The Middle East is Iran’s backyard since it is the region where Iran can best exert its influence and advance its strategic interests. Iran plans to become the most powerful nation in the region within twenty years… Consequently, when the world is forced to accept Iranian hegemony in the region and recognizes that there will be no peace and stability without Iranian cooperation and agreement, then, the US and Iran can cooperate and mutually profit from this collaboration. Iran’s position in the region is our winning card that we should use in nuclear negotiations in a way that can guarantee our strategic goals.” (March 15, 2006, Shargh Nowrooz edition)

Nearly nine years in November 2014, as Iran’s military presence and its armed proxies spread from Lebanon to Yemen, Hossein Mousavian, a former diplomat and a close confidant of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani wrote an article for Al-Monitor, titled: “Geopolitical shifts dictate nuclear deal with Iran” and declared: “As a result of the tectonic developments in the Middle East in recent years, the geopolitics of the region have shifted significantly. Amid 35 years of all-out sanctions and pressure on Iran, the outcomes of the Middle East’s ebbs and flows include Iran’s emergence as the most stable country in the area and as a regional power, Arab countries either in turmoil or vulnerable to unrest and destabilization and the unprecedented rise of violent extremist groups. These developments could serve as the impetus for an Iranian-Western rapprochement.”

While the above quotes from key players in Iran’s foreign policy are in need of no further explanation, two related episodes that have recently been headline news can help us to better grasp the nature and direction of Iran’s foreign policy: the AMIA terrorist attack in Argentina in 1994 and the killing of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general and several Hezbollah commanders on Golan Heights near the Israeli border in January 2015.

AMIA bombing: On January 19, 2015, Alberto Nisman the Argentine prosecutor who investigated the 1994 terrorist attack on AMIA (Association Mutual Israelite Argentina) was found dead in his apartment. His death by gunshot occurred one day before he was expected to testify before the Congress. As CNN reported, “Nisman announced had filed a criminal complaint accusing Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of engaging in a conspiracy with Iran to cover up Tehran’s role in orchestrating and financing the AMIA bombing. In an earlier indictment, he had accused Hezbollah and Iran of carrying out the hit.”

The AMIA attack that killed 85 innocent people and injured hundreds was the deadliest among a long series of terrorist attacks by the Iranian regime in the early 1990s when the so-called moderate President Hashemi Rafsanjani attempted to improve relations with the US and lift sanctions against Iran.

The AMIA bombing and the widespread terror campaign in the 1990s against Israeli and Jewish targets around the world and in Israel reflected a strategic decision made by Iran in 1991 to oppose the Madrid conference of peace between Israel and Palestinians, create the axis of resistance in order to help the Iranian regime fill the political and ideological vacuum in the Middle East resulted by the fall of USSR.

Incident on Golan Heights: On January 18, 2015, twenty one years after the AMIA attack, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general and ten Hezbollah commanders were killed by Israeli rockets on Golan Heights in Syria. The incident shows the Iranian success to open an additional front against Israel and illustrates the extent of Iranian military presence in the region.

As the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and his foreign minister Javad Zarif continue their charm offensive toward the West, the Iranian revolutionary guards control a vast web of proxy militias throughout the Middle East in Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Syria, Iraq and beyond.

Iran’s policy of using its military power and terror groups to exert its hegemony in the region is the continuation of the same strategy that Iran opted two decades ago. Once again, the new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani considered by some in the West as a moderate, seeks to improve relations with the US and lift economic sanctions against Iran.

In order to understand the current Iranian foreign policy under Rouhani and see whether he will succeed in his overture toward the West, it is necessary to re-examine the decision made by Iran in the early 1990s under Rafsanjani and understand why his efforts to improve relations with the US and lift the sanctions failed.

The 1991 turning point, strategic decision

In 1988, the eight year deadly war with Iraq that ruined the Iranian economy came to an end. A year later, Ruhollah Khomein the founder of the Islamic Republic died and Hashemi Rafsanjani regarded as a moderate politician, became President. He vowed to improve the economic situation and also planned to improve relations with the West, notably with the US. His government signed a pre-agreement with US oil company Conoco to develop gas and oil fields in Iran, a move designed to push US oil giants to lobby the US administration to change its policy with Iran and lift the sanctions.

In the early 1990s, the Soviet Union collapsed and Saddam Hussein was defeated in the first Gulf War, creating a political and ideological vacuum in the region which Iran intended to fill in order to expand its influence in the Islamic world. To do so, Iran embarked on an anti-Israeli crusade under the guise of freeing Palestine.

In 1991, the US sponsored Madrid conference assembled Arab states, Israel and Palestinian delegations to seek a peaceful solution to the hostilities and pave the road for the creation of a Palestinian state. As the prospects for peace emerged, the Iranian regime was faced with two options: the first was to support the peace process, improve relations with the US and end Iran’s isolation and economic sanctions. But the Iranian leadership felt that peace between Israel and the Palestinians would deprive Iran of its ideological and political justification for interfering in the Middle East and seeking hegemony in the Islamic world. As a result, Iran made a strategic decision and chose the second option, to oppose and destroy the peace process.

On October 17, 1991 the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei released a fiery statement against the recognition of Israel by the peace process and opposed the two state solution, urging Palestine to “make the entire world unsafe for the Zionists.”

A few month later, On March 17, 1992 a suicide car hit the Israeli embassy in Argentine that killed 30 and wounded hundreds. Two years later, on July 18, 1994 another suicide truck hit the AMIA building in Buenos Aires killing 85 and wounding hundreds. The next day, a bomb exploded in a small Panamanian plane killing all 20 passengers including 12 Jews. A week later, on July 26 two bombs exploded near the Israeli embassy and a Jewish center in London injuring scores of people.

The Iranian sponsored terror campaign continued in Israel. Tens of terrorist attacks targeting buses and public places killing tens of civilians. As a result, the hostilities increased between Palestinians and Israel, the moderate factions in the Palestinian authority were weakened and the peace process was halted.

The Iranian terror spree did not end there. Between 1991 and 1996, over hundred exiled Iranian opposition figures were assassinated by Iranian regime’s commandos throughout Europe. The terror madness reached its climax in June 1996 with a terrorist attack against a housing complex in Khobar, Saudi Arabia that killed 19 US Air Force servicemen.

As a result, In July 1996, the US Congress passed the ILSA sanction law against Iran. Then, in April 1997, a German court ruled that the Iranian leadership masterminded the 1992 terrorist attack against Iranian Kurdish leaders in Mikonos restaurant in Berlin. As a result, the European ambassadors were called back to their countries and Iranian relations with Europe reached its lowest level since the 1979 revolution.

Consequently, Iran’s policy of terror backfired and Rafsanjain’s plan to improve relations with the US and lifting US sanctions failed. Ironically, the moderate President and his cabinet members were directly involved in planning and executing the terrorist campaign.

Hassan Rouhani’s era

In 2013, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency ended. During his eight years in office, he followed the Supreme Leader’s confrontational approach in his foreign policy and nuclear program. As a result, crippling sanctions were imposed on Iran that ruined its mismanaged economy.

In order to reduce the social and political tensions in the country and lessen the economic sanctions, Hassan Rouhani became President. The Supreme Leader publicly supported a conciliatory approach in nuclear negotiations and the new President and his foreign minister Javad Zarif began a charm offensive to influence public opinion and decision makers in the West.

During his first visit to the US in 2013, Rouhani made a Speech at Asia Society on September 26, where he outlined his foreign policy and declared that Iran will “discard any extreme approach in the conduct of its relations with other states, will seek effective and constructive understanding and interaction with the outside world, focus on mutual confidence-building with its neighbors and other regional and international actors, and try to orient our foreign policy towards economic development of our country.” Rouhani claimed that Iran is a reliable and strategic partner to combat extremism and sought to bring peace and stability to the Middle East:

“It is unfortunate that, many countries in our region wrestle with domestic and/or international issues and challenges with grave repercussions for other regional and international actors. There is no doubt that they mostly consist of issues of interest and concern to many regional and global actors who need to join force and make common efforts to address them. My country, as a major power in the region, is fully prepared to move in this direction and spare no effort to facilitate solutions to these issues, thus contributing to the maintenance of international and regional peace and stability.”

As Rouhani and Zarif continue their charm offensive, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ Guds force led by Ghassem Soleimani has escalated its military operations throughout the region.

Across the greater Middle East, Iran’s efforts to extend its influence have been blunt and brutal: It supports Shiite insurrections in Yemen and Bahrain; it attempts to manipulate Lebanese politics through its Beirut-based proxy, Hezbollah; it intervenes in Gaza and against the already-fading hope for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Arab crisis.

But nothing underscores the Iranian regime’s imperialistic, hegemonic nature more than its support for the Assad regime in Damascus. Without Iran’s assistance, Assad would have fallen a long time ago. The death toll in Syria ismore than 200,000; half of Syria’s population has been displaced. These dark achievements of the Assad regime would not have been possible without Iran. Thousands of Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps troops and advisers, plus Iranian weaponry, have made all the difference for Assad. As arecent study by the Middle East Institute states:

It is no longer accurate to describe the war in Syria as a conflict between Syrian rebels on the one hand and Bashar al-Assad’s regime forces “supported” by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRG), Hezbollah, and Iraqi militias on the other. Most major battles in Syria—along the frontlines of regime-held areas—are now being directed and fought by the IRG and Hezbollah, along with other non-Syrian Shi‘i militias, with Assad forces in a supportive or secondary role. …

One result of this heavy Iranian involvement in the war in Syria has been a change in the nature of the relationship between the Syrian and the Iranian regimes. From historically being mutually beneficial allies, the Iranian regime is now effectively the dominant force in regime-held areas of Syria, and can thus be legally considered an “occupying force,” with the responsibilities that accompany such a role.

The recent Israeli attack on Golan Heights against a group of Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah commanders show Tehran’s strategic success in opening a new front against Israel from Syrian side.

In 2012 Iranian Revolutionary Guards and their proxies, Hizballah and Iraqi Shiite militias, intervened in the Syrian civil war to save the Bashar Assad’s regime and participated in the brutal massacre of Syrian people. A direct result of Iranian intervention and the extent of human disaster was the creation of safe haven for extremist groups and emergence of ISIS.

In Iraq, after the US withdrawal in December 2011, the Iranian backed government of Nouri Al-Maliki and Iranian proxy Shite militias intensified sectarian and repressive policies against the Sunnis. This resulted in a widespread uprising in Sunni regions and facilitated the return of ISIS to Iraq and the capture of important cities in 2014.

In Palestine, Iran has restored financial and military support to Hamas, continued and increases its support to Islamic Jihad in Gaza and radical groups in the West Bank. Iran has also escalated the anti-Israeli campaign significantly and the Supreme Leader is using social media to spread anti-Semitism, denial of the Holocaust and support for the eradication of Israel.

While the Iranian foreign minister Zarif continues to charm the Western media, Ghassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran Guds Force and its proxy militias continue to expand Iranian hegemony in the region.

Partnership and blackmail

For an observer who is not familiar with Iran’s foreign policy in the past three decades, it is difficult to understand how the Iranian regime is simultaneously trying to advances a charm offensive, presenting itself as a reliable partner for peace and stability in the region and at the same time, expanding its military presence and empowering armed militias in the region to advance Iran’s strategic goals.

In fact, Rouhani and Zarif’s foreign policy and their work plan is based on a doctrine they call a “win-win” or “mutual benefit strategy for Iran and the West”. They have outlined this doctrine in various speeches and interviews since taking office, emphasizing that they do not see Iran as vanquished and claim that despite domestic and external challenges, the Iranian regime still holds winning cards that could be used to overcome the current crisis. In a meeting with the members of the Iranian parliament Zarif stated:

“We believe the US is not a super-power and we can defeat the US and Israel in the diplomatic arena. We should believe in the power and capacities of the revolution and the country. The United States and the Zionists want to show that Iran has no room to play. But we have both the power and the capacity. We know the rules of the game and we can play the best game.” One of Zarif’s winning cards or leverage is Iranian hegemony and military presence in the Middle East.

The win-win doctrine and use of regional hegemony to blackmail the West was first publicized by Ali Akbar Velayati, the former Iranian Foreign Minister under Rafsanjani and current advisor to the Supreme Leader.

For the Iranian regime, the smile diplomacy and use of terrorism complement each other and help the Iranian regime to overcome external and internal challenges. However, the failed experience of Rafsanjani and recent developments in Iran and in the region suggest the contrary; that Iranian dominance in the region is based on the use of terror and spread of fundamentalism, a strategy that contradicts the long term peace and stability in the region and will therefore be challenged and eventually pushed back by regional actors and the international community.