Last week in Bahrain I listened to a very interesting speech, interesting for all the wrong reasons. It started with underlining the significance of ‘the establishment of a democratic and independent government in Iraq, and of supporting ‘political diversity’ there. It went on about the importance of the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly. It argued for ‘the support for the independence, development, and security of Yemen’, about how the international community ‘should be united on these principles’, and it warned, regarding the situation in Northwest Yemen, that ‘these conflicts are not going to be of interest for Yemen’ in particular and for the Middle East more generally. In Lebanon’, this speech argued, ‘the participation of all political groups paves the way for national solidarity, and we play a leading role in that respect’. The concluding remarks focused on the inconveniences of weakening the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the need to promote security and stability, and the centrality of the relationship between economic development and security.
At first sight, this is was a rather thoughtful speech. However, knowing its author completely changes one’s perception. Indeed, these apparently well intentioned words described above were not uttered by the UN Secretary General, but by Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. What to make of this speech seemed to be in the minds of a wide-ranging audience of politicians, diplomats, military commanders, and journalists, from all across the wider Middle East, the United States, and Europe. Though quite unique in the broad range of issues it covered, Mottaki’s words certainly do not represent a new development. The intervention of Mottaki is well in line with the behaviour and the type of rhetoric the Iranian government adopted since August 2005, when Ahmadinejad was first elected.
Going over most of the issues addressed by Mottaki, and analysing Iran’s recent policy towards each one of them, it almost seems that the Iranian foreign minister meant exactly the opposite of all he was saying. Let’s see. In Iraq, Iran is doing everything within its reach to establish a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad. These efforts even included the support of armed groups that made much harder the effort of stabilizing Iraq. Talking about human rights and the Human Rights Council, a look at the repression, violence, and torture episodes that followed the fraudulent elections in Iran is enough to be said. And how can Iran claim to support Abdullah Saleh’s government and the stability of Yemen when it clearly backs, at least ideologically – or logistically as claimed by the Yemeni government – the Houthi rebellion. Asserting that Iran has played a leading role in encouraging the participation of all political groups and national solidarity in Lebanon is something close to a joke when one considers that Iran is the godfather of Hezbollah. And finally, how can one promote stability and security when Iran defies all international rules to pursue a nuclear power programme of which the real intentions are very doubtful.
It is when considering Iran’s nuclear ambitions in particular that this kind of diplomacy – if it deserves that name – becomes a serious cause for concern. Of course, there is no room in international politics for naivety, and most if not all politicians hide and conceal facts, and are led to portray reality differently, i.e. the way they want others to see it. However, the absolute lack of concern from Ahdmadinejad, Mottaki, and other Iranian officials, for showing consistency between words and actions is itself revealing of the feeling the current Iranian regime has that it is untouchable. While armed force as tool to press the Iranian government to concede on its nuclear programme is the worst of all options, diplomacy and dialogue attempts were useless until this day. This is why in this very particular case, while the option of dialogue should be always opened, further sanctions is the right way to go. Sanctions show resolve, but not an overtly aggressive one.
Many attempts to engage the current Iranian government in order to negotiate the nuclear dossier have promised some kind of breakthrough, and all of them achieved nothing. It has now been more than four years since the United States and several European countries have been trying to engage with the current Iranian government in order to negotiate the nuclear dossier. The explanation, or the excuse, that the problem was the Bush administration is no longer valid. With a new American administration willing to talk, the progress is again non-existent. The Iranian tactic of buying time until it actually achieves nuclear weapons capability is working just fine. Mottaki’s disdain, arrogance, and the way the Iranian Foreign Minister told the audience that Iran is the most benign regional power reminded me of what someone said of a diplomat – ‘a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip’.
