BEIRUT — I have no doubt that the American-Iranian bilateral relationship is the most important issue in the Middle East — and perhaps the world — in which there is room for progress (unlike the equally important Arab-Israeli conflict, where progress seems unlikely, other than on the Syrian-Israeli front perhaps).
If this is the case, and Washington is likely to pay more attention to both Syria and Iran, how can we transcend the current legacy of tensions, hostility, threats and defiance among them?
What has not worked in recent years and has kept tensions high has been Washington’s treating Iran and Syria as delinquents who need to show signs that they are capable of rehabilitation, and the Syrians and Iranians thumbing their noses at the United States and needling it everywhere they could in the Middle East, including through hostile rhetoric against Israel or active support of Arab groups fighting against Israel.
In most of the recent meetings and conferences I have attended on Middle Eastern issues, a recurring theme asks whether Barack Obama’s administration will try a new approach to relations with countries like Iran and Syria — while also asking if Syria and Iran wish to turn a new page with their ties with Washington. Speaking regularly as I do with officials and politically engaged citizens from Syria, Iran and the United States, my hunch is that the answer to both questions is “yes” — all parties prefer to have normal, even cordial relations.
They will only move towards that goal, however, on the basis of negotiated relationships that take into account their respective national interests. (Personal egos and national pride also come into play, but when cold and hard national interests are satisfied the ego factors become less important.) The American re-engagement in Arab-Israeli peace-making with the appointment of George Mitchell, and the review of Pakistan-Afghanistan policy with the appointment of Richard Holbrook, both indicate a serious American will to change policy for the better. Iran and Syria are crucial players in both arenas.
What can the Obama administration learn from the mistakes and failures of the Bush years? How can Iran and Syria also engage in more constructive diplomacy?
I would suggest that three R’s should define the manner in which the U.S., Iran and Syria re-engage with each other in the coming months and years, reversing the contentious legacy and failed policies of recent years: Respect, Reciprocity and Rights.
Respect is the most difficult of the three to implement because it is an intangible quality related to style as much as it is to substance. It means dealing with each other as equally legitimate negotiating partners rather than as dangerous deviants or genetic ogres. It also requires an end to Washington’s insulting tendency to speak of Iran and Syria as criminals who have to prove their desire for rehabilitation in order to be allowed into the club of normal or civilized nations. The more that the United States in recent years has tried to pressure and threaten Damascus and Tehran, the more defiant these two ancient Middle Eastern power centers have become, and the more they have resisted significantly changing their policies or rhetoric.
Reciprocity is an easier concept to apply because it simply requires that principles of policy, national conduct or compliance with international norms be applied even-handedly to all concerned actors, without perpetuating the legacy of making exceptions that reflect American or Israeli interests, i.e., on implementing UN resolution, applying international humanitarian law in times of war, or inspecting nuclear facilities. It is perfectly fair for both sides to demand that basic international norms of conduct be respected, but such a demand will only be taken seriously when it is applied consistently across the region, and not selectively.
Rights issues fall somewhere between reciprocity and respect, because national rights in particular are often relative to perceptions of one’s vulnerabilities and one’s place in the world. Basic rights issues like territorial sovereignty, regime legitimacy and freedom from occupation or invasion should be easy to affirm, especially when linked to a diplomatic approach that includes the principles of respect and reciprocity.
Iran, Syria and the United States (with the U.S. being a proxy for Israel on many of the issues at hand) would probably find themselves on friendlier terms if they focused on identifying and acknowledging the core national rights and interests they wish to safeguard, rather than reacting to the hostile intentions and aspirations that they perceive in each other — namely, their mutual “hegemonic” ambitions in the region. All sides raise legitimate issues and concerns that are political in nature and therefore have political solutions.
The last eight years of mutual threats, sanctions and defiance have only intensified tensions. Reconnecting on the basis of a common commitment to respect, reciprocity and rights might offer a more effective path forward, if more mature officials all around risk attempting such an approach.
Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.
Copyright © 2009 Rami G. Khouri – distributed by Agence Global
—————
Released: 25 February 2009
Word Count: 817
—————-