The American-Iranian Council (AIC) held a one-day conference "The 107^th Congress and Iran: Implications for US-Iranian Relations" in Washington DC on March 22, 2001, coinciding with the Iranian New Year.

After welcoming remarks by AIC President Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi, conference speakers addressed the participants in two panels "Views on US-Iran Relations" and "Views from Capitol Hill".

Speakers included AIC Chairman Robert H. Pelletreau, ISmart CEO Japeh Youssefi, Chevron Corporation Board’s Vice Chairman Richard H. Matzke, Democrat Congressman Tom Lantos, Republican Congressman Bob Ney, and Republican Senator Arlen Specter.

Despite the AIC’s extensive efforts to invite Hadi Nejad Hosseinian, Iran’s ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations, to deliver the opening address, the Iranian official apparently preferred to voice his views on the subject in a speech to Montana University’s Foreign Relations Council a day ahead of the AIC conference.

The AIC conference organizers were ostensibly displeased with the Iranian diplomat’s absence, since they apparently wanted to use his presence as the Islamic Republic’s seal of approval of the conference.

Tom Lantos was the most sensational speaker at the event, as he vehemently criticized Iran for not doing enough to improve relations with the United States!

Noting that the US had reached out its hand to Iran, only to be met with a negative response, Lantos said that unless Tehran changed its policies, he would support the renewal of legislation that deters foreign investment in Iran.

Lantos blasted Iran for its human rights record and said Iran was still supporting terrorism and developing chemical weapons.

Several Iranian participants in the conference walked out in objection to Lantos’ remarks.

Bagher Harand elaborated on Lantos’ statements by noting, "The rock bottom moment of the event was perpetrated by Congressperson Lantos of California who kept repeating the same old three politically charged rhetoric lingered on from the Clinton era as condition for better relations with Iran. I could not help it but to abruptly storm out of the lecture hall in the middle of his gibberish so as to make a statement, and I reckon they all noticed that! He certainly illustrated a new lower level of meaning to the phrase ‘Abused becomes abuser’…."

As Lantos left the lecture hall immediately after his speech, Japeh Youssefi directed his protest to Congressman Bob Ney.

Youssefi said, "Lantos claims that Iran did not welcome improvement of ties with the US without considering the last-minute change that was made to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s speech at last year’s AIC meeting. The unexpected change was made to question the political legitimacy of Iran’s highest-ranking political-religious official Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei. Seasoned political observers contend that if the said paragraph had not been incorporated in the Secretary of State’s speech, Washington would have most probably gotten a positive response from Iran."

"How does the US Administration expect to hold talks with Iran when it questions the legitimacy of the Iranian leader?" Youssefi asked, noting, "This means that while not recognizing the Iranian regime, Washington wants to negotiate with Tehran, and this is contradictory. In her speech last year Ms. Albright stressed the United States’ readiness to hold talks with Iran on the basis of the principle of mutual respect. But Iranian statesmen consider interference in domestic affairs a clear sign of disrespect. For instance, statements by Americans on Iran’s weapons policies are flagrant interventions in Iran’s domestic affairs, in response to which Iran logically reserves the right to question the US weapons policies."

While revering Iran’s historic culture and civilization, Congressman Bob Ney, in his speech, welcomed improvement of Tehran-Washington relations.

He maintained that some of his fellow thinkers in Congress have sent a letter to the Iranian Parliament welcoming Iran-US rapprochement and voicing readiness to travel to Iran to promote this objective.

"So far, we have not heard from the Iranian Parliament. But whenever Iran gives a positive response, we are ready to immediately board a plane and go to Tehran," he stressed.

Iranians present in the conference welcomed these remarks by Bob Ney who is fluent in Farsi and who taught at Shiraz University for years.

Addressing the conference, Japeh Youssefi elaborated on the impacts of US economic sanctions on Iran.

Emphasizing that "the US sanctions have so far had minimal impact on Iran’s economy as a whole, in comparison to what Iran has done to itself", Youssefi appealed to the US government to lift the sanctions.

He enumerated Iran’s economic problems as politically driven monetary policies, multi-level currency exchange rates, inefficient banking system, unchecked high rates of inflation, ineffective subsidies, corrupt customs practices, and a lack of concern for the rule of law.

Referring to Iran as a country with the "youngest population on the planet", Youssefi remarked that these youth are "the most deprived segment of Iranian society in terms of economic opportunities".

Given these factors and given the existence of the "Trade-Mafia" in Iran, Youssefi appealed for removal of US sanctions, at least on software development as a starting point.

He maintained that this move will generate employment in Iran, "provide a good will gesture from the people of America to the Iranian people", and serve as "the starting point in the process towards economic reforms long sought by the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei".

In his closing address Arlen Specter, while endorsing views put forward by Bob Ney, underscored the need for dialogs to settle Iran-US disputes and voiced readiness to travel to Iran to this end in case of Tehran’s consent.

Terming his meeting with Iranian Parliament Speaker Mahdi Karrubi in the Metropolitan Museum last summer beneficial and coupled with understanding, Specter said that during his talks with the Iranian Parliament speaker, he tabled his request to travel to Iran.

Specter expressed firm belief in the possibility of resolving problems by avoiding hostility and mud slinging.

Youssefi then requested that the fate of four Iranian diplomats taken hostage in Israel be clarified as a gesture of US good will. Specter expressed full readiness to take any measure to this end to positively influence improvement of Iran-US relations.

The conference was followed by the Iranian New Year Gala, celebrating the achievements of the Iranian-American community. This year’s honorees were Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH), Chairman, House Administration Committee and Dr. Jamshid Ghajar, President, the Brain Trauma Foundation.

Worthy of note was President George Bush’s Nowruz greetings to the Iranian-American community which was faxed to the AIC on March 8, 2001.

Political observers following Iran-US developments interpreted the New Year greetings from various perspectives.

They contended that in case the greetings had come out of a political will to win the hearts of Iranian statesmen and people, it could have reflected the US resolve to revamp its hostile approach toward Iran.

Even though the US President could have fulfilled this objective by sending the greetings directly to the Iranian statesmen and people – as did Colin Powell a week before – he preferred to channel the greetings through the AIC by faxing it to Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi and addressing it to the Iranian-American community. This move indicates that the new White House team is a novice when it comes to political decisions related to Iran.

But if to preserve its monopoly as the sole link between the US and Iran, the American-Iranian Council prompted Washington to play this card through the AIC on the grounds that it wields influence over Iranian statesmen, it in effect hampered the US-Iran reconciliation by serving as a stumbling block in the process.

The AIC’s political motive in playing this go-between role seems to emerge out of the body’s urge to assert and establish itself as the sole corridor through which Tehran and Washington could get close and negotiate, rather than to facilitate Iran-US détente. Granted this were the case, the AIC has unwittingly caused President Bush’s Nowruz greetings to lose the effect it could have had and faced the White House with a heavy toll by causing further delay in settlement of Iran-US differences.

The undeniable fact is that whenever Iran reaches a firm political resolve for resumption of relations with the US, it will be bold enough to go ahead with its decision without the need for any mediator, just as it did in the case of the former Soviet Union with which it had had frosty relations for years but with which it directly held dialogs when it decided to improve ties with Moscow.

At present, however, the Islamic Republic of Iran is grappling with so many domestic issues that it cannot allot any time, thought, or energy to rapprochement with the US.

Had the AIC been well versed with Iran’s political developments, it could have informed the White House that domestic tensions and differences between the reformists and the conservatives mount ahead of the presidential elections, and that as such this would not be the right time to curry favor with Iran!

Another setback is that Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi’s pivotal role in the AIC practically prevents the Iranian statesmen from getting close to the AIC.

Regardless of Dr. Amirahmadi’s motives, the Iranian statesmen generally view him and the AIC with distrust. Some conservative Iranian media have repeatedly accused him of being a US spy and go-between. As such, any Iranian official or wing that associates with Dr. Amirahmadi or the AIC will be discredited and virtually commit political suicide.

The impression that Iran has of Dr. Amirahmadi has turned him into a person with the "Midas Touch": He transforms everything he touches in the process of Iran-US rapprochement to "black diamond"* rather than gold.

Political maturity should have made Dr. Amirahmadi realize that since Iranian statesmen regard the AIC as an illegitimate entity, AIC mediation between Iran and the US actually bars the two sides from getting closer and understanding realities dominating resumption of ties.

Since the AIC is viewed in this light, the best service that it can render to improvement of Iran-US relations is to stop trying to serve this cause altogether!

Just as timely withdrawal from a poker game is a wise move, in politics, too, timely withdrawal of a player who cannot successfully carry on is a sagacious step.

The AIC’s main problem is that it is not fit for the lobbying role it has decided to play. This is in view of the prevalent definition of "lobby" as efforts by a lobbying body to promote the aims, objectives, and interests of the entity for which it is lobbying.

Despite the AIC’s insistence that it is an Iranian lobby, it has acted without any allegiance toward Iran and even at times protested against certain rudimental political principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And this is indicative of the contradiction between the AIC’s political structure and political actions.

The AIC’s contradictory political theory and political action aside, the White House, too, has not shown much good will toward Iran after President Seyyed Mohammad Khatami took office in 1997.

Even though the Iranians are proud of their blooming democracy whose greatest manifestation was the 1997 presidential elections, the US Mideast policy tends to prefer monolithic authoritarian governments in the Middle East to democracies.

Because the US avidly seeks Middle East security to insure its economic investments in the zone, it opts for political-economic relations that foster power and as such conflict with democratic movements in the region.

Democracy in the Middle East – and especially in the Persian Gulf which is a major source of US revenue – is not palatable to the US. The US political sensors in the Middle East, therefore, transmitted warning signals to Washington after Iran’s 1997 presidential elections.

The US has so far used the traditional monolithic, non-democratic, powerful, and despotic Persian Gulf regimes to safeguard its regional investments and capital returns.

If other regional countries that serve as the US’s economic backyards follow the suit of the Iranian democracy, Washington will lose its grip on the region and will even have to pay soaring political costs.

When it comes to developments in Iran, the White House then opts for a monolithic government, an objective which the US pursues through undermining the democratic front and strengthening the conservative camp that has the potential and the power for a uniformly despotic rule.

No matter how attractive President Khatami and the reformist camp are for the Iranians, they are viewed by the American statesmen as dangerous troublemakers, despite their superficial claims to the contrary.

Ever since Khatami came to the helm, the US has shrewdly and intermittently welcomed reforms in Iran, while fully cognizant of the negative effect such support could have. The move could be interpreted as Washington’s secret way of assisting that Iranian wing which prefers to enforce security rather than to grant freedom to the people, an iron-fist security that can actually insure the financial and commercial Mafia-style interests of the said wing, while simultaneously warranting the economic interests of the United States.

In addition, if Iran retains its hostile and violent image in the Middle East, the US can prompt the entire region to zoom in on Iran as a country lacking democracy, thus deflecting the public opinion from Israel’s criminal policies and measures and enabling Tel Aviv to continue with its political crimes.

The White House considers President Khatami guilty of shattering Iran’s monolithic political rule. Washington prefers to sit at the negotiation table with a monolithic iron-fist Middle Eastern state rather than a democratic government that could expose the US economic life vein in the Persian Gulf to a domino-effect danger.

The US does not allow anyone to fool around with the Persian Gulf oil and petro-dollars. Once Iraq unwisely stepped into this territory and faced the full-fledged US military muscle.

In case Iran’s fervent democracy becomes endemic among despotic Persian Gulf states, Washington will lose its monopolized hold and authority over the region.

So long as Washington can negotiate with only one party in the Middle East – and especially in the Persian Gulf – it prefers not to have to deal with sundry new powers – particularly democratic ones – in the zone.

Naturally as long as the US can reach all its political-economic objectives in the region through an Arab sheik’s decree, it will not want to prolong and increase the expenses of its agreements with the Persian Gulf states through Iranian-style parliamentary and democratic processes.

According to former US President Richard Nixon, money is not everything in the United States; it is the only thing!

To preserve its "only thing", Washington will not hesitate to sacrifice and stifle democracy, parliamentary rule, and freedom quests of nations that could create insecurity in the US economic backyards.

_______________________________________

* In classical literature black diamond stands for the ominous and the inauspicious.