IRAQ CRISIS OPENS DOOR TO BREAKTHROUGH TALKS WITH IRAN

by William O. Beeman

(PNS) -- The United States and Iran will be holding direct talks for the first time in 27 years. The talks are about a matter of intense importance to both parties: stabilization of the volatile situation in Iraq. This breakthrough has a good chance of success because for the first time it has been structured in a culturally appropriate way.

Iran and the United States' unprecedented estrangement has a cultural complement in Iran that can be described as "qahr." Qahr, a cultural institution in Iran, is not a permanent disagreement but cannot be resolved by the estranged parties without irreparable loss of honor. The resolution, or "aashti," must be mediated by a party whom both sides respect. During this period -- which can last for years -- the parties remain emotionally connected to each other, though their relationship is cold and hostile. This perfectly describes the U.S.-Iranian relationship.

In this current situation, the "trigger" for the breakthrough was a request to Iran that they enter into talks with the United States from Shi'a cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

Mr. Al-Hakim is a near-perfect mediator, respected by both the United States and Iran. He was a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraq Interim Governing Council and served as its president in December 2003. He replaced his brother, the revered Shi'a leader Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, as leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq when the latter was assassinated in August 2003 in Najaf. He was also the first candidate listed for the United Iraqi Coalition during the first Iraqi legislative election of January 2005. Perhaps most importantly, he is a close ally of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has arguably become the most influential Shi'a leader in the world, revered both in Iran and Iraq.

The talks were facilitated by the authorization given by the U.S. government to its Iraqi ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad some months ago to enter into conversation with Iran specifically on the Iraqi situation -- a prospect that the Iranians rejected at the time.

In fact, Iranians have been looking for a mediator in their dispute with the United States for years. Their hopes that Europeans could serve in that role were dashed as France, Germany and Great Britain capitulated to U.S. pressure by actively lobbying for Iran to limit its nuclear energy program.

The long estrangement between Iran and the United States has a solid basis. Each nation has done things that are seen as insulting and damaging to the other. The United States' support of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, including the CIA supported coup in 1953 that restored him to power after he was ousted in a popular movement, lies at the core of Iranian discontent with the United States. American support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, economic sanctions and rhetorical excesses such as President Bush's inclusion of Iran in the "Axis of Evil," and the U.S. position on Iran's nuclear energy program only fueled Iranian anger.

From the U.S. standpoint, the hostage crisis of 1979-80, when U.S. diplomatic personnel were held by Iranian revolutionaries for 444 days is Iran's principal transgression. Iran's hostility toward the "Zionist regime" in Israel, its support of the Hezbollah in Lebanon and its frequent identification of the United States as the "Great Satan" keep American hostility toward Iran alive.

But Iran and the United States both need to see violence and disorder in Iraq come to an end. A stable, functioning Iraq will alleviate the major political liability for the Bush administration. Iran does not want to inherit responsibility for a perpetual civil war on its borders.

The primary obstacle to this salutary potential cooperation is Iran's nuclear energy program. President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have in the past week both identified Iran as the United States' "most serious security threat" based on the fear that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons. Iran feels that it is being unfairly targeted for what it claims is a peaceful energy program that has conformed to all the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran (unlike India, Pakistan and Israel) is a signatory.

No timeline has been set for the talks yet. But if both the United States and Iran can reach agreement on a common cooperative strategy for Iraq, the chances are hopeful that other differences between the two nations can eventually also be mediated. To make this work, both sides must show respect for the other, avoiding the invective of the past 27 years.

Iranians, like Americans, are always relieved at a resolution of tension. A successful resolution of a qahr situation frequently results in the estranged parties being better friends than ever from that point onward. Let us hope both that a productive strategy for dealing with Iraq can be reached, and that this will create further good will and greater trust.