Even as Bush prepares for his first presidential trip to Israel and other Middle East countries this week, Beeman said the foreign policy strategy for the final year of the Bush administration remains unclear, but at least a military strike against Iran now appears to be off the table.
“The Bush administration right now, I believe, has already decided that a military option against Iran will not accomplish anything. In fact, those of us who analyze the Middle East have been saying for a long time that we can’t understand what in the world a military attack on Iran would ever accomplish,” he said.
But Beeman said despite the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate report verified Iran has no operative military nuclear program; the Bush administration is clinging to this idea that somehow Iran constitutes a danger in the region.
Painting a grim picture of Iran is a cornerstone of Washington’s Middle East policy, according to Dr. Hamid Golsharifi, a London-based political analyst.
“The strategy of the United States, and especially this administration, is to give a negative or black picture of what is going on in Iran, even when it comes to democracy,” he said.
“Now here we have the U.S. State Department spokesman saying Bush will use his Middle East visit to confront Iranian influence in the region. This means the United States does not want to see Iran participate in a balanced way. “
In contrast to many other analysts, Golsharifi says he believes it was a mistake for Iran to get involved in the security talks, saying Washington could manipulate the development and cite Iran’s participation as clear evidence of their influence in Iraq.
“I think this was a foreign policy mistake by Iran to engage themselves with the foreign policy of the United States because Washington will draw a negative picture that Iran has influence on Iraq, and has the ability to create stability or instability,” he said.
Former Foreign Minister Yazdi, meanwhile, expressed concern that Iran’s current crop of diplomats may not be up to the task of dealing with the United States.
“You see in any meaningful negotiation, in order for both sides to be satisfied, the diplomats must understand the present international situation so they could bargain properly in order to resolve the problem. I am afraid that the Iranian diplomats currently employed by the Foreign Ministry are not qualified for that negotiation,” he said.
However, Yazdi went on, “The point is that we cannot remain at odds with the American government forever. At this time and stage of the electronic revolution, in the global village we cannot discard or ignore our relationship with the United States, in the same way that the U.S. government cannot neglect efforts to improve its relationship with Iran. “
America is pursuing its own priorities, Yazdi said, and you cannot really blame them for that. But he was equally unimpressed with American diplomats and U.S. foreign policy goals, describing them as confused and badly researched.
“As far as I can see they are unable to understand what is going on inside Iran,” he said. “If you are not aware of ideological or Islamic movements in Iran, or have knowledge of the political groups in Iran, how can you pursue a proper and realistic policy?”
Election year in the United States is bringing some hope for a possible policy change.
“When you consider the results of the Bush foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, I believe that no matter whether a Republican or Democrat comes into office they have to implement some changes in these policies,” Yazdi said, “Of course as far as the choices are concerned, I think that the Democrats might be in a better position to improve or implement these changes. “
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
