 |
|
| page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|
BILL MOYERS:
But, if I understand it, one of the last, if not the last, Stalinist state?
JUDITH KIPPER:
That's exactly right.
BILL MOYERS:
But, we have ties with this --
JUDITH KIPPER:
That's right. We have a base there.
BILL MOYERS:
So, what's the difference between relations with Uzbekistan and Iran? Why do we treat them differently? Because of terrorism?
JUDITH KIPPER:
No, I don't think it's terrorism. I think it is, you know, our wounded feelings when we lost our best friend the Shah. And you know, the black robes of Ayatollahs came and they cursed us and they said bad things about us. And both sides are heartbroken. It's a really broken love affair between the United States and Iran. But, if you look at interests, I mean, I really question the United States dealing with a leader -- the leader of Uzbekistan who is a Stalinist. I've been there. There is no doubt about it. Putting a base there. And cursing Iran in the same breath practically. We need to find a way to encourage the Iranians to engage. It may not be during this administration. But it might be in ten years.
BILL MOYERS:
Doesn't it go deeper though, with all due respect, than just a broken heart? I know you're using that as a metaphor. I mean, the Department of Homeland Security said that of the six states that are on the list as identified as terrorist sponsoring states -- Syria…
JUDITH KIPPER:
Libya.
BILL MOYERS:
Libya, Sudan, North Korea, that of the six states that are said to be sponsoring terrorism, all the others are of diminishing concern except Iran. What do you think about that?
JUDITH KIPPER:
Well, that's probably true for the five. And Iran -- it's because of their financial support for Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. But let's get realistic. 9/11, you didn't find a single Iranian. In London, there was not a single Iranian.
BILL MOYERS:
As a terrorist.
JUDITH KIPPER:
In Egypt, there wasn't a single Iranian. Or Palestinian territories, I would tell you in any of those places.
BILL MOYERS:
Most are Saudi Arabian.
JUDITH KIPPER:
There were all kinds of people. All kinds of people. But there were no Iranians. I believe that state terror as an instrument of the state of the Islamic Republic of Iran -- that their days of engaging in terrorism cells is probably over because it's not in their interest. Their support for Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, they see it in supporting the liberation of territory, Lebanon, Shebba farms now, and Islamic Jihads liberating the West Bank in Gaza from the Israelis. As part of a discussion, in engagement about a whole range of issues in a very respectful way of their culture and their legitimacy, I think that those things are negotiable at some point.
BILL MOYERS:
Have you in your studies, and in your own reporting and investigations, come across any credible evidence that Iran is providing sanctuary to Al Qaeda terrorists?
JUDITH KIPPER:
I don't have a clue. I mean, people believe that there are Al Qaeda there, but every instinct tells me that it's not a sanctuary. Al Qaeda are as much the enemy of Iran as they are of the West or anybody else.
BILL MOYERS:
How so?
JUDITH KIPPER:
They are Sunni Arabs. They have a different philosophy. Their base was in Afghanistan. They gave a tremendous problem when they were based in Afghanistan to the Iranians. The Shia of Afghanistan who were tacitly supported by the Iranians suffered during that time. So any idea that Iran and Al Qaeda could somehow be partners or an alliance does not seem within the realm of possibility to me.
BILL MOYERS:
And you think that this pressure from their young people for a better life is part of the reason that they turned away from an aggressive support of terrorism?
JUDITH KIPPER:
No, I --
BILL MOYERS:
They have to deal with this, don't they? With the young people.
JUDITH KIPPER:
Yes, they do. But, I think what they do in their foreign policy is not so much related to that. Look, Iran had no time for a counter-revolution because Saddam Hussein invaded. And they fought a bloody war for eight years. And the United States was on the side of Iraq. And we helped Iraq in that war. They lost, you know, as Iraq did, brutal numbers of people. Young people getting slaughtered. And they ended the war because it became intolerable.
The Ayatollah Khomeini, as he said, took the bitter poison to end the war with Iraq because the Iranian people simply could not tolerate the Iraqi bombing of their cities anymore. So they ended the war. And since then, they've been recovering and figuring out what to do. And they have this presidential election when President Khatami was elected. And that brought some enlightenment. A new foreign policy dramatically improved relations with the Arab neighbors in the Gulf, particularly Saudi Arabia. The end of state terrorism and a more sane policy to be part of the world. And there was during the Clinton Administration, you know, they were doing a minuet, almost starting to talk. But, it never quite worked. And now, of course, I'm not sure that this administration, even if the Iranians were willing… But this administration would be ready to engage, particularly so soon before the mid-term elections, because there's nothing political to gain.
BILL MOYERS:
The two concerns most consistently pressed in Washington -- one that Iran's attitude toward Israel goes beyond just violent anti-Israeli rhetoric. That if they had the nuclear weapon, they would be a real threat to Israel. And, that is, if they get this nuclear weapon, they will destabilize the region.
JUDITH KIPPER:
If they get the nuclear weapon, those issues have to be on the table because with nuclear weapons, it is such a lethal weapon that you can't eliminate any of the contingencies. Many people believe they want it because Pakistan has it.
BILL MOYERS:
Well, four of their neighbors have it. Pakistan --
JUDITH KIPPER:
India.
BILL MOYERS:
India, Israel, and Russia.
JUDITH KIPPER:
That's right.
BILL MOYERS:
And, from the Iranian's point of view, isn't it logical that you would want an equalizer?
JUDITH KIPPER:
Well, I think that's true. I happened to be in Iran when Pakistan tested its weapons. And from official meetings and think-tanks, to taxi drivers and cafes, everybody said, "Can we possibly be less than Pakistan?" So, there is prestige. There's national pride. There's the deterrent. But, there is also the possibility that it would pose a threat to neighbors, including Israel. And clearly the world has to cooperate. This is one of the most important issues in globalization -- to deal with proliferation of nuclear.
BILL MOYERS:
Looking at it from the Iranian side, is there any incentive that the United States could offer that would tame their appetite for the nuclear weapon?
JUDITH KIPPER:
I think on the question of enrichment there is no way for them to say, "No, we're not going to enrich." I think that they might let it be known that that temporary suspension will continue. But, in fact, it will be permanent. But, they're not going to give it up publicly and permanently.
The incentives for Iran are, obviously, economic. Getting rid of the unilateral American sanctions because that hurts them with other countries as well. It mainly hurts the United States not to be in Iran, especially, their oil and gas business. But, when the U.S. sanctions a country, others are reluctant to do business with them. Secondly, security issues. It would be very important some day for a senior American official, maybe at the UN, simply to say, "We disagree with Iran. The government of Iran, we're suspicious of them." But Iran too has legitimate securities concerns. Because right now Iran is surrounded by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan, and of course the Gulf states -- the American presence is tremendous. And the other incentive for them would be economic security. And the third would be respect. Their legitimacy, that they're a respectable country. That we accept -- though we disagree -- that we treat them with respect. This cultural question of, you know, American belligerency, and we can say anything, and we consult each other all the time. They really take it seriously.
BILL MOYERS:
In this climate of opinion, isn't it realistic that any culture that is a theocracy, as you said earlier, run in the name of God by people who claim to speak for God, that is aggressively anti-Israeli, that is said to be sponsoring terrorism or harboring terrorism, in this climate of opinion, it's not likely that we can have a civil conversation with Iran. Can we?
JUDITH KIPPER:
Well, Iran doesn't want it. I mean, this new president is simply indifferent to the European Union and the United States. He doesn't need it. They're developing very important ties with China because China needs energy, and China's going global with its energy issues, preparing for the future and increasing demands in China. And that gives them a little leverage that Asia's becoming more important to them economically. So they're just indifferent to the U.S. and the EU now. We all think that they're just dying to have relations with us. They're not. The young people are. I went to Vietnam and Cuba and Iran all in the space of a year or two, several years ago. And it was amazing. The countries that we beat up on the most, the young people and the population likes us the best.
|
|
| page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
continue to next page  |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Judith Kipper, Director, Middle East Forum, Council on Foreign Relations
|
|
