AJCommittee Releases Updated Edition Of Comprehensive Report On Western Relations With Iran

American Jewish Committee
Thursday, 5 June 1997

Since a German court in April found that Iran's top leaders had ordered the 1992 assassination of Iranian dissidents at Berlin's Mykonos Restaurant, "European governments have become more aware of Iran's unacceptable behavior. However, the increasing recognition in European capitals of problems in their relationships with Iran has not yet led to significant change in European policies toward the Islamic Republic."

So observed Dr. Patrick Clawson, a senior fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies of the National Defense University in Washington, DC, and a noted authority on Iran, in the American Jewish Committee's newly updated study "Business as Usual? Western Policy Options Toward Iran," released today in New York and Washington; the original report was issued in September 1995. This second edition takes into account new and critical developments that have taken place in 1996 and 1997 and examines the West's divergent policies toward Iran and the political and economic ramifications of those policies, but was completed before the Iranian presidential elections that took place on May 31.

Jason Isaacson, AJC's Director of Government and International Affairs, notes in his foreword to the report that "in response to Iran's fierce opposition to Arab - Israeli reconciliation and support for anti-Israel terrorists, its encouragement of antigovernment forces in moderate Arab states, its resort to assassination and other forms of brutality to stifle opposition, its demonization of the West in general and the United states in particular, and its pursuit of nonconventional weapons capabilities, Washington acted by presidential directive in 1995 and by statute in 1996 to impose tough trade sanctions against Iran." Yet, he adds, despite America's clearly articulated and firm position of containment, the other industrialized nations have not joined in. "Instead," he states, "they have deflected American arguments and sought to modify Iranian actions - so their policy makers contend - through engagement rather than isolation."

"In issuing this publication, the American Jewish Committee seeks to contribute to a broader understanding in world capitals of the causes and effects of Western disunity toward Iran, an understanding that the AJC has tried to share in discussions with government officials in the United States, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East over the last several years."

On April 30, 1997, the American Jewish Committee ran a full-page advertisement in The New York Times highlighting the Berlin's court's findings against Iranian authorities in the Mykonos case, noting the failure of critical dialogue to change Iran's behavior, and urging European and Asian governments to join Washington in political and economic sanctions against Tehran.

Dr. Clawson notes in a new introduction to his report for AJC: "The European Union's policy of 'critical dialogue' with Iran did not do well in 1996….However, there is little prospect that Europe will adopt economic measures against Iran. Partly that is a matter or ideology, in that EU states have argued that economic relations should generally be separated from political considerations. In addition, the Iran market is looking more attractive in 1997, compared to its depressed state in the previous few years."

In 1996, the United States opted to put high-profile pressure on Europe vis-a-vis relations with Iran through the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). The measure, proposed by New York Senator Alfonse D'Amato and passed unanimously by Congress, declares that the export of oil and gas technology and capital to Iran harms U.S. national security interests and thus becomes subject to U.S. retaliation.

However, he adds, the Act only applies to transactions above $20 million and is used primarily as a means to scare off large oil and gas companies from investing in Iran.

Dr. Clawson stresses that "pressure on Iran would be more effective if implemented by all the allies. That is not likely to happen." He adds, "Iran should not be allowed to provoke a crisis in the Western alliance. However, the United States does have the right to expect that its allies will not take steps that would undercut U.S. policy on an issue that Washington considers to be of great importance."

In his introduction to the updated report, Dr. Clawson says that "the main issue that will determine U.S. policy toward Iran in the coming months is the degree of responsibility ascribed to Tehran for the June 1996 bombing of the U.S. military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. military personnel and wounded 515 other persons, including 240 Americans. In the event the FBI holds Iranian government officials responsible for the bombing, Washington can be expected to seek support for a firm response. Were the U.S. to feel that the allies were not willing to agree to a sufficiently vigorous response, there would be pressure for unilateral U.S. military action. In other words, there are still many issues that could divide the United States and Europe over how to approach Iran."

Among the questions addressed in the report are: Are there Iranian moderates? What are the effects of foreign influence on Iranian politics? What can be achieved by accommodating Iran or by being tough? What are the prospects for raising human rights issues with Iran? The AJC study also examines the history of Iranian terrorism, looks at commercial and trade factors, explores the sale of arms and issues of nuclear cooperation, and describes Iran's geostrategic importance in terms of oil, location and its influence on other Muslims. Lastly, Dr. Clawson examines the effectiveness of the various policy options toward Iran, from gentle persuasion to destabilization, and goes on to make his own recommendations.

For more information, or to contact American Jewish Committee, see their website at: www.ajc.org