The seizure of British sailors – and their surprising release – seemed to be Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s perfect publicity stunt. He caught the world’s attention, made them gasp and then suddenly offered a goodwill gesture, just before Christian Easter. The media has displayed his smiling photo with the happy British marines all over the world. The value of this image as a means to gain public appraisal is obvious. The whole episode is an undeniable master’s coup.
The clear lesson that the Bush Administration could learn from this affair is that to deal with this enemy, Washington should use more brain than muscle.
President Bush's policies for dealing with Teheran have systematically failed. The U.S.’s closest and oldest allies have hesitated to pursue the same strategy of isolating the Islamic Republic. Even the sanctions approved by the United Nations Security Council did not enjoy many followers in practice.
Recently, President Ahmadinejad visited South America. The pretext was the inauguration of Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa. Ahmadinejad was a discrete visitor, kept a low profile, in contrast to Hugo Chavez’s theatrical anti-Americanism which dominates the southern continent.
Last week, the Brazilian press published reports of U.S. government pressure on Brazil’s largest company, Petrobras, to reduce its business ties with Iran. During a visit to the company’s headquarters, the U.S. ambassador to Brazil, Clifford Sobel, delivered the message that Washington isn’t happy with Petrobras' investment in Iran. The Brazilian government, press and public saw the move as an undue interference in their domestic affairs. Visiting Camp David, President Lula called Iran a “special partner” and said that Brazil has no problem with the Teheran government.
The “a friend of my enemy is my enemy” ideology in vogue in the Bush era makes no sense to most of the world, even to nations that sympathize with the American people and felt sincerely sorry about the 9/11 tragedy. That is why the Brazilian state oil company’s response was to simply disregard the U.S. message and to confirm its interest in increased cooperation with the oil industry in Iran.
Undoubtedly, nuclear weapons in Iran's hands make the world more dangerous. The same is true about nuclear weapons in Pakistan, India, China, Russia, the United States, or anywhere else. For the sake of humankind, it would be better to aspire to the utopia of negotiating a total ban on nuclear weapons. It seems unrealistic, but it is the only sensible policy for the 21st century. There is no such thing as “secure hands” when holding weapons of mass destruction.
It is time for the United States to review Bush's policy of threatening regime change in countries that don’t get along with the State Department. It has never worked. In fact, Iran's government is stronger today than it was five years ago. The Islamic Republic no longer has to deal with hostility from neighboring Iraq, a country it faced on battlefields back when Saddam Hussein was considered a reliable ally by the U.S. government. Designation as friend or foe has always been a matter of convenience for the U.S. government, never a parameter for the improvement of global freedom and democracy. Just look at the absolutist monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
