Respected Spiritual Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei:

As an Iranian political scientist concerned about Iran's national security in the present moment of crisis engulfing our neighbors, I write this letter to express my fundamental disagreement with Your Excellency's latest order banning any dialogue and discussion with the United States. My reasons are as follows:

(a) Iran and the United States are both participants in the UN sub-group known as "six plus two." Already, precedence has been set for direct dialogue by the Group's previous meeting attended by Iran's Foreign Minister and the U.S. Secretary of State under the President Clinton Administration, Madeleine Albright;

(b) According to confirmed reports, U.S. and Iranian officials have repeatedly met in Geneva to discuss the crisis in Afghanistan;

(c) Recently, Iran's Ambassador to the UN visited Washington and met several members of U.S. Congress.

Notwithstanding the above, it is clear that U.S.-Iran dialogue has already occurred at several levels, not to mention the decade-long judicial dialogue at the Hague Tribunal dealing with claims against Iran, and therefore it is futile to claim that there has been no such dialogue ever in existence.

(d) The question, then, is whether or not dialogue and negotiation between the two countries threatens Iran's national interests as Your Excellency has just stated? Respectfully, I would have to take an opposite view and disagree on a principled basis. Dialogue, particularly diplomatic dialogue, is a staple of global diplomacy in the world today, and the entry into dialogue by Iran with any power, be it the United States or any other government, does not imply any conclusion, or worse concession, by any means, other than Iran's willingness to use the game of diplomacy to further its own interests. Any refusal to accept this fundamental fact is tantamount to closing one's eyes to the world's reality around us and succumbing to the blind impulses of passions and sentiments instead of rational calculation of Iran's national interests.

(e) Since this is the UN's Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations, launched by Iran's President, it is all the more important to keep the channels of dialogue open rather than clogged up with unreasonable slogans.

(f) The need for direct dialogue with the United States is particularly important right now because of the crisis in Afghanistan and the deep impact on the region's geopolitics. Several of Iran's neighbors and trade partners -- Pakistan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Russia -- have openly supported the U.S. campaign to root out the Arab terrorists in Afghanistan and even China has consented to this. As Iran too has condemned the terrorist attacks on America and Your Excellency has called for "holy war" against terrorism, it follows logically that we enter into dialogue with any one fighting this war. not to do so would harm Iran's international image and create the impression that Iran is not really serious about its declared war on terrorism. Your Excellency cannot unilaterally declare null and void the conclusion arrived at by numerous members of the Islamic Assembly and leading foreign policy experts within and outside Iran, that the crisis calls for direct talk

with the United States, in part to discuss the post-Taliban scenario.

(g) Should Your Excellency reconsider your position, as you must given the threats to Iran's security interests, including the threat of Iran's isolation and marginalization in the region in the aftermath of this crisis, in that case Iran's consent to dialogue with the U.S. would not at all implicate Iran in any compromise of its stated positions, such as opposition to the U.S.-led bombardments. Several Muslim states who are members of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), such as Indonesia, have condemned the attacks on Afghanistan without breaking diplomatic ties to the United States. Only a distorted interpretation of dialogue, as a one way monologue benefiting the bigger power, can sustain the present oppositions to U.S.-Iran dialogue, for such a dialogue should occur on a dialogic basis and reflect the positions of both sides. After all, dialogue is only a means to an end, namely, a method of communication serving the parties' interest to better understand each other and, hopefully, overcome their differences.

(h) In the light of the upcoming meetings at the United Nations, I strongly urge Your Excellency to reconsider your position as it is antithetical to Iran's interests and will bar the continuation of the "Six Plus Two" multilateral dialogue which could bring Iran's and U.S.'s foreign secretaries together, as well as Afghanistan's other neighbors, in search for a regional solution to the present crisis.

In conclusion, I remind Your Excellency that Iran's national interests are always better served by recourse to the soft power of diplomacy and non-violent negotiation than by resort to alternative means. Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, Ph.D.
October 30, 2001