"It appears that the United States will launch a military attack on Iraq aimed at overthrowing Saddam Hussein, despite Baghdad's approval to let in UN inspectors".
Said Professor Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh of Tarbiat Modares University of Tehran and Chairman of the Urosevic Research Foundation of London in an interview carried out by Violet Pakzad for Germany's daily Die Welt, which appeared on Thursday 12 December 2002. Professor Mojtahed-Zadeh is a leading Iranian geopolitical observer who has been instrumental, with his writings and statements in shaping many aspects of Iranian foreign policies and policies of other countries towards Iran. The following is the full length of the interview which has been made available for our use
Q- Some observers in the international community and in Iran believe that the United States is pursuing other goals by attacking Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. What do you think?
A- I believe it is quite clear that by attacking Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein the United States is pursuing other geopolitical and geo-strategic goals than we are lead to believe. Of course this is not going to work now that with the resolution 1441 the United Nations has made it clear that it is not made for providing the single super power with legal justification for "regime change" in other countries.
In fact US leaders themselves have made it clear for all to see that they intend to created a political world free from the so-called "rogue states"; states that they accuse of being party to the so-called "axis of evil"; regimes that they think will threaten regional or global peace. The geopolitical background, on which these Wolfewitzian ideas flourish, dates back to the time when geopolitical America was termed by the Iranian revolutionaries as "the Great Satan". The ultra-right Reagan administration used the same religiously oriented notion in describing the Soviet Union as the "evil empire". He considered the collapse of the Soviet Union and former bipolar geopolitical system as being the outcome of Western Capitalism being on the right and Socialist East being on the wrong in their post-war global contests. This self-serving conclusion led to the emergence of George Bush senior's slogan of "New World Order" and the idea of a unified geopolitical world that could materialize through the spread of such notions as 'Americanization' of the globe within the framework of globalization and 'democratization' of the globe. However realistic was Bill Clinton's period of office in terms of global geopolitics, George W. Bush's election to the office took the United States back to the Reaganist global designs. This development coincided with the return to power in Israel of ultra-right elements, and Ariel Sharon succeeded in convincing George W. Bush, in four successive meeting in the period immediately after September 11, to equate a number of Muslim states in the Middle East, including Iran and Iraq with terrorism. George W. Bush declared war on them by declaring war on "terrorism". Instead of fighting the real cause of terrorism, that is the heavy-handed Israeli treatment of humanity in Palestine, George W. Bush uttered his ill-thought new slogan of "axis of evil". By so doing he lumped together Iran and Iraq into one evil image as the source of terrorism and threat to regional and global peace and security. Hence, George Bush put his war paints on and began his war dance exactly the tune Paul Wolfewitz and his co-thinkers i.e. Donald Ramsfeld and Ms Rice etc. had planned.
Q- Why do you think the United States have chosen to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime at this point in time? How does Iran explain the timing and their intentions?
A- The original US plan was to attack and change the regime in Iraq as the first step towards achieving the goal of a newer 'world order'. Iraq was targeted as the easy target because of the criminal and terrorist records of Saddam Hussein and his regime. They took the global consent for war on Iraq for granted. What they failed to realize was that though the world was and is fed up of Saddam Hussein's criminal regime, it would not endorse the new US strategy of 'regime change' to set a new precedence in international relations with all its devastating consequences to the world peace and stability. Furthermore, compared with Iran, Iraq's geography allows easier war operation. Iran, in contrast, was categorized as the 'heard target' not only because of its very difficult geography, but also because whatever one may describe the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), it does not have records similar to that of the Iraqi regime. Neither has the IRI invaded neighbouring countries, nor has it used chemical and biological weapons against its on nationals and/or against neighbouring nations. The annual reports of IAA and those of international inspection of weapons of mass destruction clear Iran of any misconduct. The idea, however, was to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in the attack against the easy target in order to pave the way for launching a successful attack against the heard target. But what the world did in reaction to these dangerous globalist designs, was to make the easy target so difficult that the United States had to swallow its pride, go to the United Nations, and ask for legitimization of its invasion of Iraq. Instead, the United Nations gave Washington resolution 1441 in which no permission is even hinted. Nothing in that resolution permits the United States to launch a unilateral attack on Iraq and/or change the regime there.
Q-How will Iran react -- What will the effects of a US military strike on Iraq be for Iran's internal political situation? What are the main concerns at the domestic and international level? Would the Iranians, for instance offer the United States any help, like they did during the strikes against Afghanistan?
A- The initial reaction from the IRI authorities was a natural opposition to the whole idea of military attack on Iraq and regime change there that would pave the way for a similar attack on Iran. The young men in the streets who oppose the authorities were initially optimistic that an American attack on a couple of power plants in the south would make the regime in Tehran to give in and run away. As the massive extent of US war plans began to unveil the devastation that is intended to cause to the nations, both the regime and the young men in the streets began to voice out their strong opposition to the entire designs. Though the misguided elements who thought of repairing relations with Iraq and extending support to Saddam Hussein against the imperatives of Iran's national interests met strong national reaction, the Iranians have resolved to oppose any military operation for regime change in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. But an attack on Iraq conducted within the framework of UN resolutions or aimed at suppressing Iraqi regime's threat to regional and/or to global peace and security will be welcomed by the Iranians though they have chosen to remain impartial in such an operation. Iran has three main concerns in any attack on Iraq:
A- An attack for regime change in Iraq will set a new precedence in international relations, which would be used by other powers to change regimes in other countries whenever suits them.
B- A military attack on Iraq will motivate new waves of asylum seekers and refugees to invade Iranian border areas.
C- A globally approved military operation that would help the people of Iraq to change the present regime will be welcomed as it will remove Iraqi regime's serious threats to its neighbours and its own people. This is to say that from the Iranian point of view a UN sponsored US attack against Iraq to remove its weapons of mass destruction is acceptable. Even better is if during this operation the US adopts a strategy that would enable the people of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime. In such a situation no doubt Iran has enough political interest to help the operation much in the same way that it did during the US strikes against Taliban and Al-Qaedah terrorist organizations in Afghanistan.
Q- Some observers believe that a US military intervention will serve the purposes of Iran's conservatives who can then use the strikes in neighbouring Iraq to tighten their grip on the nation's reformers and further clampdown on reform movements What do you think? Would the reformers suffer a real blow? If yes, do you think that the Bush administration is aware of the fact that they would be harming reformers in Iran?
A- I see no indication what so ever that Iran's conservative elements would be so highly organized with such a sophisticated geopolitical and geo-strategic foresight that would entice them to think that such a development in Iraq would enable them to use it for their domestic purposes. These guesswork prophecies are the product of such idealistic minds as those of Condaliza Rice and Donald Ramsfeld that suffer from lack of adequate intelligence concerning the people and the countries they talk so much about.
Q- Is there a chance that the Iranian government will support Saddam Hussein if they believe that the United States are aiming to stay in Iraq after overthrowing Saddam?
A- Should such a US aim or goal become indisputable, the IRI may try to draw closer to the regime in Iraq. In fact the reason for some elements in the administration, who recently attempted to establish closer ties with the Iraqi regime, was the same naïve conclusion. Interestingly enough, they were not from the conservatives, they were Mr. Khatami's Foreign Minister and his Head of the Centre for Civilizational Dialogue: two so-called reformists. Having said this, I do not think US leaders would be so naïve as risking a devastating Iraqi and global reaction by trying to stay in Iraq permanently. History tells them that meddling with the Middle Eastern politics in this way is the route-cause of all global ills against the United States. They will be extremely naïve if tried to impose a regime that would represent the new imperialism, or even trying to supervise it or interfere in the internal affairs of the new regime in Iraq in the same way that they are doing in Afghanistan. You know that their interference in the internal affairs of the new regime in Afghanistan has put Afghan independence in serious doubt. Moreover, you now very well that American academia is strongly advising the administration to avoid anything that would remotely resemble an American political imposition in Iraq.
Q- European countries, including Germany, have been reluctant to voice any support for a US military strike against Iraq. How do you evaluate their stance? How has it, or will it effect Iran-EU ties?
A- European countries' reluctance in voicing out support for a pre-emptive and unilateral US attack on Iraq has been the wisest and the most natural course of action that they could take. Even in Britain, in spite of the display of total support for US military operation against Iraq for regime change, Prime Minister Blair made sure that he used this opportunity to encourage George W. Bush to go to the United Nations and seek international justification for actions against Iraq. The reason for this is quite clear. Europe knows very well that a pre-emptive and unilateral US military operation against Iraq or any other country in order to change that country's regime is against international norms and principles. Change of regime in any country is and should remain the exclusive right of the people of that country. The Europeans know that such an act will set a dangerous new precedence in international relations which will be used by other super powers in future and that will put an end to global peace and stability. Apart from their self-serving interests, a major reason for the French and the Russians to act in the United Nations the way they acted was to make sure that the existing international norms and principles remained unharmed. Hence, with the watered down resolution 1441, they made sure that any US military operation against Iraq must be legal, controlled, and limited to removing Iraq's threat against regional peace and stability, and will leave the regime change there to the people of Iraq. It is quite clear that this European course of action has secured the consent and support of Iran as well as the rest of the global community.
Q- How great are the chances that the United States will not pull out their forces following an attack and an overthrowing of Saddam's regime and what would that mean for Iran?
A- As things stand at present, in spite of some rumours to the contrary, there is no convincing indication as yet that the United States intends to stay in Iraq in the event of the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime there. I believe the US administration has learnt by now that any imperialistic design in the Middle East will further open all the old wounds and will add to existing anti-American movements to the extend that the United States will fall in a self-made self-destructive trap. As I said, American academia and US intellectuals are already warning the administration in no uncertain terms of being aware of the lessons of history and not sink any further in the mud pool of the Middle East politics and geopolitics. I even dismiss the idea propagated by US government's adversaries at home that the administration is seeking to establish control on Iraqi oil. This is an idea based on the assumption that the United States is not in control of Iraqi oil. We all know that in practice, it is Washington that decides now how much of Iraqi oil should be produced and how should it be sold, and whom its money should go to. As for oil in the rest of the world, we all know that the United States has successfully disarmed the OPEC in the global scene and has established its control of oil prices and oil politics in the international markets. To achieve this the United States has used so many different tactics, the latest was the recent episode of encouraging Russia to force down OPEC's hand in increasing oil prices by cutting back production. Similarly, the idea that Washington wants to replace Saudi Arabia's oil by the Iraq's oil is unrealistic and absurd. The United States owns the Saudi oil through ARAMCO and would be absolutely made to loose this most valuable single item of economic, commercial, and geopolitical commodity at its service on the international scene. The individual right wing extremists in US political arena who talk of democracy in Saudi Arabia are the kind of naïve idealists who even do not know what they are talking about. They don't know that Saudi Arabia is not even a nation-state, which is the prerequisite condition in any given society for the introduction of Western style democracy. Even the country (the tribal state) is named after the ruling tribe, but it has its own traditional system of popular access to power with some hints of consultation system. This system if touched for reasons of introducing Western democracy, will result in total devastation of the country, its society, and the societies around it. The outside world may use pressure for further openness in Saudi Arabia, but must stand aside and allow the emerging consultation system in that country to flourish and gradually develop into a home grown democracy as is happening in Iran.
However, should Washington decide to ignore reason and attempt to establish a kind of political or strategic station in Iraq for its own security or geopolitical reasons, then it has unnecessarily added a new cause for concern and anxiety among Iraq's own population and their neighbouring nations, including Iran. The universal opposition to the idea of a unilateral US attack on Iraq tells Washington and the rest of us that there is no tolerance for such designs in our present world of geopolitics.
Q- Do you believe that Turkey would use the opportunity to move into Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq in case of the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein?
A- Turkey has made it plain for all to see that it has territorial ambitions in northern Iraq. Turkey even went as far during the Kuwait crisis of 1990-91 as uttering claims on Iraq's oil-provinces in the north. Then Ankara was told by the US leaders that its disclosure of territorial ambitions against Iraq would be harmful to any idea of fighting for justice in that country and would turn the international consent for military operation against Baghdad's warmongers into an international outcry against meddling in Iraq's territorial integrity. The situation in this respect is still the same and should Turkey seriously entertain such ambitions would put its own vitally cherished links with the West, especially Europe, at a serious risk. Iran and all other neighbouring countries will be threatened by such a move from Turkey and security in the whole region will suffer gravely. I do not think Washington would allow Turkey to pursue these kind of territorial claims again. You see, even the thought of Iraq's territorial disintegration during US military attack against that country makes the neighbouring countries, including Turkey itself, to have misgivings against the attack, let alone one of the neighbours decide to curve up Iraq and pinch its territories.
Q- If the United States overthrow Saddam and then leave the future of Iraq to the different Iraqi groups of interests (the Shi'ites in the south-Ayatollah Hakim/ the Sunnis in the centre, and the Kurds to the north), who will Iran support and why?
A- The United States could not and should not make the same mistake that it once made in Afghanistan and cost it so dearly on September 11. It is imperative that any operation that might result in the collapse of the regime in Baghdad should be carried out only when all preparations are made for a swift transition to a national government made up of a coalition among all parties concerned. In such an unlikely situation Iran will have no alternative but to support all parties to get together and secure Iraq's territorial integrity. Iran is already advocating the idea that opposition groups in Iraq should come to some sort of understanding among themselves and agree on a number of principles chief among them is to guarantee Iraq's territorial integrity in the event of a regime collapse there.
Those who think that for ideological reasons Iran will support the Shi'ites of the South to establish their own government, do not know the difference between Iran's domestic and foreign policy priorities. Though they hear over and again that Iran is opposed to Iraq's territorial disintegration for the sake of its own territorial integrity, but their lack of proper knowledge and understanding of Iran's geopolitical directions and priorities prevent them from forming a realistic opinion of Iran and its policies.
Q- How would you define an Iranian support?
A- Support for whom?
Q- Will there be a major power struggle among Iraqi groups in a post-Saddam Iraq?
A- This is a highly dangerous possibility that could devastate the entire region and it should alert all concerned. For reasons described hitherto, any military action in Iraq that is aimed at or is likely to result in the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime must be based on a great deal of ground work. Such efforts are to aim at bringing the Iraqi opposition groups together, if not in a true coalition, at list in an agreement on a number of basic principles, chief among which should be maintenance of Iraq's territorial integrity. Yet the world must not allowed itself to be taken at ransom again by Saddam Hussein on this issue. In the past he survived because international forces stopped short of toppling him for being concerned about such consequences. It can be done, and I am sure that if the Americans managed to overcome their arrogance for a while and invited other interested parties with influence in Iraq, the magic of an Iraqi opposition coalition can come true.
