Reconcilable Differences
The U.S. and Iran Together Again?

by Stanley A. Weiss

WASHINGTON--If governments placed ads in the personal columns, Washington's would read something like this:

"Sole global superpower seeks long-term relationship with emerging Middle East democracy. Must have leaders chosen by popular vote, well-educated civil society with independent press, entrepreneurial spirit, and respect for women. Tired of jihad? Looking for a change? Let's get together."

Think Washington is setting its standards too high? Think again. In fact, the perfect match may be an old flame that went cold - the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Competition between Tehran and Washington for influence in Iraq is the latest round in a quarter-century-old feud since their bitter divorce following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. It is a custody battle for the loyalty of Iraq's 60 percent Shiite Muslim majority, which will be key to the future of Iraq and the region.

At the same time, both governments are confirming the other's worst fears. Despite Iran's vast oil and natural gas reserves, Tehran pushes ahead with its controversial nuclear program, which it claims is for "energy purposes." Despite Washington's war on terrorism, the U.S. military in Iraq signs a cease-fire agreement with the People's Mujahidin, a terrorist group opposed to the Tehran regime.

But Iran and the United States have too much at stake to let their mutual animosity trump their mutual interests.

The early romance was an affair to remember. Iranians loved America for its anti-colonial stance and for helping to expel Soviet forces after World War II. Americans loved Iran for its ancient heritage and newfound oil.

But the love story ended badly. Iranians I met during a visit several years ago still obsessed about the CIA's role in the 1953 coup that reinstalled the despotic shah. Americans are still haunted by the 1979-81 hostage nightmare at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

Reconciliation starts with both sides acknowledging their history of mutual humiliation.

In Iranian eyes, the United States has been the patron of their worst oppressors. In addition to bankrolling the shah, Washington supported Saddam Hussein in his eight-year war against Shiite Iran. From Iraq to Saudi Arabia to Bahrain to Pakistan, the United States has historically backed Sunni Muslim regimes that often treat their own Shiite populations as second-class citizens.

In American eyes, Shiites are synonymous with terrorism. Iran's revolution inflicted a decade of hostage-taking, hijackings and suicide bombings upon the Great Satan. Before the Sept. 11 attacks, more Americans were killed by Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed radical Shiites based in Lebanon, than by any other terrorist group.

But now, both sides have started packing up their emotional baggage and are reaching out. Tehran and Washington quietly cooperated to create a new Afghan government. Tehran maintained an "active neutrality" during the war against Saddam. But will this flirting lead to something serious?

Both nations are better off together. Iran's crippled economy needs American investment now barred by U.S. sanctions. The U.S. needs Iran, the Middle East's most populous nation and strategically located as a gateway to Central Asian energy suppliers and alongside the Persian Gulf, home to 64 percent of the world's known oil reserves. Among Washington and Tehran's common interests is an Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction and a Middle East free of the Sunni-dominated Al Qaeda.

The matchmaker may be Hashemi Rafsanjani, the pragmatic former Iranian president who is now chairman of the powerful Expediency Council, which resolves disputes between competing factions and branches of government. "One solution," to relations with the U.S., he said last month, "is to hold a referendum to see what society says," knowing full well that polls show a vast majority of Iranians favor ties and trade with America.

Blocking the way is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose Islamic dictatorship is fighting to preserve its tenuous grip on religious, economic and political power. But Khamenei and his fellow hard-line mullahs would be dealt a potentially fatal blow if Washington lifted the sanctions that ironically perpetuate their regime and give them a scapegoat for their own domestic failures. That is why the hard-liners consistently sabotage any talk of an American-Iranian rapprochement and why Washington should forge ahead regardless.

As President Bush has recognized, "the people of Iran want the same freedoms, human rights and opportunities as people around the world." He should make the first move, telling the theocrats in Tehran what an advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev famously told his American counterparts. "We are going to do something terrible to you. We are going to deprive you of an enemy."

Don't expect wedding bells any time soon. But when the Islamic pragmatists see that Washington is serious about reconciliation, it might help convince them to dump the ideologues they are with and get back together with an old American friend.