Sevak Sarukhanyan: Iranian extremists and American Republicans. A conspiracy story

Read it in Russian

Celebration of an Islamic Revolution anniversary in Iran and the tension around the Iranian nuclear program made many people turn to historical events of the far late 1970s – early 1980s (“far” from the point of view of current international relations’ dynamics). Nothing would have attracted special attention in this reminiscence, if it were not some certain events directly connected with the current reality.

US embassy hostage crisis in 1979 and presidential election in the USA

On November 4, 1979, about 400 Iranian students seized the US embassy in Tehran and arrested 63 US diplomats. Two days later, the Iranian interim government handed over the country to Ayatollah Khomeini, who would determine Iran’s foreign and domestic policies for the next ten years paving the way for the first Islam theocracy in the world.

Seizure of the US embassy coincided with the active stage of the presidential election campaign in the USA, in which Republican Ronald Reagan started gaining the lead. After his victory at the race, there was a leak to the press that Ronald Reagan, with the help of his future deputy George Bush (farther of the current US president) and national intelligence officer Robert Gates (current US Defense Secretary) entered secret talks with the Khomeini regime about an issue, which was important for the US Republican Party (Congress hearings were held on results of the investigation of the Republicans-Iran talks, but resulted in no sanctions): the Iranian leadership was asked not to release the US hostages until the presidential campaign is over in the USA that, thanks to Iranians, was to end up with unconditional defeat of the president-Democrat. In exchange, Tehran was promised that Republicans would lift the ban for selling technical equipment to Iran and resume buying Iranian oil as they did before. To the credit of the Iranian side be it said that Tehran fulfilled its obligations to the Republicans (released the hostages practically right after Reagan’s victory), contrary to the Republicans. Later, Iran had to resort to a policy of taking US citizens as hostages in Lebanon in order to make US leadership start selling arms to Iran in the hard times of the Iran-Iraq war.

Iraqi war and presidential election in USA in 2008

The historical reference above is interesting for several reasons:

-         Taking American diplomats as hostages in Tehran put unprecedented impact upon US domestic policy process, partially determining the outcome of the presidential election and the Republicans winning.

-         Continuity of the current level of the Iran-US relations is secured by presence of people and forces involved directly (Robert Gates and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he really participated in seizing the US diplomatic mission) or indirectly (the Republicans in the USA and ultra-Conservatives/neo-Khomeinists in Iran).

-         Presence of the same Iraqi problem in the relations of the two countries.

-         Forthcoming presidential race in the United States, during which, however, the Republicans face a task of remaining at power instead of winning it.

Paradoxically, just like 28 years ago, outcome of the presidential elections mostly depends on the position and policy pursued by the Iranian leadership. The key difference is, instead of 63 US diplomats in Tehran, the US troops in Iraq and the whole US Mideast policy became hostage to the Iranian leadership. In many ways, thanks to the Iranian side, the US Mideast policy is suffering a partial setback: developments in Iraq fall out of control, which makes many US traditional partners in the area cast doubt on eternal nature and invulnerability of their main ally and start accepting more and more often top-ranking visitors from Beijing or Moscow. All this, accompanied by numerous bodies of dead American soldiers and reports on increasing number of US military equipment being struck by militants’ missiles, is seen and assessed by American public as well, which is to determine next year, with whom it wants to associate its future for at least four years after 2008.

The Iraqi problem (today, it is the Iranian problem indirectly as well) will become the key factor that will influence the presidential election outcome in the United States. Although, many see the Democrats winning undoubtedly, a lot depends on development of the Iranian-American relations. Whether the US administration would go for an overt military confrontation with Iran or not is the crucial element that can really influence presidential perspectives of the two US parties. Robert Gates’ returning to politics and reanimation of promises to make short work of Iran evidently remind the Republicans’ tactics traced back to 28 years (apparently Reagan positioned himself in such a way during the presidential race; her promised to apply the policy of threats and bribery against Iran). From the Iranian side, another “expert in resuscitation” of the past, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assists Americans returning to the anti-Israeli, anti-American rhetoric of Iran’s early post-revolutionary development.

However, there is essential difference in the US and Iran’s conditions: Iranians do not need any military or technical or whatever support of the USA in the light of liquidation of the Saddam Iraq; Iran is really in pursuit of nuclear weapons capability and has not shown any reaction yet to claims for releasing current American hostages. At the same time, it is not a realist and major strategist Reagan sitting in Washington; it is George W. Bush, who is obsessed by missionary ideas, which are not comprehensible for everyone. This can bring the relations between Washington and Tehran to quite another stage. Although, it can happen so that in 28 years Iran will bring the power in the USA back to Democrats, the one they helped to bereave in their time.

Sevak Sarukhanyan, Noravank Research and Education Foundation Deputy Director.