SUBSCRIBE TO THE NIXON CENTER EMAIL BULLETIN

Introducing a panel discussion on the Persian Gulf at The Nixon Center on March 15^th, Center Advisory Council Chairman James R. Schlesinger set the tone by reiterating the gravity of the current situation. "In Iran, until recently, the cry of the street was ‘death to the mullahs,’ but it has become once again ‘death to America.’" In his brief assessment of the pressing issues in the Persian Gulf, he pointed to the firm relationship built up between Saudi Arabia and the United States during the Cold War, "throughout the entire Cold War period the coincidence of interest between Saudi Arabia and the US was very high. In some ways the Saudis were more fearful of the Soviets and of communism than was the United States. Whether or not that has changed since the collapse of the Soviet Union is a question with which we are directly concerned."

Another pressing issue is what to do with Iraq. Washington is currently engaged in a heated debate over the costs and benefits of an attack on Iraq and the ramifications such a move would have on the region. The administration has made it clear that it will no longer tolerate Saddam Hussein’s repeated violation of international law and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. However, though Iraq now sits on an "Axis of Evil", it is unclear whether the Iraqi leader alone should be toppled or his Baath regime as well. All that seems certain is that the United States is committed to military action. Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia each come equipped with a unique set of problems for the United States and it is these problems that prompted the panel discussion.

Four speakers on the panel included Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center; Mark Parris, former U.S Ambassador to Turkey and Patrick Clawson, Deputy Director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The discussion was broadcast on C-SPAN.

Richard Perle stated that the replacement of Saddam Hussein’s regime was not only "highly likely" but also, in his opinion, "long overdue…a job we should have finished in 1991." He warned of the dangers of Saddam’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and the shelter he provides to terrorists. "One of these days we will pick up our morning newspapers and our officials will be reporting that Saddam now has nuclear weapons. It will come." He expressed confidence in the Iraqi opposition both within and outside Iraq and noted that "there is as much potential among the Iraqi opposition as there was within the Northern Alliance."

Perle stated that Iraq represents a very different threat than Iran - a general consensus among the speakers. He discussed the increasing number of demonstrations in Tehran that demonstrate the fatigue of the Iranian people and their dislike of the repressive moral infrastructure, "demonstrators do not wear masks in Tehran even though this entails significant risks…when the grip of fear is broken it is the beginning of the end." Dismissing military action as a way to deal with Iran, Perle advocated increased support of the internal opposition. Perle described the Saudi regime as the financier of institutions that have been preaching hatred of the US and the West. "What they have been permitting, tolerating and encouraging is a poisonous evolution that ultimately will engulf them."

Geoffrey Kemp pointed to the strength of the reform movement in the Iranian parliament, "in the long run the forces of reform have dynamics on their side." He emphasized the importance of the cooperation of the Iranians in the aftermath of September 11^th, but added that Iran’s support for the Arab and Palestinian rejectionist movements, coupled with their weapons development, continue to be the major barrier to the normalization of their relations with the United States.

He called for a clarification of the term, "Axis of Evil" asserting that there is an axis of terror but also an axis concerning weapons of mass destruction. "If you look at the axis of terror, which Iran is part of, then you have to include Damascus. Furthermore, the axis of WMD involves two of our great allies in the war on terrorism, Russia and China." He spoke of the effects of the State of the Union speech on Iran, which has caused "the moderates to run for cover." He argued that a successful attack on Iraq would be regarded by the Iranian hard-liners as, "another nail in their coffin." Furthermore, our policy would spur them on to adopt strategies that would keep us in Afghanistan longer and increase the violence in the Occupied Territories to prevent the United States from achieving regional cooperation. Tehran also fears US encirclement, he said. "We would have forces in Iraq, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait, it is quite impressive. The hard-liners have every reason to make the overthrow of Saddam Hussein difficult for us even though they might loathe him as much as we do."

Kemp stressed it was important to acknowledge the dangers of an invasion of Iraq, notably the possible use of WMD, and posed the following questions: How can we be sure that Saddam won’t use WMD? How do you protect Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and our armed forces?" How do you sanitize a post Saddam Iraq? Kemp believes that US-Saudi relations will withstand current antagonisms. The two countries need each other and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Mark Parris focused his discussion on Turkey, a country which he stated was on "the short-list of countries you have to have to do anything important in the region." Pointing to the damaging economic effects of the Gulf War and protracted border skirmishes, Parris asserted that Turkey was apprehensive about a strike on Iraq , "really frightened that their fragile economic recovery could be put in jeopardy as a result of loss of tourism or a withdrawal of foreign direct investment. No Turk that I know wants there to be a US-Iraq confrontation, their goal is to slow this train down and they hope that it will never reach the station." Parris pointed out that Turkey’s fear of war has pushed it to send repeated letters to Saddam Hussein in an attempt to persuade him to let inspectors back into Iraq.

However, Parris was confident that in the final analysis Turkey would be allied with the United States. Quoting a Turkish general’s comments on the Gulf War he said, "When it is over we want to be on the guest-list, not the menu. The logic now will be the same." According to Parris, our relationship with Turkey is mutually beneficial: Turkey needs the United States for financial support and protection and the United States needs Turkey’s experience in sending people into Northern Iraq.

Patrick Clawson focused on the Iranian reaction to the US’s position vis-à-vis Iraq. He discussed the divisions. "Many Iranians will say: Oh good, another unpopular dictatorship in our regions being replaced by some deus ex machina that comes in and sweeps it away, maybe that will happen to us too. On the other hand, hard-liners are going to be very upset." He discussed their mindset and concluded that they would see any attack on Iraq as a prelude to attacks against them. Clawson pointed out that there are elements in Iran that truly believe the US is after them. Quoting an intelligence official he said, "the Zionist lobby and pro-Shah groups are giving false information to Bush saying that the Iranian nation welcomes military attacks on Iran, which is a most stupid idea." Finally, he called for a calming of US-Saudi relations after the issue of Iraq is resolved: "it is possible that a less tight relationship with Saudi Arabia would be more sustainable….both sides would welcome returning to the simple roots on which it was found."

This Program Brief was prepared by Nixon Center Intern Salamander Davoudi.