Dialogue, not sanctions, key to changing Iran

The U.S. administration will be caught in the crossfire of some big guns from now until election day to keep afloat its policy of economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic, if a recent Dallas conference on Iran is any indication.

Panels of political, energy, and economics experts on Iran presented papers May 1-2 to about 150 attendees and press at "Iran in Transition," a pricey conference co-sponsored by Petro-Hunt Corp. and Southern Methodist University's Institute for the Study of Earth and Man. Despite some lively debate and diverse views on effecting change in Iran, the majority of speakers and panelists favored an end to sanctions and an opening up of the country to Western investment and economic development.

Faced with a large American Jewish vote and pressure from Israel on one hand to tighten the screws on Iran's fundamentalist regime, and on the other by influential oil and big business interests chafing at the bit to get a piece of the action in Iran's rich oil fields, President Bill Clinton could soon be dodging a lot of flak.

Soaring gasoline prices impacting auto-addicted Americans could further threaten the policy.

Stephen Grummon, NSC director for Near East/South Asian Affairs, responsible for the Persian Gulf region, was a last-minute replacement for Mark R. Parris, Special Assistant to the President and senior director of the division, as keynote speaker at the conference. Parris was reportedly called into the peace talks process and had to cancel.

Grummon and Robert Deutsch, director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs' Northern Gulf Affairs office, defended Clinton's policy of banning business with Iran on grounds that the current regime has failed to show any indication of moderation in its state policies.

Stating unequivocally that "Toppling the current regime is not the goal of U.S. policy," Grummon went on to cite five key issues that cannot be skirted. "Our complaint with Iran is about behavior. It's not about the nature of the regime. It's not about personalities, per se. It is not about ideology. It is not about religion. The issue is behavior in the international arena," he said.

Iran's state policy of exporting terrorism topped the list, followed by the Islamic regime's persistent meddling in the Israeli-Arab peace process and financial support of Hizbollah and Hamas in Lebanon. Third is the Iranian government's attempts at acquiring or developing nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Grummon also cited Iran's efforts to expand its military force and lack of evidence that there has been any improvement in the area of human rights violations at home, particularly where women and minorities are concerned.

"Whatever changes took place," Grummon claimed, "were the direct result of sanctions that forced Iran to make unpleasant choices, not the result of negotiations."

Iranian exiles filled out the cheering section in favor of economic sanctions, led by the conference's luncheon speaker, Dr. Manoucher Ganji, a cabinet member under the late monarch of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Ganji gave an impassioned speech clearly aimed at the crowd of American businessmen when he vowed that they "will be favored over all others" should his own party, the Flag of Freedom Organization of Iran, have a say in Iran's future government.

Ganji stipulated, however, that he approved sanctions only in the event that the U.S. can persuade its European and Asian allies to join in an embargo on business there, insisting that only then could sanctions be truly effective.When President Clinton nixed the Conoco Oil deal made with Iran last spring, French oil giant Total snapped it up, and other countries continue to profit in Iran while America sits on the sidelines.

Another group, the Constitutionalist Movement of Iran, also had members in attendance. The CMI is a major backer of Reza Pahlavi II, also in exile in the U.S., to return as a figurehead monarch. Besides promoting a constitutional monarchy, the CMI's particular nuance on democratization of their homeland is a pledge to delete any reference to a "state religion" in Iran's Constitution.

While no overt supporters of the Islamic regime were in evidence at the conference, organizers included Hooshang Amirahmadi, a controversial Rutgers University professor who travels frequently to the Islamic Republic where his advice is reportedly sought by senior officials and businesses.

Amirahmadi's refrain is that U.S. dialogue with the current regime is necessary to bring about change rather than sanctions, but he charges that "the U.S. is no longer interested in dialogue, only in unrelenting pressure. . . Today, United States Iran policy has been demoted to an emotionally charged debate on how to best demonize Iran, and how to best weaken and isolate it."

Reasoning against economic sanctions varied, but the general concensus of opinion was that Iranians need persuasion, not coercion, and that an economic and cultural revival will do more to nullify the fundamentalist regime than covert or overt attacks will. As Cambridge-based professor of economics Hashem Pesaran put it, "Sanctions are more likely to prolong the rule of the mullahs. If you push the Iranian people to the wall you isolate them more. It is better to show them what they are missing by exposing them to outside influences."

Noted political analyst and author Marvin Zonis brought laughter and a round of applause from the largely American-Iranian audience when he told them at a concluding audience-participation session that: "It is time to set aside the picayune differences that have divided (American-Iranians) about the future course of Iran and to unite together in the interests of some larger foreign policy issues around which they can all agree. It's time for you to stop saying what the American government should do and should not do and it's time for the American community of Iranians to start saying what you should do for each other first."