Football, not war

By Salama Ahmed Salama

The meeting of the US and Iran teams was particularly breathtaking, for several reasons. Before the match, messages and signals exchanged by the two countries ranged from courtesy and goodwill gestures to pressure and manoeuvring. In the process, Washington expressed its readiness to improve relations with Iran and to bring about "genuine reconciliation", thus ending twenty long years of mutual hostility. Albright was ready to go the extra mile. She suggested that Iran could play a role in the Gulf region security system, if it was willing to comply with the generally accepted international norms of behaviour. America's suggestion came in response to the peace advances made by Khatami in the wake of his election as president last January, when he called for a civilised dialogue between the two countries.

There are adamant opponents to the normalisation of relations with Iran within the Pentagon and Congress. The latter, in particular, is categorically opposed to the lifting of the sanctions on Tehran. Washington still places Iran at the top of its list of regimes sponsoring terrorism, and considers Iran's relentless efforts to obtain nuclear weapons a danger which must be neutralised at any cost.

Despite this attitude, the initiative suggested by Albright was seconded by Clinton in his televised message on the eve of the US-Iran match. He alluded to the breaking of a new dawn characterised by mutual understanding. These words seem to indicate a shift in US policy, possibly conducive to ending the "dual containment" policy that the US has applied in recent years to both Iran and Iraq.

It seems that, despite the hurdles, any change may be in the direction of greater rapprochement between the two parties. US presence in the Gulf is no longer as welcome as it once was, but is rather a financial, political and security liability to the Gulf regimes. The boycott of Iran is being seriously contested by the US's European allies, and US companies have borne the brunt of the ban on investing in Iran. Finally, the emergence of the two new south Asian nuclear powers has changed the strategic map and dealt a decisive blow to the US-led non-proliferation policy.

On the other hand, the Tehran-Riyadh rapprochement, Khatami's initiative to settle Iran's disputes with the Arab states, and the democratic trend adopted by the new regime in Tehran may be construed as a real departure from the symbols of the Islamic revolution (and the attempts to export it). In addition, Iran needs to cooperate with oil-exporting countries on the Caspian Sea, an agreement the US staunchly opposes. All these factors will drive Iran to search for common ground with the US.

The football pitch, however, will not be the only field on which differences between Washington and Tehran are settled. Relations were so tense at one point that Washington was contemplating a strike on the nuclear reactor in Iran. Now, Iran is waiting for Washington to prove its good will, thus allowing the moderates backing Khatami to address the hard-liners who recently succeeded in forcing Abdallah Nouri to resign.

After Iran's victory over the US, it is time for it to triumph at home against reactionaries and hard-liners, in order to triumph in its confrontation with the US. It is in the interest of Egypt and the Arab world to back Khatami's regime, enabling it to overcome the impasse created by the efforts of the right-wing lobbies in the US, Israel and Iran, who are collaborating to keep Iran in chains, deprived of freedom and progress.