Playing chess

What sanctions? A new report by Chatham House -- the prestigious international think tank -- explains Iran's confidence in a region the United States doesn't seem to understand

---

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan finished off his two-day Iran visit this week on a positive note: Tehran is in favour of negotiations but meanwhile, it will continue enriching uranium.

Although this announcement made headlines, it didn't offer news. This has been Iran's stand since the beginning of the nuclear crisis a year ago. What is news is that the West, particularly the US, which has been up in arms over Iran's nuclear programme, has thus far tolerated Tehran's defiance of the Security Council's 31 August deadline to freeze uranium enrichment.

In line with the mainstream Western media, a Washington Post article Tuesday argued that Iran's unyielding stance appears to be based on the calculation that Russia and China, both veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, will oppose sanctions since both nations are major trading partners with Tehran. But according to a report published by the British Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), this is a superficial approach. Iran's leverage in its region, it says, extends beyond neighbouring trade ties and the nuclear issue, and the US has yet to appreciate this.

Authored by 18 contributors, the 50- page Chatham House publication Iran, Its Neighbours and the Regional Crisis issued 23 August is the widest-ranging report of its kind that analyses Iran's position in relation to all of the players in the Middle East and Asian regions. The findings are not in favour of US or Western diplomacy towards Iran. Iran, it argues, is too important -- for political, economic, cultural, religious and military reasons -- to be treated lightly by any state in the Middle East or indeed Asia.

There is little doubt, says the report, that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East. The US, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments: the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in 2003. The outbreak of conflict on two fronts in June- July 2006 -- between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza and Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon -- added to the regional dimension of this instability.

Consequently, Iran has moved to fill the regional void with an apparent ease that has disturbed both regional players and the United States and its European allies. The Chatham House report concludes that Iran is one of the most powerful and significant states in the region and that its influence spreads well beyond its critical location at the nexus of the Middle East, Turkey, the Caucasus, Central Asia and South Asia.

According to the report, Iranian regional foreign policy, which is often portrayed as mischievous and destabilising, is in fact remarkably pragmatic on the whole and generally aims to avoid major upheaval or confrontation.

In its introduction, the Chatham House report says that the initial intention of researchers was to concentrate on the nuclear issue, but as fighting intensified in Gaza and Lebanon it became apparent that the report would have greater value if it widened its scope to consider other regional crises, all of which are "connected and in all of which Iran is a major player."

The report explores Iran's regional relations on a country-by-country basis. A recurring theme is the desire of most states to maintain good relations with Iran or, where the relationship is less strong, to avoid antagonism or any further deterioration. Iran is in a powerful regional position and its positive influence is needed to help douse the flames of many fires currently alight. Were Iran to feel seriously threatened by outside forces, says the report, it has the potential to inflame the region yet further.

Another main finding since the outbreak of conflict in Lebanon is that the nuclear issue is only one of a series of considerations motivating the policies adopted by Middle Eastern and Asian countries towards Iran. The complexity of regional relationships currently emerging highlights dimensions of the regional crisis that neither the US nor the EU can afford to ignore, the report concludes.

Nonetheless, they do. According to Ali Ansari, reader in modern history at the University of St Andrews and associate fellow in Chatham House's Middle East programme, and who contributed in writing the report, the US chooses to overlook these dimensions. While the UN, for example, understands the complexity of Iran's reach in the region and its strength, "The US ambassador in the UN doesn't," Ansari told Al-Ahram Weekly by telephone.

Ansari described the position of the US as that of "wilful ignorance on the political level." In fact, he added, "I don't expect [officials] in Washington to pay any attention to what the report says ... [although] we hope it would be read by the Americans and the British for the sake of debate if not for anything else."

The report convincingly argues that focusing on Iran's nuclear capabilities alone will neither explain nor address the positions being adopted across the Middle East and Asia within what many see as a struggle for the region's wider future. Many in the West have failed to appreciate the complexities of Iran, its deep ties with its neighbours and its long- practiced ability to influence the region within which it is located.

What will be the price? Nadim Shehadi, also an associate fellow of Chatham House's Middle East Programme, said: "While the US has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess. Iran is playing a longer, more clever game, and has been far more successful at winning hearts and minds."

This sums up what the US fails to understand.