|
الجزيرة
News
Archives
Arab
Cartoonists
Columnists
Documents
Editorials
Opinion
Editorials
letters
to the editor
Human
Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Islam
Israeli
daily aggression on the Palestinian people
Media
Watch
Mission
and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
News
Photos
Peace
Activists
Poetry
Book
reviews
Public
Announcements
Public
Activities
Women
in News
Cities,
localities, and tourist attractions
|
|
Frances Brooke, the man behind the new
Iran-US entente on Iraq
By Ali Nourizadeh, Daily Star, 3/22/03
On the eve of his recent trip to Tehran to
attend an Iraqi Shiite conference, Iraqi National Congress (INC) leader
Ahmed Chalabi contacted the Iranian Embassy in London.
Chalabi spoke with the embassy’s adviser for relations with Iraqi
opposition groups, Hossein Niknan, who used to be Iran’s charge
d’affaires in Beirut. The INC leader asked the Iranian diplomat to issue
a multiple entry visa for his public relations consultant whom he said
would be traveling with him to Iraqi Kurdistan through Iran and back
again.
Under strict orders from Tehran to comply with all Chalabi’s requests,
Niknan did not hesitate to accede to this one even though the PR man in
question was not Iraqi but American, Francis Brooke by name.
Brooke, who was traveling with Chalabi, is a well-known American Middle
East specialist and is rumored to be close to US National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice.
Chalabi was surprised to see Niknan take such an interest in Brooke’s
case; the American was granted a special multiple entry visa similar to
the one issued to Chalabi himself.
When the pair arrived at Tehran’s Mehrabad airport, the Iranian
authorities not only waived the newly introduced fingerprinting rule
introduced in response to a US Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) decision to fingerprint all Iranians entering the US as far as
Brooke was concerned, Chalabi felt that his companion was being made even
more welcome by immigration officers and Iranian Foreign Ministry
officials than he was.
Brooke was so warmly received wherever he went in Tehran that journalists
who met with Chalabi were intrigued. They noted that Iranian officials
from the departments of security and foreign affairs, the Revolutionary
Guards and the presidency were even more interested in Brooke than in
the INC leader himself.
A young Iranian journalist who asked a Foreign Ministry official just back
from a meeting between Brooke and a senior Iranian National Security
official whether Chalabi’s PR consultant had indeed delivered a letter
from the US administration to the Iranian leadership said that the Foreign
Ministry man replied: “All I can say is that he (Brooke) is an important
person who knows many secrets. We believe he is in contact with Washington
decision-making circles. We therefore have to use the opportunity of his
being in Tehran to convey our point of view to the Bush administration
vis-a-vis the war on Iraq especially since the US government has closed
off all other avenues open to us.”
A few hours later, two reporters Omid Memarian and Hossein Barmaki from
Yas-e-no (a reformist newspaper published by prominent reformist MP and
Islamic Iran Participation Front (IIPF) politburo member Mohammad Reza
Naimipour) met with Brooke in clear violation of instructions by the
Iranian authorities not to publicize his visit to Tehran and his meetings
with senior officials.
The contents of this interview revealed that Brooke’s visit to Iran was
not simply that of a PR consultant Chalabi had hired to embellish his
reputation in the West. Brooke was on a mission; and the effects of his
mission quickly became apparent in Iranian policy vis-a-vis the United
States in general and the way Tehran began viewing the war on Iraq.
In his interview with Yas-e-no, Brooke said: “After the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the US no longer felt threatened with nuclear annihilation.
It became no longer necessary for America to maintain relations with
corrupt dictatorships just because of their hostility to communism.
“The Soviet foe has been replaced by a friendly Russia; China is not
perceived by Washington as a threat but as a potential strategic partner.
In fact, the gravest threat facing the West is that posed by Islamic
fundamentalism. Sept. 11 brought home to us the magnitude of this threat
to Western civilization.
“We understand that there are two factors that have encouraged the
spread of fundamentalism in the Middle East and the Muslim world: the
Palestine question and lack of democracy,” Brooked continued.
“America’s most important strategic goals at the moment are to help
Arab and Muslim peoples achieve democracy, and to find a just settlement
for the Palestine question through the establishment of an independent and
democratic Palestinian state.
“The overthrow of Saddam Hussein will be just the beginning of this
process. A glance at America’s traditional allies in the region shows
that they do not enjoy the trust of their peoples. That is why we have
decided to rethink our alliances.
“There is a vast gulf between us and the Europeans. America is a country
built on revolutionary principles; one of these is helping oppressed
peoples and fighting colonialism. No country is more justified in talking
about democracy than the United States,” Brooke said. “It is essential
that the peoples of the Middle East enjoy the fruits of democracy.
“Europe’s experience is different to ours. European history is full of
political and religious conflicts. Look at Europe now; in America, we
proved that it is possible for people of different religious and ethnic
backgrounds to live together. There are no racial and religious barriers
preventing people in America from reaching the top in any field of human
endeavor. In Europe, by contrast, laws are still in effect that
distinguish between indigenous and immigrant populations. In America, once
you are naturalized, you will be exactly the same as anyone whose
ancestors came there centuries ago.
“We have an open society and a free press; we are not afraid to discuss
our weaknesses openly.
“We are currently in the process of trying to overthrow the Iraqi regime
and helping the Iraqi people establish democracy. This is part of our new
strategy in this region.”
But what about Iran? he was asked.
Brooke said: “Iraq is the common denominator between Iran which was
attacked by the Saddam Hussein regime and the United States, which
wants to unseat the Iraqi leader. Iran has extended valuable help to the
Iraqi opposition, and enjoys excellent relations with many opposition
leaders such as (Kurdistan Democratic Party leader) Masoud Barzani and
Ahmed Chalabi. We cannot deny that Iran enjoys a semblance of democracy,
but we hope that this will be further developed into true democracy.”
In private meetings, Brooke reassured Iranian officials that the Bush
administration is not thinking of attacking Iran or of changing its regime
so long as Iran acts responsibly and cooperates with the United States
in effecting a smooth transition to democracy in the region.
On March 16, just two days after Iran officially rejected America’s war
on Iraq, the Iranian National Security Council decided to adopt a position
that tallies with US strategy. It quietly decided to participate in
American efforts to effect “regime change” in Baghdad.
That was how the enigmatic Francis Brooke succeeded in laying the
groundwork for a new Iranian-American relationship in the post-Saddam era.
Ali Nourizadeh, one-time political editor
of the Tehran daily Ettelaat, is an Iranian researcher at the London-based
Center for Arab-Iranian Studies and the editor of its Arabic-language
newsletter, Al-Mujes an-Iran
http://www.aljazeerah.info
Opinions
expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors
and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.
|
|