- Payroll tax deal close: Why did Republicans back down? (+video)
- Israel says Bangkok, Delhi, and Tbilisi attacks all linked – to Iran
- Rick Santorum's new machine-gun ad: Will it work? (+video)
- As Sarkozy seeks new term, French are wary of 'Merkozy' (+video)
- Honduras prison fire kills more than 300, highlights regional problem (+video)
Iran's rhetoric masks interests
As Iran rail against US strikes on Afghanistan, its leaders discuss the makeup of a post-Taliban regime.
At first glance, Iran's opposition to the US and British air strikes on Afghanistan seemed a return to the old days of Tehran's fiery revolutionary rhetoric. Yesterday, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami called for "an immediate end" to the strikes and said they had caused a "human catastrophe."
And on Monday, Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, termed the attacks "unacceptable to Iran."
His comments followed a rhetorical blast from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who accused Washington Monday of "lying" about its true intentions, expanding on comments last week that Iran does not consider the United States "competent and sincere [enough] to lead any global campaign against terrorism."
Read between the lines, however, and a different picture emerges. Iran's official pronouncements were still couched in the language of its Islamic revolution, but analysts searched in vain for the vitriol that once featured prominently. "There's still a bit of a fuss, of course," said a European diplomat in Tehran. "What struck me, though, was how muted the fuss was this time."
It is no surprise that Iranian leaders rejected President Bush's "for or against us" ultimatum - Iran has long seen itself as a role model for nonaligned countries. But contrary to many expectations, Iran has spent the past few weeks pursuing a vigorous diplomatic drive to avert military action in Afghanistan.
Foreign Minister Kharrazi has made plain his disappointment that his initiative had failed. "During the past days, from Sept. 11 to today, Iran has employed its utmost diplomatic efforts to prevent [further] casualties," he said Monday. "Our recommendations did not fall on receptive ears."
Iranian leaders fear that the US is using the September attacks as a pretext to expand its influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus. A glance at the map shows why: American military forces are already stationed in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, while US oil companies are entrenched in Azerbaijan to the north. With US military now deployed in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and engaged in combat in Afghanistan, it's no surprise Iranians feel jittery.
Sensing the importance of the Afghan crisis to the country, Iranians have suspended the domestic struggle for political power. For the first time in memory, Iran's leaders are speaking with one voice. "This is the first time since 1979 that the makers of foreign policy in Iran have taken a single position," said Saed Leylaz, a political analyst.
But despite its fears, there has been little sign of public protest on the streets of Tehran or Iran's other cities. It was business as usual for the moneychangers on Ferdowsi Street, where noisy demonstrators are often bused in to protest outside the British and German Embassies.
"Iranians think Osama [bin Laden] is a terrorist and that the Taliban were produced by the United States," said Farideh Dabiri, an Iranian woman sipping tea in Ferdowsi Street cafe. "We believe both projects backfired on the US."
Page: 1 | 2 



