[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[Oppenheimer]

U.S. Policy Toward Iran


R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
Washington, DC
November 30, 2005

Remarks As Prepared

I would like to thank my friend, Dean Jessica Einhorn, and the faculty and
students here at The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies for
welcoming me back to my alma mater. I can think of no better place to discuss
one of the United States' most critical foreign policy challenges than here at
SAIS, the home of an academic program Foreign Policy Magazine recently named
number one in the study of international relations. We are all proud of this
well-deserved honor. Not that we ever had a doubt! SAIS' educational mission to
train young men and women for diplomacy and business in the modern world
continues to be essential for our nation's future, especially on issues as
challenging as the one I wish to discuss today the future of U.S. relations
with Iran.

The United States and Iran A Complicated History

The United States has no relationship as unique, complex and difficult as it
has with Iran. Iran is the only country in the world today with which the
United States has no sustained direct contact. That is not true of North Korea
or Syria, and it is not true of Libya with whom we now have nascent
relations, following that country's renunciation of WMD but it is true of
Iran. Indeed, we have had no significant connection with the Government of Iran
since 1979, when Iranian students stormed our Embassy and Iran held 52 American
diplomats hostage for 444 days. Iran has never apologized for this
transgression against the American people an event still clear in our
collective consciousness. It led to over 25 years of polarization between our
governments and estrangement between our peoples. And since then Iran's
leadership has chosen, repeatedly, to turns its back on democracy, human rights
and responsible action on nuclear issues and terrorism.

It may be hard to imagine now, but Americans and Iranians once shared many
common interests. In the early years of the 20th century, Iranians were at the
forefront of the first attempt to promote democracy in the Middle East. Between
the two World Wars we maintained commercial and important political ties.
During the Cold War, the United States had a mutually beneficial alliance with
the Shah's government a government that, despite its real and deep flaws,
helped modernize Iran and make the country an important actor on the world
stage.

More importantly, Iranians and Americans in business, sports, the arts and
academia grew to know each other well as they created strong and lasting bonds
between our societies. By the mid-1970s, over 200,000 Iranians a phenomenal
number were studying in the United States. To provide a point of comparison,
that is more than twice the number of students in the United States from any
single foreign country today. Many Iranians under the Shah, of course, wanted
more than a robust economy and social freedoms. They wanted a greater voice in
their country and broader democracy.

A quarter of a century ago, the Iranian revolution unseated a close U.S. ally
in the Shah. After his fall, we nonetheless attempted to engage with Iran's new
Islamic leadership. The forces that had come together in the revolution were
diverse but united in their goal of overthrowing the Shah. As in most
revolutions, however, they lacked unity when it came time to create a new way
forward and a new government. The result was a disastrous and bloody struggle
for power that ultimately stifled the Iranian people's quest for greater
freedom and democracy.

By seizing the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and holding American diplomats hostage,
Iran's hard-liners c ccccommandeered the new Iranian state and stripped away
the very democratic rights which many Iranians had sought. Those who stood for
Iran's democratic future were suppressed. The country's international standing
was shattered, as was its long relationship with Washington. Thus began a new
era of complex and troubled relations between Tehran and Washington,
characterized by direct Iranian support for Lebanese Hezbollah's terrorism
against the United States, beginning in the early 1980s.

Despite this deep freeze between the U.S. and Iranian governments over the last
25 years, the United States has never wanted to distance itself from the
Iranian people. Indeed, the United States has welcomed to its shores tens of
thousands of Iranian political refugees and immigrants seeking better lives for
themselves and their children. Their community has become an important part of
our country. Today, many proud American citizens of Iranian heritage are making
significant contributions in every part of our society. They have preserved
family and cultural bridges to Iran long after diplomatic contact was broken
off. Many Iranian-Americans want for their native country what the Iranian
people surely prize a more democratic future.

Our respect for the Iranian nation remains strong. As President Bush said in
June, "The Iranian people are heirs to a great civilization and they deserve
a government that honors their ideals and unleashes their talent and
creativity."

Two thirds of Iranians today are below the age of 35 and have no personal
memory of the revolution and its hijacking by extremists. They are not
responsible for the wave of terror sponsored by Iran's revolutionary leadership
over the past quarter century. But having lived under the strictures of this
regime, Iran's new generation has renewed its historic struggle for political
participation, free speech, and openness to the world. Many young Iranians
desire an improved relationship with the United States. Over the past decade,
this new generation has begun to make its voice heard despite the attempts of
hard-liners to silence it. By the late 1990s, Iran appeared to be shifting
toward reform and popular aspirations for democratic government.

Tragically for the people of Iran, the hard-line defenders of absolute clerical
rule struck back to suppress reforms and, for the moment, appear to be
prevailing. They have used their control of the security forces, the judiciary,
and other levers of power to frustrate reform and suppress critics. There is a
clear struggle underway between the reactionary Iranian government and the
moderate majority.


In February 2004, for example, the ruling authorities blocked thousands of
candidates from running in the Majles elections, including sitting members.
When reformist members of the Parliament signed a petition to the Supreme
Leader asking for more democracy they were threatened with arrest and stripped
of their parliamentary immunity. And in this year's presidential election, only
eight of the 1,012 declared candidates were permitted to have their names on
the ballot in June's presidential elections. In the past few years alone,
unelected clerics vetoed every piece of reformist legislation passed by the
parliament, closed hundreds of newspapers and weblogs that dared to criticize
the Islamic system, and sanctioned repression against dissidents. A
recently-released "open letter" signed by more than 650 prominent Iranian
intellectuals and political figures reads, in part, "It is essential to remind
those in power that they are the servants of our nation and no one in whatever
position is permitted to consider himself the absolute and perpetual ruler of
our nation by exerting total control over all branches of the government."

In August, the country's clerical and military leaders supported the Mayor of
Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, for the presidency. In their four months in
office, President Ahmadi-Nejad and his cabinet have pursued a highly
ideological and confrontational foreign policy that is isolating Iran from the
international community. In his first weeks in power, the new president
suspended negotiations with the UK, France and Germany on nuclear issues. In
September at the UN General Assembly, Ahmadi-Nejad stunned the world with a
combative speech in which he insisted Iran would pursue a nuclear future
against the wish of nearly all nations. He has turned to the alumni directory
of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to fill many cabinet positions. In
addition, he removed nearly 40 experienced Ambassadors from their posts.
Moreover, Ahmadi-Nejad called for Israel "to be wiped from the face of the
earth" and then defended this shocking statement when the entire international
community repudiated it. For a world leader to call for the destruction of a
nation-state and member of the United Nations is outrageous and intolerable.
Through his statements and actions, President Ahmadi-Nejad is digging a hole
for himself and he appears determined to keep on digging.


As we look to 2006, Iran is pursuing a radical course through its pursuit of a
nuclear weapons capability, its notoriety as the world's leading supporter of
terrorist groups, and its deplorable treatment of its own people. In each of
these areas, Iran holds a position inimical to the world community and is
moving backward against the tide of international opinion. In coordination with
our allies, U.S. policy strives to isolate Iran, promote a diplomatic solution
to I Iran's nuclear ambitions, expose and oppose the regime's support for
terrorism, and advance the cause of democracy and human rights within Iran
itself.
[DEL::DEL]
Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
[DEL::DEL]
The United States and the world community are acutely concerned by Iran's
pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. Increasingly, Iran stands isolated
from the rest of the world in pursuit of its nuclear ambitions.

There is no real international debate about Iran's nuclear intentions among the
major countries of the world. In our diplomatic exchanges with Iran's neighbors
and with many countries in Asia and Europe, we have heard strong and consistent
concerns that the current Iranian government is determined to construct a
complete nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure which would lead logically to the
manufacture of fissile material. Mastery of the fuel cycle would give Iran the
possibility to produce nuclear weapons.

If weapons capability was not Iran's ultimate objective, why would its leaders
have hidden such sensitive aspects of its nuclear activities for 18 years, only
acknowledging their efforts when confronted by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA)? Why has Iran refused to grant the IAEA access to documents,
sites and people the Agency has requested to see? If Iran's nuclear aims were
peaceful, why would this country continue to insist it must have now an
independent uranium conversion and enrichment capability, even though it has no
need for enriched uranium for nuclear power generation for at least a decade?

Why, when the Iranian regime was elected on a pledge of economic recovery,
would Iran continue spending billions of dollars on a nuclear infrastructure it
does not need? Why is Iran operating a uranium conversion facility and
constructing a heavy water reactor in defiance of the IAEA Board, which found
Iran in September to be in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations?
Finally, why would Iran, according to IAEA Director General Mohammed El
Baradei, have information for casting and machining enriched uranium metal into
hemispheres information which clearly applies only to nuclear weapons?

The United States acknowledges the right to nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes, provided a country's nuclear activities are in conformity with its
nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations to develop a peaceful
program under international verification. But, the IAEA has confirmed that Iran
broke its safeguards pledge. Because Iran failed to meet the conditions under
which it had obligated itself to pursue nuclear technology, it must now provide
the international community with objective guarantees that its nuclear program
will be peaceful including no enrichment or reprocessing in Iran and it
must rebuild the confidence it has lost. Iran is like a person who has fallen
into bankruptcy. He may believe he has a right to a bank loan, but the bank
manager has no obligation to give him one until he earns back the bank's trust.

And that is Iran's fundamental problem: its plea that its nuclear objectives
are entirely peaceful is not trusted by much of the world. With the possible
exceptions of Cuba, Syria or Venezuela, not a single government wants to see
Iran proceed unchecked toward full possession of the nuclear fuel cycle. An
Iran in possession of nuclear weapons is unthinkable for all who value security
and peace. A nuclear-armed Iran would pose an incalculable risk to its Arab
neighbors, to the countries of the greater Middle East and to Europe.

President Bush and Secretary Rice have noted publicly our support for the
EU-3's diplomatic negotiations with Iran, aimed at obtaining from Iran
objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear program would be solely for peaceful
purposes. We hoped the EU's approach would permit Iran to derive the benefits
of nuclear power without the possibility of pursuing a nuclear weapons
capability. To support the EU-3, the United States offered its own incentives
in March that we would consider licensing the sale of spare parts for Iran's
aging civilian airliners and dropping our prior objections to Iran's bid to
join the World Trade Organization. Unfortunately, Iran unilaterally violated
its agreement with the EU-3 by breaking the suspension of uranium conversion
and has since refused to return to the table. Iran has reacted coolly to
Russia's recent suggestions for a return to talks.

The United States is working closely with the Europeans, Russia, India, China
and other countries with the hope of forming one increasingly united and
purposeful coalition to deter Iran's efforts. This circle of countries is
widening. Iran should listen to the call for it to return to active and
sustained negotiations with Europe.

If Iran does not do so, then it will face, at a time of our choosing, a UN
Security Council debate to support and reinforce the work of the IAEA. Our
patience is not unlimited. The world is unifying around the goal of Iran
relinquishing its pursuit of nuclear weapons. We remain confident that a
united, international consensus can, in a peaceful way, convince Iran to turn
back from its nuclear ambitions.

It is not too late for Iran to reconsider its nuclear ambitions. It could yet
choose to emulate Libya, which concluded in December 2003 that pursuit of WMD
hindered both its security and economic development. Brazil, Argentina, South
Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are other examples of states that concluded
nuclear weapons were not in their interest. All of these countries benefited
from the trust they earned in the world by increased investment, expanded
regional leadership roles, improved and better long-term security, and enhanced
international ties.
[DEL::DEL]
Iran's Support for Terrorism

Iran remains the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism. At a time when
nearly all the world's governments are distancing themselves from groups that
engage in terrorism, Iran has retained close links to the most notorious
terrorist groups in the Middle East. And when Palestinians and Israelis are
rightfully earning the dividends from the Gaza withdrawal and the opening at
Rafa, Iran is moving in the opposite direction by encouraging terrorism to
thwart progress toward peace.

The world community needs to find a stronger voice in opposing Iran's support
for terrorism. The U.S. remains deeply concerned about Iran's connections to
numerous terrorist groups. Its role in providing weapons, funding and guidance
to Hezbollah represents a threat to Lebanon's fragile peace and is an affront
to the millions of Lebanese who rallied in February against external
interference in their country's affairs. Independently and through Hezbollah,
Iran also provides significant support to Palestinian terrorist groups such as
Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad. Iran continues to host senior al-Qaeda
leaders who are wanted for murdering Americans and other victims in the 1998
East Africa Embassy bombings.

We have called repeatedly for these terrorists to be handed over to states that
will prosecute them and bring them to justice. We believe that some al-Qaeda
members and those from like-minded extremist groups continue to use Iran as a
safe haven and as a hub to facilitate their operations. We call on Iran to
abide by the requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 to deny safe
haven to those who plan, support, or commit terrorist acts and to take
affirmative steps to prevent terrorist acts by providing information and early
warning to other states.

In Iraq, we see troubling indications of Iranian interference. Secretary Rice
has registered her concern about Iran's involvement in that country. The United
Kingdom has made public statements concerning Iranian support for Iraqi
insurgent groups.

Iran's efforts to influence in a negative way Iraq's internal politics
undermines Iraqi sovereignty and encourages sectarianism. This is contrary to
Iran's repeated claims to support stability and peace in Iraq.

Iran should renounce in word and deed any support to individuals and groups
that support instability, insurgency and terrorism in Iraq, and elsewhere.

Iran's Human Rights Record

Iran's domestic human rights record remains abysmal. The government continues
to commit serious abuses, including summary executions, disappearances, torture
and other inhumane treatment. This record has summoned severe international
criticism. Earlier this month, the UN General Assembly passed for the second
year in a row a resolution deploring Iran's treatment of its own people. The
United States gave vigorous support to this resolution. It sends an important
signal to the Iranian people that the world recognizes their plight, and to the
Iranian Government, that dialogue on human rights is no substitute for
improving its record. U.S. and international policy should be to take active
steps to advance the cause of democracy in Iran.

We will continue to highlight the regime's dreadful human rights record and its
ongoing mistreatment of domestic advocates for reform. We will work with other
countries for the release of all political prisoners, including journalists
Akbar Ganji, Reza Alijani, and Hoda Saber; student activists such as Manouchehr
Mohammadi; and crusading lawyers Taghi Rahmani and Nasser Zarafshan. We will
also continue to demand along with the Canadian government and others that
those responsible for the murder of Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi while in
government custody are brought to justice. And we will continue to press the
government of Iran to accord the basic human freedoms of speech, worship and
assembly to all its citizens women and men; Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, Baloochis
and other ethnic groups; Shia, Sunnis, Christians, and Ba'hais.


Iran's advocates for change, its dissidents and writers are the latest heroes
in that country's long struggle for a more responsible and representative
government. We recognize that Iran is a complex society and that the current
regime has been buffeted by fractious power struggles and even internal efforts
to promote gradual change. Today, however, the issue is no longer the
"moderates" versus the "hard-liners," but the Iranian public's growing
disaffection with the entire clerical system. Many Iranians apparently voted
for Ahmadi-Nejad in the hope that he would crack down on corruption and
generate more economic opportunities and a better life for the average Iranian.

Instead, the Tehran stock exchange has plunged 25% since the election. The
Majles has rejected all three of his nominees for oil minister. There are
rumors of significant capital flight, and little appetite among foreign
investors to fill the void as the government relies on high oil prices to cure
social problems without meaningful economic reform. Instead of rivaling Turkey
and South Korea in economic and social indicators as it once did, the last 25
years of radical rule in Tehran have landed the country 106th on the UN's Human
Development index.

And let me return for a moment to the link between Iran's economic aspirations
and its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. As one assesses Iran's
intentions, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Iran is choosing to invest
in nuclear capability over all other rational choices for economic development.
Moreover, Iran's pursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle has led to a suspension of
talks with the EU on a Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and is at least
contributing to a general cooling of foreign investment in Iran. Is this a
regime that is acting as if improving the lives of average Iranians is its
priority?

As we reflect on its first four months in power, the new Iranian government of
President Ahmadi-Nejad has pursued a radical course in pursuing an
irresponsible nuclear weapons program, continued massive support for terrorism,
and denial of basic human rights to its own people.

The world now needs to react to this radical shift in Iran's behavior. During
the eight years of the Khatami government, when reform was at least a hope,
many around the world adopted a strategy of engagement with Iran. Isn't it now
time to consider a different approach toward the new, more radical, more
intolerant Iranian regime?

Through its diplomatic contacts and its trade and investment, the world does
have leverage and that leverage should be used constructively now to
convince the hard-liners in Tehran that there is a price for their misguided
policies. Like any other country, the United States would be prepared to
respond if Iran changed its policies fundamentally, but there is little
evidence of such inclinations in the new government.


The Hope for a Reformed Iran

History teaches that oppressive regimes do not survive forever. The history of
the past quarter-century in Europe also teaches that democracy can triumph over
dictatorship. Events in the Middle East in 2005 resulted in a new Lebanon
emerging from 29 years of Syrian domination. The same laws of history shall
apply in the future to Iran. Given the clear aspirations of Iran's younger
generation, we hope that some day Iran will become a powerful force for peace,
prosperity and democracy in the Middle East. Such an Iran would have good
relations with all of its neighbors and would be an entirely changed country
for all its citizens.

What the United States is Doing


[DEL::DEL]
The absence of direct diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States
has not meant that there have been no diplomatic contacts for the last 25
years. The United States communicates officially with the Iranian government
through the Swiss government, our protecting power in Tehran. We maintain
regular contact on legal and financial issues. We engage with the Iranian
government on specific issues of mutual concern when it is in our interest to
do so. After the Bam and Zarand earthquakes in 2003 and 2005 respectively, we
offered our sympathy and assistance. But we are far from a normal dialogue and
even further from a state of normalized relations. We will thus maintain our
sanctions on Iran which serve to restrict its actions in many areas.

The government in Tehran knows what the international community expects, and
what Iran must do to return to a normal relationship with the U.S. The choice
is clearly with Tehran.

The absence of diplomatic ties with the Iranian government has never stopped
America's determination to support the Iranian people in their desire for a
more democratic future. Since May 2003 we have funded a Persian-language
website that serves as a "virtual embassy" by providing a channel for official
U.S. statements in Farsi. We are also funding political discussion in Farsi
with television and radio broadcasts on the Voice of America, and news and
music broadcasts on Radio Farda, a service aimed at the large population of
younger Iranians.

In 2004, we provided one million dollars to document human rights abuses inside
Iran and $500,000 for National Endowment for Democracy programming. As we
announced in May, this year we will obligate $3 million in Congressional
appropriations for democracy programs to support educational, humanitarian and
non-governmental organizations in advancing democracy and human rights in Iran.
Congress has also earmarked $6.55 million for similar programs related to Iran
and Syria for next year, and there is an expectation that additional funds may
be programmed to support democracy in Iran.

The Administration is appreciative of Congress' support for the resources that
enable us to implement the President's Freedom agenda and reach out to the
Iranian people. Our commitment of funds is tangible evidence of the United
States' support for a better future for the Iranian people. Through our public
statements, internet, radio and TV in Farsi, we will continue to reach out to
the broad range of Iranians pressing for change.

Slowly, many in the region including Lebanon, Egypt, the Palestinian
Authority and the countries of the Arabian Peninsula have begun to undertake
important political, economic and social reforms that are providing new
political space and economic opportunities for countless citizens in the Middle
East. At the same time and in sharp contrast an ossified, repressive
Iranian government remains determined to resist a more open and democratic
future.

In vivid contrast to their government, the Iranian people are moving in a
positive direction. We know that the Iranians like so many others who lack
freedom desire a more open society, freedom of opportunity, free and fair
democratic elections, and healthier more constructive relations with the United
States. Even from the distance our diplomatic estrangement imposes, we see
signs of a complex, multi-faceted movement for a democratic future in Iran. It
extends from the students who have rallied for greater freedoms, to the
intellectuals, writers and journalists who have resisted censorship, the new
thinkers in its seminaries, the government employees trying to promote
progressive policies, and the teachers and workers who have protested their low
pay.

As President Bush has said, "The Iranian people deserve a genuinely democratic
system in which elections are honest and in which their leaders answer to them
instead of the other way around."

Americans share the Iranian people's vision for a prosperous, peaceful and
democratic Iran. We are committed to helping them achieve their goal. We are
equally dedicated to ensuring that those in the regime who are taking their
people down a path with no hope or vision for its people or the region will not
succeed. The irrepressible human desire for freedom is clearly imprinted on the
hearts of the Iranian people. Working together, we are confident that they will
someday prevail.



Released on November 30, 2005

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov for Senior State Department
Official's statements and testimonies
************************************************************