Review 23.1
1 February - 17 February, 1998

As 1998 unfolds, Iran, Iraq and the Israel-Palestinian peace process have been, and emain the focus of Middle East conflict. The presidential victory in May 1997 of Iran's Mohammad Khatami, and the projection of a more moderate image to the West, peaking with a 7 January 1998 interview on CNN in which he spoke directly to the American people, seems to represent a genuine change. His speech, though careful not to condemn the fanaticism of the past and rejecting direct talks with Washington, was welcomed as an opening to future dialogue. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei who controls defence and foreign policies, however, rejected the opening as wrong with Khatami receiving a dressing down in the conservative Iranian press. In a more strident speech just a few weeks later, even Khatami attacked the US policy of force and its support for the "racist Zionist regime".

In short, on foreign policy specifics, Khatami has merely repeated the traditional Iranian hardline. On the key issues of Iranian sponsorship of international terrorism, Iranian pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and Iranian efforts to destroy the Arab-Israeli peace progress, there is little sign of moderation. And as long as this behaviour continues, the US will continue to attempt to isolate and contain Iran, and rightly so.

Iran continues to supply money, weapons, training and support to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which unequivocally target civilians in some of their attacks. Hezbollah suicide bombers were intercepted on their way to Israel three times in December. Both American and Egyptian diplomatic sources have recently confirmed that the Iranian Embassy in Damascus aided the Islamic extremists who carried out the Luxor massacre of more than 60 tourists in Southern Egypt in November. Iranian aid to terrorism is clearly still a major problem, despite Khatami's protestations. And who can blame Salman Rushdie for continuing to be a trifle sceptical?

On weapons of mass destruction, just last month, Iran completed, with Russian assistance, the latest tests of a new generation of ballistic missile, enabling Iran, for the first time, to strike all of Israel, the Gulf Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The evidence is overwhelming that Teheran is doing its best to acquire the components and technology to make nuclear bombs and there has been no sign of a slowdown since Khatami's election. Experts say Iran could have the bomb by the year 2000 if she continues to receive help with nuclear technology from Russia. Pressure by the US on Russia and China to stop their missile co-operation with Iran is well justified.

Iran is still sponsoring Hamas, which is determined to wreck Israel-Palestinian peace, and whose terrorist acts remain the single biggest problem in moving that process forward. Khamenei, meanwhile, says the whole concept of a deal based on Israel trading land for peace is a "joke" while Khatami joins him in claiming Israel is a "racist-Zionist terrorist regime", and that "foreign policy decisions of the US are in fact made in Tel Aviv".

Khatami's diplomatic offensive follows the US policy of containment and the trade embargo, both of which have contributed to the groundswell for reform in Iran by preventing the clerical government from using foreign investments to revitalise falling oil revenue and thus cover up its gaping economic failures. They should continue until the illegal and dangerous elements of Iranian foreign policy are clearly reversed.

Until the struggle of Iran's moderate reformers and revolutionary hardliners is resolved, the international community must remain committed to maintain the pressure until Teheran changes its unacceptable behaviour.

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein has escalated confrontation with the West. On several occasions now he has prevented United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors from carrying out inspections of Iraqi sites believed to manufacture or store weapons of mass destruction. The British, even the French (but not Russia or China), are now starting to flex their muscles in support of the US and the possibility grows of extensive military action to lance the lethal chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction (especially anthrax and VX nerve gas) that Saddam's "cheat and retreat" tactics are amassing daily.

Australian diplomat Richard Butler, UNSCOM's current head, has quite properly declared that nothing short of full compliance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions is acceptable in the face of Iraqi attempts to defy, obstruct and shatter UN weapons inspection, and in declaring May 20 as the deadline for their work. Amazingly, some other supposedly responsible nations failed to stand up for UNSCOM, despite the threat posed by Iraq's chemical and biological arsenal. Australia's government can be credited as one of those who stood firm in support of Butler and UNSCOM, with a resolute conviction in the danger posed by Saddam, and a commitment to peace throughout the region.

Similarly, Australia's genuinely even-handed encouragement to the Arab and Israeli parties in support of a genuine reconciliation also warrants acknowledgement. However, Israel's search for peace has been long and fruitless this past year. Some measure of hope was raised with last week's series of Washington summit meetings between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Clinton, and Arafat. Several concrete proposals were made by the parties, including a sizeable withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank by Netanyahu, and a Palestinian promise to convene the Palestinian National Council again to fully revise the PLO Charter and remove the references calling for Israel's destruction.

Although there is sympathy for Israel's stipulation of reciprocal Palestinian actions against terrorism, the thrust of the Clinton Administration's policy in the region has been pressure on Israel to grant territorial concessions. Although through the year there was equal prominence given to the requirement of Palestinian compliance, as 1997 drew to a close the focus and US pressure was on Israel.

This policy has come at a time of unprecedented and excessive US involvement at every level of the process, from President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright's direct involvement in negotiations with both leaders, to the oversight of all security links between Israeli and Palestinian security forces by the CIA head in Tel Aviv. The reality on the ground is that there are no longer the fruitful contacts between Israeli and Palestinian commanders that existed only six months ago.

The peace process will face a testing time through 1998. The threats of Hamas terrorism, a new intifada, strained US-Israeli relations, and the possibility of an Israeli election or change in Government will all add to a volatile landscape. Unless Israeli and Palestinian negotiators can reinvigorate the bilateral contacts and trust that brought what few successes the flawed Oslo process has produced, the clouds gathering over the region will remain ominous.