Examination of Witness (Questions 80-90)
14 DECEMBER 2004
DR ALI
ANSARI
Q80 Mr Mackay: Dr Ansari, may I explore
again this issue of Iranian brinkmanship. You rightly say it has
been a very frustrating year so far. Is it too simplistic to say
that it is their policy to play the EU off against the United
States of America?
Dr Ansari: It is not, because
in the last year we have witnessed some of this taking place.
It has been a long, well-founded policy, prior to the last year,
that the EU were Iran's ideological bedfellows and that the Europeans
were the people to deal with. Clearly the Americans we were going
to have long-term problems with, therefore it is much better to
consolidate ourselves with the EU. We have seen not only the EU
being played against the Americans but we have seen the EU countries
played against each other, that is the flaw. There are those more
constructive people who will say that they see the EU as a route
towards bringing America in from the cold so to speak, that is
also an element and the route to Washington lies through London
basically, but this is probably a more long-term aim.
Q81 Mr Mackay: You have hinted at what
the Iranian Government want to achieve. Would you like to say
a little bit more on what you think their ultimate objective is?
Dr Ansari: In terms of their nuclear
capacity?
Q82 Mr Mackay: Yes.
Dr Ansari: Let me put it this
way. I think most Iranian governments even prior to the Islamic
revolution had this yearning to restore their great power status
and this is something that goes back a very long way, it is something
that the Shah was very keen on and I think the vital element here
is that they want to be technologically advanced. I think my own
view, and it is a view I gathered from an American colleague,
is that the Iranians were being quite clever about this, they
were going out to the absolute edges of the NPT, providing the
infrastructure of a weapons programme but not taking that final
step. It would be a matter of debate, as you said, Mr Chairman,
about whether the current threats are ones that would push them
across the brink. My own view is that for prestige reasons, for
the idea that nuclear technology in a broad sense provides them
with legitimacy, they will go as far as they absolutely possibly
can.
Q83 Mr Mackay: You have just said then,
and I am sure you are probably right, that they are seeking again
great power status. When you were before the Committee last time
you said, in respect of some Iranians, "for them an American
attack would be just the tonic to reinvigorate traditional values
and national unity". Linking those two together, are we in
for a dangerous confrontation between Iran and the international
community?
Dr Ansari: That is a very serious
concern. I have to say that this year I genuinely feel there are
factions on both sides of the equation who are not averse to a
confrontation and there is no doubt this is a problem. If it was
only one side I would feel much more secure, but because there
are both sides working in a way against each other it is something
that I think we would be well advised to be acutely aware of.
Q84 Chairman: Dr Ansari, do you see any
signs of any more flexibility or pragmatism in terms of foreign
policy? For example, we were there and we were told that there
are no diplomatic relations with Egypt because they named a street
in Tehran after the assassins of Sadat. They have now resumed
relations with Egypt. Does that show any greater flexibility to
the Middle East in terms of the rejectionist views on the Middle
East peace process, Israel/Palestine?
Dr Ansari: The debate on Israel/Palestine
has been going on for some time. I fear that we are unlikely to
see anything productive on that front certainly in the next year,
but there is an increasing awareness among Iranians, even those
involved in matters of political influence, that some sort of
modus vivendi with Israel has to be arranged, you cannot
continue like this ad nauseum particularly when they have
to come to some sort of arrangement eventually with the United
States and you cannot do that with the United States if you are
looking for a peaceful solution. If you are looking for a more
confrontational solution this situation is ideal at the moment,
it cannot get better. I think there are strong motivations, strong
pushes, towards being more flexible on the Middle East peace process.
Q85 Chairman: Have they encouraged their
friends in the Palestine Authority to take part in the January
elections?
Dr Ansari: I am not aware of their
position on the January elections so I cannot comment on that
directly.
Q86 Sir John Stanley: Can you explain
a bit further why you take the view that there is unlikely to
be any progress on Israel and Palestine over the next year? We
were told that there was going to be no progress until we knew
the outcome of the US presidential election. We have now got that
outcome. Mr Blair is clearly very, very anxious to make progress
in this next 12 months when he is going to be President of the
EU and President of the G8. Just explain to us why your view is
that we are unlikely to make any progress in 2005.
Dr Ansari: My view is entirely
to do with Iran's relations with the Middle East peace process,
not the peace process itself. Iran believes that Israel has recently
purchased 500 bunker-busting bombs from the United States specifically
as a threat essentially towards Iran. They are unlikely to be
using bunker-busting bombs against the Palestinians. In that light
and because of all that that implies I think in the next year
you are unlikely to see anything from the Iranian aspect that
is particularly productive or constructive vis-a"-vis
the Middle East peace process.
Q87 Chairman: Iran is a vast country
in an unstable area and of enormous strategic significance. How
would you advise us, the US or, more particularly, the European
Union to engage most constructively?
Dr Ansari: There are a number
of things that I think need to be dealt with including in terms
of policy making. I think one of the great weaknesses of the last
year has been the fact that so many of the Iran experts in the
foreign policy establishment in this country have been directed
towards Iraq and therefore we have had a dearth of resources and
this has caused some of the problems we have had, ie people have
been learning on-the-hoof. They have learned very well but it
has caused a few delays. There are some very structural and personnel
related issues to do with having the expertise, which is there,
it exists, it is just directed towards other things. I think particularly
at this moment in time what we need to do is to bring these people
back into the fray and bring them back in on Iran. In terms of
EU and US policy what we need is a united front, a very clear
policy of how we are going to approach Iran, we need to know what
we want from Iran and how we are going to get it, but it has to
be united and it has to be clear and we must not allow the separate
fissures in the EU and America to be exploited by those elements
in Iran who would like to exploit them.
Q88 Sir John Stanley: Have you any information
as to whether the American sale of bunker-busting bombs to Israel
was done on a no strings attached basis or whether the use of
those weapons is dependent upon the approval of the US Government?
Dr Ansari: I have been informed,
but I would freely admit that this is not my area of expertise,
I have taken advice from a number of people, that it would be
impossible for the Israelis to launch any sort of air strike on
Iran without prior US approval for the simple reason that they
would have to fly over Iraq and if they flew over Iraq they would
need to get air clearance if they did not want to be shot down.
Certainly the view coming out of Washington that I am aware of
is that the Israelis are unlikely to do anything without some
sort of prior American sanction for it to happen.
Q89 Sir John Stanley: Are you making
your statement in relation to the requirement to fly over Iraq
on the basis of knowledge of the air-to-air refuelling capability
of the Israeli Air Force?
Dr Ansari: That was one thing
that they did say, that they would have to refuel. The argument
is that the Israelis do not have the logistics capability to deal
with a comprehensive air strike. They could hit certain targets,
but they would need to refuel over Kurdistan. I do not know why
over Kurdistan but this is the area they were talking about. I
was very confidently told basically by an American diplomat that
they cannot go over Turkey, Turkey would not allow them through,
that the only route they could take was through Iraq, that they
have a certain amount of range and limited capability to hit some
targets but they certainly could not hit all the targets that
the Americans could. The Americans have the capability sitting
in the Gulf. I was told by an American that there is a lovely
myth that their armed forces are over-stretched. He said, "Our
Army is overstretched, our Marine Corps is over-stretched, but
our Air Force hasn't got anything to do at the moment." That
was basically his argument and they said they have to justify
their budget.
Q90 Mr Hamilton: Do you think the Americans
are likely to turn their attention now to Tehran and use military
action against them if they do not comply with international agreements
on nuclear development?
Dr Ansari: I think there is a
very strong incentive among a number of Iranians to pursue this
to its final conclusion. One would hope that wiser counsel would
prevail because the consequences would be quite catastrophic.
Chairman: Dr Ansari, you have been very
helpful to the Committee. Thank you very much.
| 
