An Emotional Barrier That Must Fall : Hate-Iran Policy Gets in the Way of Ending This Ghastly War

The Iran-Iraq War will go down in history as one of the bloodiest in the second half of the 20th Century. During the last several years Iran has used children as young as 12 as minesweeper operators. There has been major indiscriminate Iraqi bombing of Iranian civilians and some retaliation by Iran. But it is Iraq that escalated the fighting by its use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops.

In the face of such atrocities, world public opinion has becomed numbed. Yet Iraq’s massive gassing of its own Kurdish citizens has still proved shocking.

After Iran launched its “human wave” attacks in 1985, using its large population to try to make up for the military power that it did not have, Iraq began the systematic use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops. Victims were sent to Austria and Sweden for treatment, and a United Nations team visited Iran and confirmed its charges of Iraqi actions.

Yet so long as only Iranians were being killed by Iraq’s chemical weapons, there was no political will, either in the United Nations or in major world capitals, to condemn such activity. The predominant feeling was that Iran deserved what it was getting. Also, no one wanted to risk emboldening Iran by condemning Iraq, let alone by pressuring Baghdad to stop. The only world reaction was a general condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, without naming Iraq, and occasional mild admonitions.

This time, however, Iraqi Kurdish citizens--non-Arab ethnics--have been the victims of Iraqi poison gas. Thus the Western media, particularly in Europe, have reacted more strongly. Official U.S. reaction, however, remains tepid. The State Department spokesman has decried Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, but has softened the criticism by saying that “there are indications that Iran may also have used chemical artillery shells in this fighting.” The United States has called on both Iran and Iraq to desist.

The U.S. government’s unwillingness to condemn Iraq’s use of chemical weapons reflects overall U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq War. This policy includes the principle that the United States should not support any measure against Iraq that gives satisfaction to Iran or helps to vindicate its position. Thus the United States opposes identifying Iraq as the aggressor, in the United Nations or any other international body, even if doing so would help to end the war in the Persian Gulf.

The dominant U.S. view is that identifying Iraq as the aggressor could cause the Iraqi regime to collapse, thereby giving Iran a victory that it has not been able to achieve on the battlefield. Such a risk no doubt exists. But it is by no means unacceptable, particularly compared to other risks--including the spread of chemical weapons--if the war continues.

But more important in explaining U.S. policy is the strong and widespread hatred of Iran in America. The U.S. government cannot be seen to be favoring a policy that means being fair to Iran or evenhanded in its judgment of the conflict. These popular emotions inhibit recognition that, in its own interest, the United States must deal with Iran and the Persian Gulf war on a realistic basis. Yet it has become clear that U.S. policy toward the war can succeed only if this emotional barrier is surmounted.

The United States should adopt at least a neutral stance toward efforts, by the United Nations or other mediators, to bring the war to an end. Washington need not appear to favor a solution that addresses Iran’s legitimate grievances, but it should not stand in the way of such a solution if it has a reasonable chance of success. The United States should also acquiesce in efforts to de-escalate the war. These include seeking an end to the tanker war or an agreement to observe an informal cease-fire at sea and on land--as Iran has suggested.

A signal from the United States that it does not oppose such efforts would increase the chances that, under U.N. leadership, they could succeed. De-escalation of the war and stabilization of the military balance on a reduced level of combat would in turn help set in motion a sustained peace process.

Iran has certainly earned American dislike. But many in Iran, including those in its top leadership, are also trying to reach out to the United States. This is clearly illustrated by Iranian official Hashemi Rafsanjani thanking the United States for criticizing Iraqi use of chemical weapons.

The United States has too much at stake in the Persian Gulf to allow this dislike of Iran to dictate policy. Unless the influence of emotions on U.S. policy is recognized and dealt with forthrightly, American interests in the region will be damaged and a resolution of the conflict will be delayed even further.