Iranian Scholar on The Fate of the “Policy of Ambiguation”

August 9th, 2008Azadi

Mehdi Khalaji, a visiting scholar at the Washington Institution for Near East Policy, believes that Iran’s Supreme Leader’s policy of not taking clear stances in terms of foreign policy and refusing to give practical responses to Western countries is West’s most critical obstacle in solving Iran’s problems. Though, he believes that this policy is soon about to face its fate due to world’s changing “regional and global equations.”
In his recent article “Islamic Republic: Diplomatic Obstruction” on Dutch-based Radio Zameneh, Khalaji points out that the goal of this policy is to buy time while not taking any fatal decisions. “Ayatollah Khamanei, who is the strongest person in Iran’s political structure, has not been taking any fatal decisions, at least in terms of foreign policy, in the last two years.” says Khalaji, “more than that, he has tried to use a policy of ambiguity and agitation to buy more time in order to fulfill his goals.”
Khalaji then points out that there are clear signs that Ayatollah Khamenei has no plan of either going to war with or normalizing Iran’s relations with the U.S. “For example, his top foreign policy consultant, Ali Akbar Velaiati, in an article published on many European journals highlights the role of Supreme Leader and images Ahmadinezhad as the less important figure,” he points out, “on the other hand, in a speech immediately after that, he introduces Mahmood Ahmadinezhad as the key player.”
This so-called “policy of ambiguation,” Khalaji believes, is a critical problem for Western powers in their behavior towards Iran because they like to negotiate with someone who makes the decisions. But as Khalaji points out, “in Iran, those who have the power do not make decisions and those who can make decisions do not have the power.”
As far the Iran-US relations is concerned, Khalaji believes that Ayatollah Khamanei considers a peace with U.S as a “to-be-or-not-to-be” matter regarding the ideals of Islamic Revolution. Therefore, “he views the continuation of his current policies while not getting in to any kind of conflict with U.S or Israel as his main challenge,” Khalaji points out “and this is the exact policy that leads westerns to a condition of intoleration, desperation, and moving towards harder measures.”
Khalaji believes that the new regional and global equations is the main obstacle facing Iran’s ambition of continuation of “policy of ambiguation.” “The rising nuclear crisis, insecurity in Iraq and problems in Lebanon and Occupied parts of Palestine has made it harder and harder for Israel, U.S, and other Western countries to accept the continuation of these policies,” he adds “Ayatollah Khamenei considers the pre-9/11 policies still practical, but the regional and global equations have changed since then.”
“ It seems unlikely for the U.S general policies towards Iran to change, either with Bush administration or his replacement.” Khalaji concludes, “ Ayatollah Khamenei is the only one who holds the key to either get in to a war or peacefully solve the nuclear crisis. If Iran’s Leader changes his mind and does not rely on the practicality of hard power more than it is practical, Iran can reenter the Global Community while having good relations with the West and U.S and playing a significant role in the region, which is what Iranian people, culture, and geographical location deserves.”