February 27, 2003	Thursday	Zul Hijjah 25, 1423

TEHRAN: Amid the rumbling rhetoric and anti-US diatribes issued from Tehran in recent weeks over a possible US-led war on Iraq, wily former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani summed up Iran’s position most clearly.

“We agree that Iraq should rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. We do not think the Baath regime of Iraq should possess weapons like long-range missiles,” Rafsanjani told worshippers during a Friday prayers sermon earlier this month.

“But the presence of America in our region is worse than such weapons being in the hands of (Iraqi President) Saddam (Hussein),” he said, to choruses of “Death to America” from the crowd.

Most ordinary Iranians relish the prospect of finally seeing regime change in the western neighbour which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers and civilians in the brutal 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

But Iran’s loathing for Saddam is tempered by deep-rooted suspicion of US intentions in the region and an open concern that with the removal of Saddam, Iran would move higher up on Washington’s “axis of evil” agenda.

“If the Iranians had a choice, there would be no US attack on Iraq to oust Saddam from power,” said Siamak Namazi, managing director of the Atieh Bahar consulting group in Tehran.

“Tehran clearly prefers the continuation of the status quo, rather than the uncertainty that an American military campaign could bring about.”

UNCERTAINTIES: For Iran, the uncertainties range from being drawn into the conflict by attacks from Baghdad-backed Iranian opposition groups to coping with floods of Iraqi refugees.

War in the region would almost certainly scare off precious foreign investment, could hasten calls for greater democracy in Iran and might leave the Islamic Republic encircled by pro-US states.

Moreover, with Washington on renewed alert following recent announcements that Iran was building an ambitious network of facilities for an atomic energy programme, Saddam’s removal would undoubtedly put Tehran under the “axis of evil” spotlight.

“Saddam’s presence in Iraq means that the Islamic Republic is at least second on the “axis of evil” list,” said Namazi, who predicted that Israel would lobby Washington hard over the threat posed by Tehran if Saddam was removed.

But while Iranian officials make their opposition to a US-led attack on Iraq clear, most accept that war is virtually inevitable and are determined on Iranian involvement in the decision-making over a post-Saddam Iraq.

“Iran wants a big say in what happens next. But unlike countries like Turkey or Kuwait, it doesn’t have many cards to play with,” said one seasoned European diplomat in Tehran.

“It’s not as if it is going to offer its airports to the Americans to launch an attack on Iraq,” he said.

SHOW ITS IMPORTANCE: Direct talks between Tehran and Washington are limited because of the 23-year absence of diplomatic relations.

But Iran has stepped up its contacts with the European Union, held regular meetings with regional officials — including Iraq itself — and played a key role in hosting Iraqi opposition groups.

“Iran wants to show Washington that it is an important regional player that cannot be ignored,” said Namazi.

Chief among Iran’s post-Saddam concerns are: that Iraq does not split up territorially along ethnic and religious lines; that any US military presence is brief; that Iraq’s Shia majority has a say in government; and that a new Iraqi administration is not hostile to Tehran.

Sources say Washington’s message to Tehran has been fairly stark: “Washington is telling them ‘don’t get involved and don’t meddle’,” said another diplomat.

Reports that Iran has been allowing hundreds of fighters from a Tehran-based Iraqi Shia group to cross its border into Iraq raised some eyebrows, but not much concern, in Washington, the source said.

And despite belligerent statements about giving a “decisive and ultimate” answer to any US warplanes should they cross into Iranian airspace during an attack on Iraq, most analysts expect Iran to cooperate with search and rescue missions for downed US pilots, as it has done in the past.—Reuters