June 4, 2003	Wednesday	Rabi-us-Sani 3, 1424

TEHRAN: The suspension of contacts between the United States and Iran, in the wake of Washington’s charges that Tehran is harbouring Al Qaeda members, is the latest prism through which to view the differences between the government and the public on what political road the country should be taking.

Over the years, this debate has often been reflected in tussles over reformist laws and attempts to have a more open society and press.

But in recent weeks, it is also being played out in issues dealing with the United States — the US warnings to Iran to ‘behave’ in Iraq, Tehran’s supposed hosting of Al Qaeda members links to the Saudi Arabia bombings in May, and ties with Washington, more than three decades after the Islamic revolution froze bilateral ties.

“Foolish vanity” is how Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei describes the US warnings after it suspended a meeting with Iranian officials scheduled for May in Geneva. These contacts have been underway for more than a year now, after the Sept 11 attacks.

At his sermon at Friday prayers at the Tehran University, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, chairman of the powerful Expediency Council, said: “One should feel sorry that America as a huge giant will make so grave a mistake and underestimate the power of Iranian public opinion and the strength of the Supreme leader.”

“Today, the Iranian nation, clerics and the power of the revolution have not been weakened and the American administration is daydreaming in vain to topple Iranian system,” added Rafsanjani, whose sermons are seen to reflect the policies of the establishment.

These top leaders were reacting to warnings that Washington issued against Iran for hosting Al Qaeda members who fled Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq after the US-led invasion — and for its nuclear programme. Tehran says this for peaceful purposes, but Washington says it aims to produce “fissile materials for nuclear weapons”.

How Tehran deals with the US government remains a point of contention between conservatives like Khamenei, who is cool to the warming of ties, and reformist President Mohammad Khatami, especially as Washington ratchets up the pressure against Iran.

But for all of the tough words from Khamenei and Rafsanjani, however, some Iranians say they are not impressed. “These are worn-out rhetoric and irrelevant to the needs of the Iranian youth,” 21-year-old student Mahmoud Zare said of Rafsanjani’s remarks.

Khamenei maintains the reformist camp is being intimidated by Washington’s threats. Last week, he said: “Those who are intimidated by the enemy’s demands will retreat step by step and finally surrender. But nobody has right to do so and the nation will not allow it.”

He was replying also to an open letter that 127 members of the Islamic Maijlis (parliament) wrote to Khamenei — concurrent with the US-Iran contacts in Geneva — indicating that the regime would not survive unless the people’s needs are addressed.

But people like Kamran Saadat, an irrigation engineer and designer, says such arguments do not appeal to him: “The Iranian regime has no more popular legitimacy and unlike 1997, the high turnout time for the presidential election, the mainstream of the nation does not defend the regime. If America intervenes to speed up the removal of Islamic theocracy in Iran, people would not be bothered to resist.”

Still, these reactions by no means make for a black-and-white picture when it comes to Iran’s attitudes toward the United States.

Those who do not care much about the conservatives are not necessarily happy with the US government or US policy in the Middle East, and say that its warnings about Iran trying to export its type of Islamic government, say to Iraq, simply miss the point.

“Our world, huge as it is, has been buffeted from two sides by the outlooks and methods of violent dogmatists or arrogant powers,” Khatami told the Organization of Islamic Conference meeting here on May 28.

“On the one side, terrorism and fanaticism have distorted the humane and freedom-speaking visage of religion and humanity and on the other, resort to force, hegemony-seeking and unilateralism have made a mockery of such respected concepts as freedom and democracy,” Khatami said.

Mohammad Haydari, manager of ‘Parpejvak’ website and editor of the privately-owned monthly ‘Khandani’, says it is not logical for the United States to argue that Iran is a major supporter of Al Qaeda.

“Officially and diplomatically, no relations between the Al Qaeda and the Islamic republic of Iran can be envisaged whatsoever,” he added. This, he said, is “although some members of intelligence community or security circles might exploit the Al Qaeda refugees as their tools in future challenges”.

Conservatives and reformist supporters hold different views on claims about Al Qaeda being active in Iran.

Issuing the standard reply, Hussain Mosaee, a sergeant in the Revolutionary Guard, says that “talk about Osama bin Laden’s friends in Iran is absolutely groundless” and that in truth, Washington is using this claim to shield its protection of the anti-Tehran group Mujahideen Khalq Iran in Iraq.

Meantime, many are watching to whether the conservatives or reformists make use of recent US actions to strengthen their clout.

News reports also talk of a split in Washington between officials who want an end to contacts with Iran and to support anti-Iran opposition groups based in Iraq, and those who want to keep communication channels open.—Dawn/The InterPress News Service.