TEHRAN (Bazaar) – Professor Paul Pillar, who was CIA intelligence analyst for 28 years, says a mechanism for regional dialogue can be useful in multiple respects.
“Discussion about Iran's ballistic missiles, for example, is unlikely to lead in its current form to any arms control agreements because Iran, unsurprisingly, will not want to accept restrictions on its own capabilities while the missile capabilities of nearby states are ignored,” Pillar told Bazaar News Agency.
Following is the full text of the interview:
Q: It is planned to hold a meeting this September at the initiative of the Secretary General of the United Nations with the participation of the foreign ministers of eight countries of Iran and Iraq and GCC members. The Secretary General's initiative for regional dialogue is included in UN Security Council Resolution 598, which led to the end of the Iran-Iraq war. What is your assessment of this meeting?
A: Such a meeting is consistent with an overall improvement in intra-regional relations, as highlighted by the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Even if no specific agreements or initiatives come out of the meeting, it can be useful in maintaining momentum in a reduction of regional tensions.
Q: After the improvement of the relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia, improvement in the relations between Iran and other Arab countries can be seen. To what extent can creating a mechanism for regional dialogue be successful in such an atmosphere?
A: A mechanism for regional dialogue can be useful in multiple respects. It would help in considering certain issues on a multilateral basis, as they should be, rather than just focusing on one country at a time. Discussion about Iran's ballistic missiles, for example, is unlikely to lead in its current form to any arms control agreements because Iran, unsurprisingly, will not want to accept restrictions on its own capabilities while the missile capabilities of nearby states are ignored.
Q: Following the reduction of America's presence in the region, diplomacy in the region regarding important security issues for the countries of the region has increased. Do you evaluate this process as tactical or strategic?
A: Some of the developments might be considered tactical, in the sense of using relations with one outside power to send a message to another outside power. But the larger process is fundamentally strategic, in the sense of regional states wanting to keep all their options open regarding relations with outside powers and not wanting to become wholly dependent on any one foreign state.
Q: China's participation in the region - although it does not have a wide military and security aspect at the moment - what effect will it have on regional trends?
A: The Chinese role will continue to be primarily economic, but that alone will help to loosen any sense of dependency on the US and the West. The Chinese role in the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement suggests a Chinese impact that goes well beyond the economic, although in that instance Chinese mediation help was building on strong incentives that the two Persian Gulf parties already had for putting their relations on a more stable basis.
Q: To what extent can commercial relations and economic interdependency be used for regional dialogues?
A: Such relations can help in starting or maintaining dialogues, although the commercial relations are most important in dealing with an outside power such as China. There is not a large economic interdependence in the region waiting to be exploited. Two countries that are both oil exporters, for example, are more in competition economically rather than having complementary economies that can grow a relationship through trade.
نظر شما