Dealing with Direct and Indirect State Sponsors of Terrorism

By Brigitte L. Nacos
During his current Middle East trip President George W. Bush said in a speech about the region’s problems. “Iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terror.” This sentence was highlighted by the media. Typically, headlines stated that the president “accused” Iran of being the leading terrorist state sponsor or “insisted” that Iran had such a role. There is nothing to be questioned, accused, or insisted, when it comes to Iran and terrorism. The president basically repeated a long-known fact. To be more precise: Iran is today the leading direct state sponsor of terrorism.   
In early 1980, Tehran used the Revolutionary Guard Corps to organize and train Lebanese Shiite extremists of what became the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Ever since, Iran has continued to support the group financially and otherwise. The president was right when he said that the Iran-Hezbollah tie “undermines Lebanese hopes for peace.”  Hezbollah’s role transcends Lebanon since the Lebanese group pursues the destruction of Israel as one of its foremost goals. Moreover, it is equally well known that Iran supports Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian terrorist organizations with financial aid and arms shipments and thereby contributes greatly to the failure to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Add to this, Iran’s support for terrorist organizations in other countries in the Middle East and far beyond. 
When it comes to indirect state sponsorship, other governments may have done more in support of terrorism in our time by allowing religious extremist forces to spread their fanaticism abroad in order to keep them off their back at home. First of all, Saudi Arabia comes to mind.

Whereas the Bush administration and others consider Iran an arch-enemy, they see Saudi Arabia’s rulers as friends. I am not advocating the add Saudi Arabia to the president’s infamous axis of evil but suggest that it should not be impossible to treat direct and indirect state sponsors of terrorism in similar ways. The U.S. and Saudi governments had in the past and still have today constant diplomatic relations and highest level contact. So, why not try to reestablish diplomatic ties between Washington and Tehran, talk about each side’s grievances, and probe for common ground?   
If  U.S.diplomats can talk to their North-Korean counterparts, why can’t there be direct American-Iranian diplomacy? After all,in the U.S. Department's last "Country Reports on Terrorism," North Korea, a country with an advanced nuclear program, remained on the list of state sponsors.

Comments

[Brigitte]

Bill: Several reasons why I would not want to add to the axis of evil. In the first place, that might well give ammunition to those who push for military solutions--see the invasion to Iraq and some circle's idea to go next after Iran.
However, I have long wondered why Saudi Arabia was never and is not now, in the post-9/11 era, on the State Department's list of state sponsors.

[Bill in Chicago]

"I am not advocating we add Saudi Arabia to the president’s infamous axis of evil . . . "

Why not? They deserve it more than anyone:

http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com