Is Iran really part of the solution in Afghanistan?

Working in public relations for Iran’s diminutive dictator can’t be easy. Not only did his regime rig last year’s presidential election and then brutally repress the ensuing protests, it managed to unite the international community this year, as leaders lined up to condemn Sakineh Ashtiani's death sentence for alleged adultery. President Ahmadinejad goes from one outrage to another— just this week he provoked mass walkouts at the UN general assembly by claiming that 9/11 was an inside job.

One might expect, then, that Iranian assistance in Afghanistan would be the last thing on President Obama’s mind. Last month, however, the American president indicated that Iran could be a “constructive partner” in any attempts to defeat the Taliban (or at least to bring them to the table). According to last week’s Washington Post, the Iranian and American governments are now organising informal discussions on this issue.  This is an idea which, over the past two years, has received support from Hillary Clinton, US ambassador Richard Holbrooke and General David Petraeus.

But whatever support the plan has received in the past, Obama must understand that it can no longer be viewed as a workable scheme. Not only has the relentless progress of the Iranian nuclear programme made clear Khamenei's aggressive intentions, there is strong evidence that Iran has been making the situation worse for Nato forces in Afghanistan. Inconveniently for those who believe that Iran could be a positive force there, several American generals, as well as the US state department, have claimed that Iran is supporting the Taliban and related insurgents. Indeed, according to the report of the 9/11 Commission, published eight years ago, the links between Iran and al Qaeda go back to the 1990s.

Worse still, Iran will require concessions in return for any “assistance.” These may well include acceptance of its nuclear programme, with disastrous implications for regional stability. Ahmadinejad will also demand an end to American support for dissidents, pro-democracy activists and those Iranians who have suffered human rights abuses. Although much of this support has been little more than nominal, the development of an effective  democratic movement that can overthrow the current regime remains the only viable long-term solution. Iran would also make sure that sympathisers, and even outright Iranian agents, were installed at every level of Afghanistan's government.

Unless the US makes concessions that are both strategically and morally unacceptable, Iran is unlikely to stop using proxies to wage a de facto cold war against America. In any case, it is ludicrous to expect a theocratic tyranny to be an effective partner in the creation of a democratic and stable Afghanistan. Indeed, the fact that Obama is even trying to broker such a deal suggests that his attempts to both win the war in Afghanistan and stop the Iranian nuclear programme are misguided at best. In the words of one of Obama's predecessors, “Iran is not the solution…Iran is part of the problem."