[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 56 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




REMARKS BY FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE JAMES BAKER ON U.S. POLICY TOWARD 
                                  IRAN

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 7, 1998

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished former Secretary of 
State, James A. Baker III, delivered a speech on America's Interest in 
the Middle East at a May 4, 1998, symposium in Washington sponsored by 
the magazine, Middle East Insight. He made many important observation 
about the Middle East peace process, and about U.S. policy in the Gulf. 
I commend him for his remarks.
  I would like to bring the attention of my colleagues an excerpt of 
his speech, concerning U.S. policy toward Iran:

       . . .Let me turn briefly to Iran. This is a country that I 
     think most everyone who looks at it objectively would have to 
     agree is in transition. And I think there are a number of 
     events over the past year or so that have underscored that 
     fact. The first, of course, and most startling was the 
     election of a moderate or semi-moderate, President Khatami, 
     as president last May. The second was his televised overture 
     to the people of the United States, which we saw in January 
     of this year. And the third and most recent was the release 
     from arrest last month of Teheran's mayor, who had been taken 
     prisoner by the hard-liners. And I think this is really a 
     significant development, because it has been widely 
     interpreted--and, I think, correctly--as a victory for 
     Khatami and his colleagues.
       So what I think we may be seeing in Iran is the beginning 
     of a evolution toward a truly post-revolutionary Iran. I 
     think the days of the--the heydays of the revolution are 
     over, and I think Iran is beginning to move in a different 
     direction. I think we're going to begin to see an Iran that 
     is less stridently extreme, and I think we're going to begin 
     to see one that is more open to the outside world. So the 
     question arises: What, then, should the United States of 
     America be doing?
       First of all, I think we should be prepared to meet 
     official Iranian representatives anywhere, anytime, to begin 
     the formal dialogue.
       Secondly, I think we ought to encourage ongoing to people-
     to-people contact between the two countries, such as the 
     recent visit of a U.S. wrestling team here not long ago.
       And thirdly, I think we should consider easing sanctions 
     when and if it becomes clear that Teheran will publicly 
     condemn state-sponsored terrorism and when it becomes clear 
     that she is actually reducing her support for terrorist 
     groups and her efforts to acquire weapons of mass 
     destruction. That last point, I think, is a particularly 
     vital one, because for us to get there and, actually, for 
     Iran to improve its relations with the United States is going 
     to take actions and not words. We're going to have to see the 
     rhetoric and the reality match; the reality is going to have 
     to match the rhetoric.
       And without real, verifiable action on the part of the 
     Iranians, I don't foresee any real thaw in U.S.-Iranian 
     relations. As we contemplate, through, the prospect of such a 
     thaw--and I think is a good prospect that it can occur if the 
     requisite actions take place--as we contemplate such a thaw, 
     I think we ought to remember two very important points. First 
     is that any process is going to be a protracted process, very 
     likely one of years and not months in duration.
       And secondly, an opening to Teheran even if it's 
     successful, is not going to be any substitute for an ongoing, 
     energetic American-led effort to contain the efforts of Iraq 
     to develop biological weapons. Horrific weapons of mass 
     destruction. In other words, I think we ought to avoid the 
     false promise that somehow an improved Washington-Teheran 
     relationship is an ace in the hole when it comes to the 
     question of containing the weapons of mass destruction goals 
     of Iraq. . . .

     

                          ____________________