Unease in Iran grows over talk of US pullout

LONDON -- Iran has consistently opposed the presence of US forces in Iraq, but new prospects of a US withdrawal are prompting growing unease in the Islamic republic, where many fear the repercussions of a dangerously unstable neighbor.

Officially, Iran's policy remains flatly opposed to US troops in Iraq and characterizes them as a key contributor to the escalating violence. Iran's government says it wants the United States to withdraw at the earliest possible opportunity.

But the US elections this month that swept in a Democratic majority to Congress and subsequent talk of the beginning of a phased pullout, possibly within the next year, has touched off a discussion in Tehran about the outright anarchy that could result.

On Tuesday night, Tehran's English-language news channel featured commentary from a political scientist, Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, calling for the United States to remain in Iraq until it has established a strong, stable central government capable of providing adequate security.

"The Americans can't simply withdraw from Iraq, leaving the mess as it is," Mojtahedzadeh said in a telephone interview from Tehran afterward. "Who's going to look for the safety of the Iraqis there? The Iranians can't do it. The Turks can't do it. . . . This is not a question of political rivalry between Iran and the West. It has to do with the fact that the society has to have a government structure in place."

Analysts familiar with official thinking say there is support for views such as Mojtahedzadeh's within the professional foreign policy establishment, if not within the hard-line circles closest to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a feeling that a drawn-out timetable for withdrawal would be preferable to a quick pullout.

"They've not said it directly and openly as an official policy line, that they'd like the US to stay, but I think there's a sense among the Iranians that they understand that the US cannot just leave immediately," said Hadi Semati, a well-known Iranian political analyst who is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.

"If you're talking about the officials and the foreign policy establishment, I think they're more these days cognizant and aware of the possible dangers and repercussions of civil war and the collapse of what is left of Iraqi governance on Iran. The fact that if the bloodshed gets out of hand, they might at some point feel compelled to intervene to support their Shi'ite co-religionists against extremists and death squads and mass killings," Semati said.

"At the same time, they don't want to be seen as the one that supports a US occupation force. That's why they're conflicted," he said.

An official Iranian source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Iran's position is unchanged and continues to urge a quick US withdrawal.

"We oppose the Western forces continuing the occupation there. As long as they are there, we think the violence in this situation will continue, and it does not help whatsoever the stability in the region," he said.

Another official source echoed the same view. "Why would the US think that their rapid withdrawal would be rejected by Iran? Do they think their presence is a help? Iran thinks it is not," he said.

"Some in the US argue that Iran wants the US to stay because it is a good target for Iran and will every day face new problems there. But I think their presence also is a source of instability for the region."

Iranian analysts said senior official circles will never vary from Iran's established line opposing US intervention.