ANY country which funds international guerilla movements, arms combatants in other nations and pays scant attention to national boundaries in its pursuit of perceived enemies might be called a terrorist nation. Iran meets these criteria and has rightly earned international condemnation. The latest attempt by the United States, however, to isolate Teheran should be treated with a degree of scepticism.
The US is concerned that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear arsenal, which would add a new dimension to Teheran's capacity for terror. Already, Iran is fighting a proxy guerilla war in the Middle East through the Hezbollah militia, while its Government has refused to renounce the fatwah, or religious death sentence, issued against the writer Salman Rushdie by the late Ruhollah Khomenei.
Any government that sanctions the murder of a foreign national overseas deserves contempt but the move by President Bill Clinton to ban all US trade and investment with Iran must be viewed in context. After all, Washington is willing to do business with many distasteful regimes.
Fair-minded people share the US hostility to the Teheran regime. But it should be remembered that Washington's hatred of Iran - prompted by the taking of American hostages - helped prepare the ground for the Gulf War. Even as Iraq prepared to invade Kuwait, the US was warm towards President Saddam Hussein, on the basis of his enmity towards Iran.
Iran is of small economic importance to the US, so it is not hard for Mr Clinton to appear principled while calling on allies to back the embargo. The timing suggests it is aimed mainly at Russia, ahead of next week's Moscow summit.
For Russia and the new nations of central Asia, Iran represents a huge potential market. For India and Pakistan, also, it is too big to be ignored. Washington should realise more fragile economies face special problems. So the US is unlikely to entice other nations to follow suit. It is more likely that other countries will rush to fill the trade vacuum created by US policy.
