In a CNN interview broadcast January 8, 1998, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami spoke with surprising warmth of the "great American people" and suggested cultural exchanges as a means of dissipating the mistrust existing between Iran and the United States. Just eight days later in a sermon at Tehran University, Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, resurrected the "Great Satan" label for the United States, branding this country as the enemy of the Iranian nation and emphasizing that this was not the time for a closer dialogue with the government. While the appearance of overt conflict within the Iranian government was avoided by Khamenei, who characterized himself as agreeing with President Khatami, a disinterested observer might be justified in assuming that despite substantial differences around attitudes toward America,1 some potential for dialogue had arisen.
These internal differences have existed for some years, although there has already been a series of the kind of cultural exchanges suggested by Khatami, most notably the annual Grand Persian Carpet Conferences and Exhibitions, which were initiated by the Iranian Ministry of Commerce in 1992. This subject is particularly important to the Iranians, as hand-made carpets are their second largest export, after oil, and some eight million Iranians, among a total population of approximately sixty million, earn their livelihood totally or partially in the carpet industry or in related services.2 Since the oriental rug established a strong presence in the West, well over a century ago, the term "Persian carpet" has become a general term for the type, whether made in Turkey, Central Asia or India. The industry was initially promoted by the late nineteenth century Persian government as a means of ensuring a "sustainable source of finance"3 to allow the importation of luxuries.
While oil-producing nations are often discussed in terms of oil and agricultural income - particularly in many economic treatises that concern themselves with Iran - carpet revenues far exceed income from farm exports. The revolutionary leaders of Iran also felt that the shah became overly dependent upon oil revenue, which was in tum spent upon armaments and consumer goods. It was their goal to make Iran self-sufficient by producing basic goods for internal consumption, while continuing to make goods for export.4 It is thus no surprise that the Iranian government takes particular care with the organization of such an important industry which - unlike oil - is a renewable resource.5 It is also a sore point between the Iranians and the United States, as the American government maintains an embargo on Iranian handicrafts, which places the world's largest market off limits.
When the Export Promotion Center of Iran decided to sponsor a series of conferences on carpets, there was no question that the motives ran deeper than merely encouraging an academic interchange on art-historical topics. Clearly Iran wished to expand its carpet exports, and without question the United States is the major untapped market. Not surprisingly, the 1992 conference, by far the largest, began with a clear but unstated emphasis on American participation. It seemed at the time, and in retrospect, as though an opening were being provided for the American government to make a response to an apparent act of conciliation. As a delegate at four of the six conferences that have occurred to date, I have been well placed to observe the subtle shifts in Iranian attitudes during this period.
Participation in the conferences was invited by advertisements in several oriental carpet periodicals, in which there was an offer to pay airfare to Iran and accommodations while there for those who had a paper accepted by the conference academic committee. Those who went through the process of submitting a paper found they were well received, and a number of invitations were issued to delegates from nearly a dozen countries, including a number of Americans. But the process moved forward so slowly that we had tickets delivered to us only the day before departure, and no American had a visa. We were reassured that we would be allowed to board an Iranian plane in Frankfurt without a visa, which would be issued in Tehran. This caused trepidation for some, but most trusted all would be well. Yet there was a several-hour wait at the Tehran airport for the visas to be issued, and when asking about the delay, we were notified, to our dismay, that there were negotiations in progress between the Ministry of Commerce and the Foreign Ministry as to whether the visas should be issued.
After we were eventually allowed to enter, the hospitality was warm and generous. We were taken to the city's most lavish hotel, the Azadi, and throughout our stay we were treated to excellent food. Americans who had read of Iranian hostility in the Western press were delighted to see how courteously we were treated, and this continued whether we were among the conference delegates or went off on our own to other parts of the city. From the beginning there was an optimistic atmosphere. Many of the Iranians spoke in terms of "carpet diplomacy," in reference to the "ping-pong diplomacy" around the diplomatic opening by China to the United States in the early 1970s. Among a large foreign contingent, eight American delegates had arrived, although several more had been selected and had not completed travel arrangements. More surprising was the special attention devoted to Americans. was present when the chief conference organizer, an official of the Export Promotion Center of Iran, approached one of the Americans and asked that he become the only foreigner to speak in the opening ceremonies.6 The same American was also chosen to give the first paper of the three-day academic conference, and later, when the group had been taken by bus into the Zagros mountains to meet a small group of migrating Bakhtiari, he was chosen to be interviewed in one of the tents and filmed for a subsequent showing on Iranian television.
When the group was presented to the governor of the Bakhtiari Province in a ceremony at Shahr Kurd, his capital city, another American, a woman, was chosen to give a brief talk at the reception. Clearly this attention was not accidental, as it almost certainly is the kind of cultural exchange suggested by Khatami, except that it was occurring in 1992 during the presidency of Rafsanjani. Many of the Iranians expected some kind of breakthrough as a result of American participation. Several of them used soccer metaphors to suggest the new state of affairs. As one of our translators explained, “The ball is on the ground, and it's now up to your side to kick it.” Indeed, the atmosphere was so friendly that one could recognize the "Down with U.S.A." slogan lettered above the lobby as non-threatening. While it may be a quote from some "hardliners" in the government, it did not reflect the attitude of Iranians with whom we were in constant contact. Many of those we spoke with had visited relatives in the United States. Some half million of their countrymen live around Los Angeles, which we heard described as "Irangeles."
It was also clear that the Iranian government took the function seriously. At the opening ceremony, in an amphitheater before several hundred Iranian dignitaries, a message was read from then-President Rafsanjani, who personally attended the exhibitions on one of the following days.7 The conference was addressed personally by Minister of Commerce Abdulhussein Vahaji, who gave the figure that carpets at that time accounted for 43 percent of the non-oil exports of the country.8
One could conclude from the time and money spent on this event that it represented an important gesture from the Iranian government and that at least part of its purpose was the. bettering of relations with the United States, particularly around the issue of the handicrafts embargo. As the British carpet magazine Hali reported after this event:
There can be no denying that there was a barely hidden political agenda operating at the Grand Persian Carpet Conference in Tehran last June. Or that it was directly associated with the United States' continuing embargo on imports of Iranian carpets. A fruitful commercial dialogue, based on the potential benefits to both sides of ending the ban, was there for the taking, while at the same time barriers were broken down at an individual level, and stereotyped images of revolutionary Iran were shown to be false.9
One of the conference participants told of his visit to the Behesht-e Zahra, the enormous cemetery south of Tehran in which are buried tens of thousands of the 260,000 young Iranians killed in the war with Iraq. In coming to understand that Saddam was partially supplied by American military equipment, it is not difficult to imagine why there is still some resentment. The war cost Tehran, directly or indirectly, some $627 billion. The total cost of the war exceeds the oil revenues of Iran and Iraq throughout the entire twentieth century.10 During much of the 1970s Iran placed huge energies into a war that diverted its attention from economic and social problems at home. The country is still in the process of defining the impact of the revolution, the war with Iraq. and the many technological opportunities and problems presented by the late twentieth century. Hand-made carpets may appear to be a craft with traditions and methods firmly rooted in the past, but it is this artistic medium that has defined Iran for at least the last several hundred years. It is also not coincidentally an important economic factor.
Those of us who were present throughout the tour of the country, which covered the major tourist attractions of Isfahan and Shiraz as well as the more remote Kerman and Yazd, expected that there would be some official American response, and the few Western oriental carpet periodicals described the event in great detail.11 From the government there emerged no official recognition of a thaw, and the mainstream press ignored something that the Iranians intended as a goodwill gesture. Later I learned from several Americans who had communicated with their congressmen that the responses were decidedly cool and referred to "Iranian support for acts of international terrorism."
Despite the failure of this first conference to be recognized by the American government, another one, nearly as lavish, was held in 1993. By this time the atmosphere had changed, although again there was an emphasis on the American participants. The first-several speakers this time were Iranians, but the first foreigner to speak was again the same American who had done so at the previous conference. He was also interviewed for Iranian television while the conference participants were touring the great seventeenth century garden at Fin, near Kashan.12
The political agenda had shifted slightly, however, as this time the opening ceremonies included a talk by the Ayatollah Moghtadaei, chief of the Iranian Supreme Court of Justice, who criticized actions of the American government, including its intervention in Somalia.13 Talks by the minister of commerce and Hashemi Taba, deputy commerce minister and director of the Export Promotion Center of Iran, focused on business matters.14 Americans were impressed by the manner in which they were received, and several later tried to get an explanation from their elected officials as to why our government was not moving to improve relations between the two countries. Again there were replies referring to alleged Iranian terrorism.
I did not attend the third conference in 1994, but the fourth was characterized by the same level of hospitality as before. The proceedings began with addresses by Yahya Ale-Eshaq, minister of commerce, M. R. Nematzadeh, minister of industries, and Gh. Forouzesh, minister of reconstruction Jihad, the latter of whom emphasizing that the General Directorate of Handicrafts and Carpets, under his supervision, employed over 400,000 workers.15 He also outlined Iran's position in the world market, which emphasized the need for central planning. In 1980 Iran captured 40 percent of the market. In 1985, with political difficulties at home, Iran had only a 16 percent share, with India taking the lead. In 1992 Iran maintained 28.6 percent of the market. It was clear that if Iranian production falls, there is no shortage of replacements from other areas. Most threatening are hand woven carpets from China. There is serious question as to whether Iran can compete in this context.
Persian carpets still carry substantial prestige. The EU is the largest single market for carpets, importing some $1.2 billion in rugs, some 62 percent from Iran.16 The current embargo prevents an accurate assessment of how many Iranian carpets are imported into the United States, but rug dealers continue to sell new Iranian carpets. Some Iranian firms based both in Iran and Europe offer to ship Iranian rugs to America with false tags that give a different country of origin. Few American dealers are willing to risk detection and instead rely upon Chinese or Turkish hand-made rugs, some with Iranian designs, to fill their customers' desires. A trip to a large department store such as Macy's shows the adaptability of modern consumers. Many of the rugs here, even those in Persian designs, are from China, India and Pakistan. Romania is also emerging as a producer. If Iran does not enter the market and adapt to the needs of the American consumer, rugs from other countries may already dominate this part of the market.
With few exceptions, the speakers presenting papers at the academic sessions were either American or Iranian. Expectations for a political breakthrough were by this time greatly lessened, and yet there was some effort to communicate a positive image to the West. A pamphlet was circulated with a prominent editorial explaining that child labor was prohibited in Iran, as this issue had been given particular attention in the Western press. The pamphlet cited a number of laws stipulating that "...forcing someone to labor or to exploit him/her is forbidden and everybody has the right to choose the profession he/she desires, provided it is not against Islam."17 While this issue is far from being out of the public eye, it seems that the grossest abuses are committed by less developed countries in factory environments.18 Also at this conference there was a growing recognition shown by the Iranians that the world market for carpets was becoming increasingly competitive. Rugs from a number of countries now use Iranian designs. There was much discussion as to how this could be prevented and how the designs could evolve in a manner to keep them ahead of their competitors.
I was not able to attend the fifth conference in 1996, but in November of that year there was an International Conference on Oriental Carpets in Philadelphia. While the conference organizers had sought papers from Iranians and had invited several to the conference, those residing in Iran were not given visas by the State Department and thus could not attend. Quite likely this was not so much a calculated snub as a bureaucratic oversight.
The sixth conference, in August of 1997, was the smallest of all and had the fewest foreign participants. Only five papers of the total of eight were delivered by foreigners, and two of these were by Americans. I was the first foreign speaker, and, as usual, the Iranians were extremely hospitable. I noticed that this year at the Azadi Hotel, where the conference participants stayed, the large "Down With U.S.A." sign in the lobby now appeared only in Farsi, which suggested some official softening of attitude, but there was now no talk of a diplomatic breakthrough. While the conference organizers graciously arranged for a driver to take me and another American on a week's tour of the rug-weaving villages of Iranian Azerbaijan, any sense that this conference could result in a bettering of relations between the two governments seemed to have vanished.
Yet there was clearly some hope that the American embargo of Iranian handicrafts, which continued to have a negative impact on Iranian exports, would soon be lifted. Educational opportunities for those studying for a career in the carpet industry had been expanded. Information from the Carpet Institute in Tehran shows that a major education effort has been directed toward improving the quality of carpet production and providing serious career opportunities. There are four universities in Iran which offer a B.A. in carpet studies: Kashan University, Sahande Tabriz University, Sistan (Zahedi) University and Pardis Isfahan University. These carpet courses allow specialties in design, dyeing, weaving, finishing and other types of handmade floor covering. For the last several years there have been about 25 students of carpet studies in each of these universities.19 In addition, the Ministry of Jihad has established eight educational centers in eight provinces since 1995, including Mashad, Isfahan, Zahedan, Tabriz, Arak, Yazd and Kerman. The government-operated Iran Carpet Company now provides throughout the nation 20 carpet high schools, 19 of which are allotted to women.
Clearly the Iranians intend to remain heavily invested in the carpet business. The educational infrastructure, with the relatively recent addition of carpet studies, suggests that they are serious about expanding their share of the market at a time when competition from China, India and Pakistan, with the populations involved, makes it increasingly more difficult to regain lost market share. The problem has become one of population shifts analogous to those occurring in underdeveloped countries throughout the world. Young men, often with their families, understand that their economic future in the villages or as nomadic herdsmen is severely limited. They come to recognize, through greater communication with the outside world, that jobs for unskilled labor are available in the larger cities. They drift toward the sources of power, patronage and jobs, depleting the countryside and swelling the cities beyond their intended capacity. This has occurred to a greater or lesser extent for centuries, but it was noted to increase particularly in the 1970s.20
Not only did villagers come to the cities, but groups with many centuries of pastoral nomadism were drawn to urban areas, although they were often the least prepared by education or previous experience for the new lifestyle.21 Most governments are unable to alter the course of such population movements; others have adopted authoritarian means of preventing them. In Iran one of the government strategies involves the carpet industry, which can help attenuate the exodus to the cities by providing suitable carpet-related employment in the towns and villages. These locally employed workers remain in contact with their traditional roots more effectively than in the cities, where they lose contact with the indigenous carpet tradition.
This becomes important when one considers that Iran's major competitors on the world carpet market have shifted away from their own traditional designs and simply make whatever they believe will suit the market, often borrowing Iranian patterns. Such products no longer represent a vibrant, indigenous art, but by their nature they are "copies" or "adaptations" of someone else's art, losing vigor and becoming little better than machine-made products. This is all the more important, as Western tastes have shifted towards coarsely woven, boldly colored "nomadic" rugs. In response, many Iranian dealers are commissioning coarse, "primitive" rugs, known as gabbehs, to satisfy the demand. In fact, so many of these are made that several government ministers in earlier conferences noted that there is now difficulty in obtaining raw wool for making other kinds of carpets. They point out that while coarsely woven, inexpensive gabbehs are easily sold, they have a low profit margin. As a result, wool is more expensive for Iranian city rugs, which characteristically display curvilinear floral patterns. It is these finely made rugs that bring the largest profits.
Should the market be allowed to run without control, or should the government set standards? In 1997 it was announced that a new government committee was formed to set standards on such things as dyes and quality of weave. Since Iran may not be able to compete with more populous countries in production capacity, quality must be promoted. In the beginning this organization will concern itself with ensuring that only the best dyes are used to make carpets that will bear documentation as to their quality. The knot count will also be considered, and at some point guidelines will be set. As different types of rugs have varying knot counts, this is an area that may be difficult to define, but it seems that the production of coarser rugs, such as gabbehs, will be affected. The new committee will also be responsible for collecting data on the needs of foreign markets so that they can direct the production of appropriate goods.
In order to regain and maintain a dominant share of the world carpet market, the Iranian industry recognizes that it must not only remain close to its heritage, but must maintain the artistic vigor while at the same time leading the way toward developing new approaches to design. Innovative traditional designers are honored in Iran, and the most prominent, Rassam Arabzadeh (1914-1997), was a speaker at the opening ceremony of the first conference. Before his death he donated 66 rugs to form the nucleus of a new carpet museum, and an oversize volume of his work has been published.22
The carpet industry has also responded to the drop in the production of traditional designs by instituting the production of rugs in tribal or nomadic designs on a "factory" basis. One firm I visited in Tehran in 1997 provided me with a· hardbound color catalogue, clearly designed to attract a Western buyer. In appearance the rugs are good replicas of nineteenth- century rural production.23 But a key to the success of these ventures involves (1) lifting the American embargo, which is as pressing as ever for reasons transcending the amount of money involved, and (2) slowing the population drain into the cities. Joint ventures are particularly sought, as local production can be quickly adapted to the needs of the country of export.
In a recent discussion of the effectiveness of the sanctions against Iran, Jahangir Amuzegar, Iranian minister of finance in the pre-1979 government, concluded that the "economic, psychological and political impact of the American sanctions has not produced the anticipated results or transformed the regime."24 While credit from international financial institutions has been more difficult to obtain, Iranian oil has still found its way to market. As Amuzegar asserts, "hard currency reserves are at record highs," and "Tehran now has close ties to Russia, China, India, Indonesia and Brazil, which together account for nearly half the world's population."25 While Iran might enjoy a faster rate of growth without the sanctions, its current problems are substantially less than those faced by many other countries that have received American support. There is no evidence that continued sanctions will become more effective in bringing the Iranian economy to collapse or driving the current government from power.
While the Iranian economy has shown itself more resilient and vigorous than many that have been receiving regular American aid, lifting of the sanctions could accelerate development by making foreign capital more readily available. That the sanctions have not had any semblance of their intended effect, however, is also suggested by Brzezinski et al. in a recent description of the "containment" policy toward both Iran and Iraq. Venturing the observation that the sanctions against Iran have "produced no major achievements and increasingly isolate America rather than their target,"26 they conclude that "the attempt to coerce others into following America's lead has been a mistake."27
The American attitude has remained firm, however. In the latest version of the sanctions, dated September 3, 1997, President Clinton outlined his exercise of statutory power in declaring a national emergency in response to actions and policies of the government of Iran.28 It particularly prohibits American financing and assistance regarding oil extraction within Iran, and specifically mentions Iran's efforts to acquire "weapons of mass destruction and to its continuing support for international terrorism." Consequently, the president, in appropriately legalistic language, prohibits all trade and investment activities between Americans and Iran. While communication between the two governments may lie in the future, there is ongoing exchange between the two peoples.
On January 29, 1998, President Clinton made a televised statement to the effect that he had heard the invitation from President Khatami that a renewed dialogue between the two countries should begin with cultural exchanges, and he announced that an American wrestling team would soon be visiting Iran. This appears to be an excellent beginning, as the Iranians have long been intensely involved with wrestling, and it shows some sensitivity to their interests. There is a major conference on oriental carpets in Denver this coming May, and it should be hoped that Iranian speakers will be allowed to participate. It appears now as though the thaw between the two countries may have begun. While it is difficult to gauge official Iranian positions, as there appear to be contesting factions, there seems to be a strong element within Iran that would welcome more normalized relations. Their gains from the lifting of the sanctions, while not of life-saving significance, will enhance Iran's export earnings and make development capital more readily available. A major goal of carpet production today is to raise the standard of living so that the rural poor do not migrate to the cities. Keeping the carpet industry healthy not only requires financial resources, but ultimately access to the American market.
The Iranians must remain acutely aware of every aspect of American policy particularly now that the Soviet Union has collapsed. The world economy now holds fewer barriers, though the United States is the most powerful nation. Pragmatists in (ran realize that there are common interests.29 Regional stability and the free flow of oil through the Gulf are good for both sides. The American government looms large in Iranians' consciousness but, with what it sees as pressing concerns around Iraq, Israel and the Palestinians, Russia, China, the Balkans, the Caribbean and other parts of the world, it remains only peripherally aware of Iran. It is surely time for this level of awareness to be heightened so that one of the lingering diplomatic failures of the last several decades can finally be resolved. It is difficult to imagine what may be gained by either country in prolonging this period of strained relations.
1 "The Iranian Election: five Views," Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Vol. 16, No. 2 (August September, 1997), pp. 10-13. Sec also: Stephen C. Fairbanks, "A New Era for Iran?" Middle East Policy. Vol. 5, No. 3 (September, 1997), pp. 51-56.
2 The author heard these figures quoted by Minister of Commerce Abdulhussein Vahaji in his opening address at the 1992 conference.
3 A. Seyf, "The Carpet Trade and the Economy of Iran: 1870-1906," Iran, Vol. 30, 1992, pp. 99-105.
4 Kamran Mofid, Development and Planning in Iran: from Monarchy to Islamic Republic, (Wisbech, Cambridgeshire: Middle East and North African Studies Press Ltd., 1987), p. 223.
5 This is outlined by: Alan Richards and John Waterbury, A Political Economy of the Middle East (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990), p. 78. The term "Oil Industrializers" is applied to Iran. As part of a group of countries that have sizable oil exports, abundant natural resources, and a large population, sustainable agricultural or industrial sectors can be created. This is particularly the case with oriental carpets, where a capital investment in space, looms, raw materials, and particularly training, is required before successful production can begin.
6 Bob Gibson, "The Tehran Conference," Oriental Rug Review, Vol. 12, No. 6, (August-September, 1992), p. 30.
7 "Grand Persian Carpet Exhibition Opens with President's Message," Ghali and Kilim, Tehran, (June 14, 1992), pp. 4-7.
8 See Note 2.
9 "Carpet Diplomacy," Hali, No. 65 (October, 1992), p. 86.
10 Farhang Rajaee, "Views from Within," Iranian Perspectives on the Iran-Iraq War, (Gainesville: University Press of Florida 1997), pp. 2-3.
11 Virtually the entire August-September, 1992 issue of Oriental Rug Review, Vol. 12, No. 6, was devoted to the Tehran conference.
12 This was witnessed by the author.
13 Ghali and Kilim, Vol. 2, No. 2 (August 25, 1993), p. 4.
14 Ibid. No. 9 (August, 1993), pp. 123-25.
15 "Summary of Speeches by the Ranking Iranian Officials at the Inauguration of the Fourth International Conference on the Persian Carpet," The Collection of Articles Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Persian Carpet, Tehran, 1995, p. 8. Many of the economic figures did not appear in the summary, but were recorded during the lecture by the author.
16 Murray Eiland III, "Carpets with Kudos, The Middle East, No. 252 (January 1996), pp. 38-39. See also Murray Eiland III, "The 4th International Conference on Persian Carpets: The Future of the Persian Carpet," Oriental Rug Review, Vol. 16, No. 1 (October-November 1995), pp. 38-41.
17 Iranian Handmade Carpets, Vol. 2, No. 1, Summer, 1995, Tehran, p. 5.
18 In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries there was Western interest in curtailing the use of children in producing carpets. Working conditions at that time were very primitive, with long hours and no pay. Deformed bones arose from sitting in one place, and the damp conditions promoted lung diseases. Women who had worked at carpet looms as children were prone to birthing problems. In the 1920s the Iranian government began issuing regulations. Sec: Leonard M. Helfgott. Ties That Bind. A Social History of the Iranian Carpet (Washington: The Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994), pp. 256-273.
19 Fax in response to request for further information from the Carpet Institute dated 1 October, 1997.
20 Jacob Black-Michaud, Sheep and land (London: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 212-217.
21While the transition between rural and urban has been going on for a long period of time (there is archaeological evidence to support that there have been phases of urban migration in ancient times), the process has been accelerated by recent policies. The shah actively encouraged nomads to settle, as they were easier 10 control and more likely to pay taxes if they were sedentary. For settlement under the previous regime sec: Fredrik Barth, Nomads of South Persia (New York: Oslo University Press, 1961 ). Also refer to: S. Lloyd, Housing the Urban Poor in Iran: a Vicious Circle, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), 1993, p. 15. K. S. McLachlan and F. Ershad, Internal Migration in Iran, SOAS, 1989.
22 F. Heshmati Razavi, Prospect of Persian Carpet: A Memorial Appreciation of Rassam Arabzadeh, Tehran, 1992.
23 Miri Iranian Rugs, Vol. Ill, Tehran, 1995.
24 Jahangir Amuzegar, "Adjusting to Sanctions," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 3, (May-June, 1997), pp. 31-41.
25 Ibid, p. 32.
26 Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft and Richard Murphy, "Differentiated Containment," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 76, No. 3 (May-June, 1997), p. 24.
27 Ibid, p. 28.
28 “Additional Prohibitions on Iran: Communication from the President of the United States," September 3, 1997, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), pp. 1-7.
29 Hooshang Amirahmadi, "Iranian Economic Reconstruction Plan and Prospects for its Success," in Hooshang Amirahmadi and Nader Entessar eds., Reconstruction and Regional Diplomacy in the Persian Gulf. (New York: Routledge, 1992), p. 142.