Iran expected to resume its UN activities soon

Iran appears to be returning to the fold of the United Nations. It is expected to address the UN Security Council this week. In itself, this will not lead to an immediate end of the hostilities between Iran and Iraq, but it can be seen as a positive development in the long run, according to analysts here.

By resuming contact with the UN after having ignored it for almost a year because, in the words of Ayatollah Khomeini, "it is under United States domination," Iran is shedding its isolationist mantle and moving toward regaining its place within the world community.

This, in turn, will lead eventually to a solution of the problem of the US hostages, according to the same officials.

No one here seriously expects the Security Council to be able to put an end ot the gulf fighting this week. Iran's representative in all likelihood will restate the position Iran took last week before the UN General Assembly: "Iran will accept the cease-fire after Iraq has pulled back all its troops from all the territories it has occupied."

Iraq's Foreign Minister SaduN Hammadi is expected to say once more that Baghdad is willing to accept a cease-fire, provided it may keep control of the Shatt al Arab waterway at the head of the Gulf and the territories that historically belonged to "the Arab nation."

Between these extremes, there is little last week before the UN General Assembly: "Iran will accept the cease-fire after Iraq has pulled back all its troops from all the territories it has occupied."

Iraq's Foreign Minister SaduN Hammadi is expected to say once more that Baghdad is willing to accept a cease-fire, provided it may keep control of the Shatt al Arab waterway at the head of the Gulf and the territories that historically belonged to "the Arab nation."

Between these extremes, there is little room right now for the Security Council to work out a compromise. A simple call for a cease-fire would be seen as siding with Iraq. A call for a cease-fire and for the withdrawal of troops would be interpreted as siding with Iran.

Says one senior official who is an expert on the Middle East: "The Council can only effectively step in and put and end to a war when:

* "The two belligerents are exhausted or when one has decisively defeated the other.

* "The two superpowers agree on a joint course of action as they did in the 1973 Arab- israeli war.

"For the time being," he adds, neither of these requisites are present. While standing on the sidelines as spectators, the two superpowers still hope to benefit from the conflict. The Soviet Union basically strives for striking a Yalta-like deal with the US and for dividing the area in zones of influence, as Stalin did with Roosevelt and Churchill regarding Europe.

"The US thinks it can go it alone and hopes to be able to build a regional, stable, pro- American alliance, somewhat like NATO, in the area."

Other diplomats here are mindful that it took 15 days for the Security Council to act effectively to stop the 1973 war.

"As long as Iran and Iraq are not militarily and economically exhausted and need to be taken off the hook by the UN and as long as the two siperpowers don't step in in order to avoid being dragged by their friends toward a direct confrontation, the Security Council remains paralyzed," says one Council member.

This, he added, is because the Islamic nations in the council do not want to appear to be siding with either Iran or Iraq. Also the other members of the Council are reluctant to risk initiating a move that could displease the US or the USSR.