History was apparently made when Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, received a phone call from Barack Obama at the United Nations assembly last month. It marked the first time in 27 years that senior leaders of each government had talked directly, and—besides exchanging the usual sycophantic pleasantries—they reportedly discussed their mutual desire to rapidly resolve the “nuclear issue” that has divided them for so long.
Some quickly lauded this as the first sign of an American/Iranian rapprochement, however, to those well versed in the history of these two states it is clear that there remain some major challenges before cordial relations can really be back on the table. Fundamentally, any agreement with Iran must include substantial (or total) relaxation of the sanctions enacted by the US and the European Union. Secondly, Iran will not accept any offer that forfeits its inalienable right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. While there has been some suggestion of eventual reductions in sanctions, in many sectors of the US policy machine Iran’s retention of nuclear technology is unthinkable. Indeed, these hardliners follow a path lain by Israeli president, Benjamin Netanyahu—a keen advocate of pre-emptive strikes and regime change in Tehran.
This is not to say there are not hardliners on the Iranian side. Rouhani’s car was pelted with eggs and shoes by protestors incensed that he would entertain talks with “the Great Satan,” America. Indeed, chants of “death to America” are not uncommon, but it must be remembered that Iran’s people suffer terribly by the international sanctions—just as Iraq’s people before them. They have led to great deficits in medicine and standard of living, and this serves only to further embitter the populace.
To those who ask why Iran won’t just roll over and die, the answer is clear. Imagining for a moment that such hawkish ambitions did not exist among the higher echelons of the US government, Iranians have already had two clear examples of states that surrendered their nuclear programmes: Iraq and Libya. They too have a partner in nuclear ambition—one far more dangerous than Iraq ever was—whose regime nonetheless lives and breathes today: North Korea. Of Iraq and Libya’s leaders, the first was hanged in a military base and the second shot in a ditch. Neither would have perished without American backing, and the possession of a nuclear arsenal (or at least the capability to develop one) has proven to be the only dependable guarantee against such transgressions.
Whether progress in their relationship can be made will be almost entirely determined by the flexibility of Obama’s diplomacy. Intransigence will only beget frustration and escalation; America would be wise to avoid yet another conflict in the Middle East.
This article was originally published by Concrete.
CC image courtesy of http://www.rouhani.ir/, Wikimedia Commons.
Ed Hernandez
October 5, 2013
I haven’t heard anything from Israel on this US-Iran tentative rapprochement. Your point on the effective deterrence of nuclear capability on the bullying tendency of the US is well made. I totally agree.
Matt Finucane
October 5, 2013
Well, Netanyahu’s called Rouhani a wolf in sheep’s clothing (which is probably true, to some extent) but beyond that all he’s done is reiterate his stance in favour of pre-emptive bombing, further sanctions, and preferably regime change; anything that would shore up their status as regional hegemon, really.
[EDIT] Also, from what I recall, Michael’s working on an article presently which outlines more explicitly the relationship between Israel and Iran, as well as their shady nuclear programmes.
Mike.R
October 6, 2013
I’d argue that Rouhani isn’t really a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but that any rapprochement will have to be approved by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Therein lies the danger. I doubt there will be a full resumption of relations, but Rouhani knows he can’t face the people of Iran without achieving at least a partial relief of the sanctions.
I’ve also heard it argued that a nuclear weapons-capable Iran would stabilise the region by forcing Israel to engage in thoughtful negotiations, I’m not sure to what extent I agree, but I think in principle it’s an interesting idea.
Yes, the article should be up later this week. In it I’ll discuss the two nations’ shadowy nuclear programmes.
Matt Finucane
October 6, 2013
I’d argue he’s still too wolfy for the present US/Israeli administration. He’s offered to downgrade their nuclear capabilities, but absolutely won’t surrender them; that’s the impasse. And a nuclear Iran would absolutely balance Israel and probably the region too; that’s what Netty’s so terrified of, not being able to project power wherever, meeting little resistance.
Ed Hernandez
October 7, 2013
The notion that a nuclear Iran would stabilise the region harks back to the old Cold War arguments and people still argue along those lines. In my view, the mere existence of nuclear weapons is inherently destabilising and flies in the face of recent moves by Russia and the US to remove their older arsenals in the guise of lessening the nuclear threat. As long as Israel is able to use the guilt card to bully the US the region will be unstable. I would like to see an analysis of what would happen if the US put some distance between them and the Israelis and insisted that the Israelis came clean about their arsenal and perhaps even demanded they reduce (if not eliminate) it. In other words what would happen if the US became an honest broker in the Middle East and said that if Iran cannot have nuclear weapons then neither can Israel. Besides Netanyahu is a dick like all of the PMs since Golda Meier.
Matt Finucane
October 8, 2013
I don’t think anyone really believes Iran’s rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map, but I do think Israel might think twice (given such rhetoric) about inciting unilateral military strikes on a nuclear-armed Iran.
Ed Hernandez
October 8, 2013
And the corollary is that Israel might not think twice about unilateral attack on Iran if it is shown they do not have nuclear capability?
Matt Finucane
October 8, 2013
They haven’t in the past when it came to Iraqi nuclear facilities, but it’s really a point about capabilities. Israel wants to maintain its long-held hegemony, and the moment Iran gets the bomb that hegemony’s undermined. Sure, they can still conduct covert ops and assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists, but great sermons inciting illegal bombing of a nuclear Iran would almost certainly stop.