In July an overture was made by Tehran through Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki that it was interested in talks with Washington.[1] Following this - and just prior to Rouhani assuming office - the Obama administration made what could be interpreted as a conciliatory gesture by easing a sanctions provision concerning sales of medical devices to Iran.
It would appear the White House and Rouhani are looking to maybe ease tensions, from which each stands to benefit. Iran would become less isolated internationally, and the administration would achieve increased leverage and cooperation regarding the different regional situations in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan - not to mention Iran's interest in the stability of these areas.
Also signaling a potential thaw might be Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu renewing his hysterical rhetoric about Iran: "A nation that threatens to destroy the state of Israel must not be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction."[2] The prime minister was reacting to a misquote of Rouhani, not a first.
Virtually no one among the intelligence and defense establishment in Israel or the United States believes this kind of thinking. It is doubtful even Netanyahu buys his own melodrama; what Tel Aviv truly fears is closer US-Iranian ties. And were it to develop a nuclear weapon and join the "club," the Islamic Republic's regional standing and its relationship with Washington would be considerably augmented. Israel is viciously jealous of its own status in the Middle East and would like to keep it just the way it is.
It is always worth repeating, however, that there is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program. It is currently enriching uranium at around 3 percent, and has enriched some to 20 percent. (Weapons-grade uranium requires upwards of 90 percent enrichment.) Yet, as reported on Juan Cole's blog Informed Comment, Russia's foreign minister mentioned in a recent interview that Iran might be ready to cease 20 percent enrichment.[3]
Congress, however, maintains its confrontational stance toward Tehran. This past week, the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority approved legislation imposing more strenuous sanctions on Iran; the bill will go to the Senate in September. The sanctions have had a wrenching impact on Iran's economy and population (see Jan. 11 blog post). According to Gallup,
Thirty-one percent of Iranians rated their lives poorly enough to be considered 'suffering' in 2012 - one of the highest rates in the greater Middle East North Africa region. In fact, countries with comparable suffering rates either are at war such as Afghanistan or are experiencing a period of severe instability such as Egypt and Tunisia.[4]
This phenomenon is not due solely to US-led pressure, but it is a contributor nonetheless. Furthermore, and though morally irrelevant, the stated purpose of the sanctions regime is not producing the results desired in Washington. The leadership in Tehran shows no sign of capitulating, and has continued the country's domestic nuclear program, an "inalienable right" guaranteed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory (and to which Israel is not).
In any case, the United States has frequently meted out punishment to those countries that fail to submit to American authority; the motivation here is to maintain credibility and discourage further "wrongdoing or impotence," to use Theodore Roosevelt's wording. And Washington has long been proficient at making good use of "monsters," real or otherwise. The United States and Iran can go on being adversaries or move toward detente; it is doubtful the White House is all that anxious on the subject, one of the conveniences of power.
What is in store for the remainder of Obama's second term regarding policy on Iran would be difficult to speculate. A new essay in the New York Review of Books contains a proposal for how Obama might move forward with Iran.[5] The piece was written by former diplomats and endorsed by two former national security advisors, indicating that the establishment view of the situation is more practical than that of Congress.[6] That said, the ranting from Capitol Hill and Israel will likely continue to occupy news coverage.
I feel it is worth quoting again (see Apr. 24 blog post) a comment blogged by Gary Sick, former National Security Council staffer under Ford, Carter, and Reagan:
Iran is not, and will not become, a serious military threat to the United States in the foreseeable future. Iran is a midlevel power with a dysfunctional and unpopular government. Iran’s GDP is about the same as the state of Georgia in the United States, and its defense budget is a fraction of its Arab neighbors or Israel, not to mention the United States. Iran has a robust self-defense capability but very little power projection capability. Its nuclear program may have attracted great political attention, but it has consistently failed to live up to its hype. Politicians have been (falsely) predicting the imminent appearance of a bomb in Iran’s arsenal for twenty years....
The rhetoric suggesting Iran is a crouching regional predator has been maintained since 1979, regardless of the Islamic Republic's record as a state actor. And despite the standard use of this fear-mongering as a device during elections, a solid majority of Americans favor diplomacy and improved relations with Iran. The same solid majority also exists among Iranians, favoring the same thing.
NOTES
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/world/middleeast/iran-is-said-to-want-direct-talks-with-us-on-nuclear-program.html
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/02/us-iran-israel-idUSBRE9710GN20130802
[3] http://www.juancole.com/2013/06/russia-enriching-uranium.html
[4] http://www.gallup.com/poll/160358/iranians-feel-bite-sanctions-blame-not-own-leaders.aspx
[5] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/aug/15/new-approach-iran
[6] In author Stephen Kinzer's latest Guardian column (on US-Iran relations and worth reading) he includes links to letters by former diplomats on this point and one issued by one-third of the House of Representatives. Regardless of many lawmakers recommending diplomacy, their record stands:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/03/iran-president-hassan-rouhani-us-relations
