The chances of a deal being struck in the short term with Iran is obviously slim, unless circumstances were conducive to a new moderate president taking office in this month’s presidential election in Iran.
President Obama has spoken with conviction of the US’s reformed thinking on ‘democracy promotion’. Turkey, Morocco and Indonesia are Muslim states where democracy has yielded significant fruit in the form of moderation to political behaviour and the consolidation of democracy. In today’s Iran in contrast, the right to freedom of expression is curtailed; thus no one can engage directly with critical political issues. In addition, general disillusionment with politics means political literature is now largely unfashionable in Iran. Iranians are trapped in a spiral of political alienation. Having said that, our attention should remain fixed not on the identities of the protagonists, but on the part they play in strengthening or weakening democracy in Iran.
Although the prospect of reconciliation still exists, it’s going to require some hard choices.
The arrival of Mr. Obama has caused a shift of the balance against Iran’s prospects. There is a view among the educated in Iran that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was right for Bush, but he’s not right for the new administration. In Iran, Obama’s charisma and his oratory powers could be a transforming factor setting the tone of foreign policy in Iran.
While the hints of a u-turn towards foreign policy is imminent, the Iranian regime falls far short of rectifying the counterproductive nature of a raft of policies it has adopted for so long against the US. Many anti-west measures enacted by the regime have seriously undermined its position within the international community. Iran has to come round to the view that she will have to effectively initiate much of any deal with the US rather than wait for one to emerge from out of the blue.
Iran’s revolutionary Shia regime might be viscerally anti-Americans. The same can’t be said, however, of its youthful, culturally westernised population. About two thirds of Iran’s 70 million people are under 30 and their view of America is often the very opposite of the official line. If young Iranians were asked to choose between their president and Obama, there will be no doubt about who would win.
The hardliner Ahmadinejad opposes seeking peace and reconciliation. The Iranian people, however, have different preferences. Ahmadinejad is popular in rural Iran but widely blamed for the country’s economic miss-management. This divergence in priorities has infuriated the middle classes resulting in the recent arrest of some non-governmental organisations (NGO) activists.
Nationalism alone will not satisfy impatient expectations; it will not refocus the country on economic progress nor will it persuade an embittered Diaspora to return home with their skills, money and goodwill. None of these can occur if the hardline mentality continues. Alongside economic shake up, political and constitutional rights to freedoms must be restored and ethnic divisions healed. But unless the June’s general election is swiftly underpinned with statesmanship, hope will surely turn to ashes. There are deep-seated economic issues in Iran. This is in addition to the chronic crisis relating to the lack of political and human rights.
To put the economy back onto the recovery track, Iran can’t confront the US forever. At some point steps have to be taken so that the disillusioned Iranians can see progress on the ground. There is a need for an exclusive political settlement and this will be what most Iranians expect to take place following the impending general election.
Given expectations of a new statesmanship in this month’s elections, Tehran should be examining the cost of its international isolation in order to re-vitalise politics ending the two countries’ friction over the aims of Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran has to relinquish its dubious policies towards the Western world and introduce necessary measures in operation as soon as possible.
If new life is to be breathed into politics, we Iranian have to do it ourselves. The old social democratic and secular movements are gone. All we have left are numerous civil society NGOs. They have proved to be good at raising public awareness and building sustained multifaceted campaigns.
Having seen the mayhem of atrocities unleashed on Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranian people would rather live with a flawed Islamic Republic than be liberated by foreigners feigning their best interests. As the vibrant electoral debates preceding the impending Presidential election indicate, Iranians will rather work through the existing regime to achieve their long cherished democratic polity. They have already learnt that rising up to remove the inconvenient regime will be a recipe for disaster.
However, unlike the 1953 coup that deposed legitimate Prime Minister Mossadegh’s government, no amount of machination has dislodged the Islamic Republic.
Nevertheless, a policy of demonising Iran as an axis of evil became the hallmark of the Bush era. Even after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US failed to recognise the conversion of interests and work to resolve outstanding differences with Iran. The megalomania of the Bush administration resulted in a creed on lone global hegemony myth for Washington so triumphantly mesmerised as the “End of History” by Francis Fukuyama.
Now with the catastrophic collapse of the neoliberal economic panacea, the US is instead taking on a more humble role as to usher in a new paradigm. If the Obama people learn from history, Washington’s image will not be purported as brutal and damaging to global peace and security.
A new US-Iran relationship could obviously mean improved travel, more commerce, better lives and a hopeful future for millions of Americans and Iranians. The retreat over fanaticism should allow tourism, rebuild of infrastructure and rediscovering a rich cultural heritage for Iran. Given the severity of the economic crisis across the globe; building a strong, stable relationship with the United State is something that is in the interests not just of the two countries but the whole world, especially the Middle East.
There is often a very fine line between bravery and stupidity in forging a close relationship with anti-American forces in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of the Bush administration proves that a military solution will only create more chaos and instability. Further more, the US and Europe should make it clear to Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu that a unilateral pre-emptive military strike on Iran will trigger the cessation of military and financial aid.
My prediction would be that in the wake of the general election, we start seeing gestures of good faith on both sides. Whatever those gestures, I think both counties have a pretty good recognition of what intermediate steps could be taken as measures to build confidence. In a symbolic move Obama has demonstrated goodwill from day one of his presidency. If Iran is not yet ready to unclench its fist, president Obama will be at least holding high moral grounds by taking the next step to initiate a genuine dialogue with Iran.
