by Mitchell Plitnick
Not everyone shares the optimism surrounding the recent communication between Presidents Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani. From Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Monarchies and, of course, Washington, DC, voices of war are in a panic that tensions between the U.S. and Iran might be reduced by some means [...]]]>
by Mitchell Plitnick
Not everyone shares the optimism surrounding the recent communication between Presidents Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani. From Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Monarchies and, of course, Washington, DC, voices of war are in a panic that tensions between the U.S. and Iran might be reduced by some means other than further devastation of the Islamic Republic.
The concern that Iran might emerge with a better relationship with the United States is quite vexing for the Gulf rulers and for Israel. For some years now, the drive to isolate Iran has focused almost entirely on the nuclear issue. In fact, regionally, much of the concern has been the ascendancy of Iran as a regional player more broadly, with revolutionary rhetoric that challenges the dominance of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Since the destruction, by George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, of the dual containment policy, the issue for these parties has been how to contain Iran and its regional influence.
Iran has been cast as an “aggressor nation,” and this has been sold by illustrating Iran’s support for Hezbollah and other militant groups, its often bombastic rhetoric, and for the past decade, Iran’s ducking from some of its responsibilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). What gets left out is that Iran has never initiated an attack on another nation, its threats to “wipe Israel off the map” are factually known as (just not in mainstream discourse) to be a de-contextualized mistranslation of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s words, and even Iran’s failures with the IAEA have been part of a back and forth exchange, where they refuse or neglect to comply with some things in response to what they see as US-led unfair sanctions or restrictions. That doesn’t mean Iran has not caused some of these problems itself, it has. Lack of transparency on nuclear issues tends to raise the hackles of one’s enemies. But all this has hardly been the one-way street that’s been portrayed.
Too much scrutiny toward all of this sits poorly with Riyadh, Jerusalem, and in many circles in Washington. But because so much of the anti-Iran feeling has focused for so long on the nuclear issue, such scrutiny could come to bear at least a little more if Obama and Rouhani work things out. Labelling Iran an “aggressor nation” without the nuclear issue simply wouldn’t have the same impact anymore.
To combat this, Israel has been publicly playing down Rouhani’s overtures, sometimes calling him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and more generally, taking the “prove it” line. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s standard for proof is unrealistically high, and this is no accident. He has said that the conditions Iran must agree to are: halting all uranium enrichment, removing all enriched material, closing the reactor at Fordo and stopping plutonium production. This position is an obvious non-starter, but it reflects what has been the United States’ own position until now. Obama’s statements, while far from explicit, have given Iran reason to believe that this may have changed.
The reactions of Israel and the Gulf states would be puzzling if preventing a nuclear Iran was their main focus. But this has always been a means to an end: to isolate Iran and slow its rise as a regional power. The over-emphasis on the nuclear issue risks blunting other tools.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is already setting its sights on this issue. An AIPAC memo published on Sept. 20 urges the negotiations to be “backed by strength,” a vague enough statement, but one that shines light on its specific proposals.
One option AIPAC wishes to impede is the possibility of sanctions relief. “If Iran suspends its nuclear activity, the United States should be prepared to suspend any new sanctions” (emphasis added). This seems to make it clear that AIPAC wants to see the continued isolation of Iran no matter how the nuclear issue is resolved. UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions have repeatedly demanded that Iran suspend its enrichment programs and heavy water reactor programs, but the most recent resolutions, particularly UNSC 1835, also emphasize the UNSC’s commitment “to an early negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue” (emphasis mine). That is not something AIPAC wishes to see. An Iran that gets an agreement can be strengthened regionally. An Iran that either continues to labor under the status quo of sanctions and the looming threat of war or surrenders on the nuclear issue is seriously weakened. That is the game that’s being played here.
But this time, the playing field is much less certain. In the wake of the outcry against an attack on Syria, will AIPAC be able to push its measures through Congress without watering them down sufficiently to give Obama room to pursue substantive negotiations with Iran? Other than paranoia, there is scant evidence to support the position that Iran is merely putting on a show to stall for time while pursuing a nuclear weapon. But America’s own war footing keeps the risk of another Western misadventure in the Gulf region a real possibility. Obama seems bent on steering us away from that, and at least at first blush, seems to be acting on the will of his constituency in doing so.
Saudi Arabia will certainly add its voice to Israel’s on Capitol Hill. And Iran is not Syria. As appalled as many in the U.S. were over the use of chemical weapons in Syria, they were not convinced, for a variety of reasons, that this was cause for their country to take military action again in the Middle East. Syria may not be well-liked in the United States, but it is not a direct enemy. Iran is perceived as such, and has been ever since the fall of the Shah and the ensuing hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979-80. It may be that concern over Iran and the nuclear issue will provide fertile ground for AIPAC’s efforts to sabotage peace talks. It will also be a good deal easier to push their agenda in Congress because they won’t be advocating the immediate use of U.S. armed forces against Iran, as was the case with Syria.
While the congressional playing field is not entirely clear yet, one thing is obvious. Obama is going to need support in his peacemaking efforts. That support will need to come from the U.S. public and he will need to know that he has it in order to counter what is sure to be a furious onslaught from the most powerful forces that oppose any normalization with the Islamic Republic. That onslaught is coming and it is going to be furious. Obama will also need support from Iran, of all places. Rouhani will need to maintain the positive face he is portraying. And Rouhani should not be alone in this endeavour. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, apparently recognizing that Rouhani had not gone far enough in distancing himself from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial, has made sure to unequivocally acknowledge the Holocaust and its horrors. However prominent one thinks that issue should be, the clear statements were obviously intended to forestall the use of that issue against progress in upcoming nuclear talks.
More of that will be needed. Obama has restarted his Iran diplomacy on the right foot, being bold with his phone call to Rouhani and cautious in his public statements. He is proceeding deliberately but not giving his opponents big openings to attack his efforts at diplomacy. But the storm that is heading for Capitol Hill on this issue is going to be fierce. Obama will need all his skills and all the help he can get in weathering it.
]]>by Jasmin Ramsey
I feel like i’m witnessing a tectonic shift in the geo-political landscape reading @HassanRouhani tweets. Fascinating.
— dick costolo (@dickc) September 27, 2013
That tweet via Twitter CEO Dick Costolo in response to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s account of his phone conversation with President Obama summarizes what [...]]]>
by Jasmin Ramsey
I feel like i’m witnessing a tectonic shift in the geo-political landscape reading @HassanRouhani tweets. Fascinating.
— dick costolo (@dickc) September 27, 2013
That tweet via Twitter CEO Dick Costolo in response to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s account of his phone conversation with President Obama summarizes what many people are feeling: today may mark the beginning of a US-Iran detente — or even rapprochement. (Rouhani retweeted Costolo by the way).
I was driving back to Washington, DC from New York City with Jim when all this happened. The Christian Science Monitor’s Scott Peterson (who I saw this week at the UN along with many other journalists I admire) explains today’s events, which, to Jim’s dismay, were also reported on Twitter:
That sentiment was also expressed in Rouhani’s semi-official Twitter account, where he described what Obama told him across three tweets strung together: “I express my respect for you and ppl of #Iran. I’m convinced that relations between Iran and US… will greatly affect region. If we can make progress on #nuclear file, other issues such as #Syria will certainly be positively affected… I wish you a safe and pleasant journey and apologize if you’re experiencing the [horrendous] traffic in #NYC.”
Rouhani described his response to Obama in four tweets: “In regards to #nuclear issue, with political #will, there is a way to rapidly solve the matter… We’re hopeful about what we see from P5+1 and your [government] in particular in coming weeks and months… I express my gratitude for your #hospitality and your phone call. Have a good day Mr. President… Thank you, Khodahafez [God preserve you].”
A final tweet showed a smiling Rouhani on his airplane “after historic phone conversation with @BarackObama…about to depart for Tehran.”
This White House statement by the President following his call with Rouhani — like Zarif’s description of his meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday — was incredibly positive. It may be the most positive message put out by the US government on Iran since before its 1979 revolution:
Just now, I spoke on the phone with President Rouhani of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The two of us discussed our ongoing efforts to reach an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program. I reiterated to President Rouhani what I said in New York — while there will surely be important obstacles to moving forward, and success is by no means guaranteed, I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution.
Meanwhile, Rouhani and Zarif may be receiving a hero’s welcome back home. Here’s how some of the press is reacting:
Tehran papers go for a 2nd print to cover the historic call. This headline: Behind the line, it was Obama. pic.twitter.com/pU6jwKXVmj
— RezaAsadi (@RezaAsadi) September 28, 2013
As well as some average Iranians:
#Iran user Ali shares ‘Historic Phone Call’ news on facebook via instagram. pic.twitter.com/XDAKQ9NMro
— Negar Mortazavi (@NegarMortazavi) September 28, 2013
What should we expect next? Well, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be visiting the White House on Sept. 30 and addressing the UNGA on Oct. 1 (he reportedly delayed his speech specifically so he could meet Obama). It has already been suggested that Netanyahu will compare Iran to North Korea at the UN — a continuation of his description of Rouhani as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. Israel boycotted Iran’s speech at the UNGA on Tuesday and has been alleging that Iran has been questing for a nuclear weapon for years, so it will be interesting to see if Netanyahu continues this line next week. And then, how will Obama respond to Netanyahu and our sanctions-loving Congress? And for Iran’s part, how will hardliners in Tehran respond to Rouhani and Zarif’s hope-inspiring trip to America? The next talks between Iran and the P5+1 negotiating team are scheduled in Geneva, from Oct. 15- 16. That’s almost two weeks from now, which leaves lots of room for additional significant developments if the pace set by Iran and the US this week continues.
Listen, I know we’re not supposed to get excited, especially so soon. The devil truly is in the details with respect to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement over Iran’s nuclear program. But everything that happened this week while we were at the UN (much of which we tried to recount for you here), and the amazing speed at which 34 years of icy-to-hostile relations between the US and Iran seem to have shifted direction, suggests something very important has taken place.
After Zarif briefed us about his historic bilateral meeting with Kerry at the Asia Society/CFR-hosted conversation with Rouhani last night, the President was asked what he thought of Zarif’s glowing description. His response to Asia Society president Josette Sheeran seems incredibly apt right now:
]]>SHEERAN: Thank you, Mr. Foreign Minister (OFF-MIKE) last word. So now you’ve heard the report. Is this the kind of window of opportunity you were looking for, the first such meeting of this kind in 35 years? What do you take from the process?
ROUHANI (through translator): Well, you asked for the first step. They took it. You asked for the first step. They took it.