US Turnaround Tactics and Iran
As a country with imperial power and influence, America displays rebellious behavior that surprises its enemies and friends. Instead of focusing on its strength and simply preserving the status quo, at times, the U.S. acts with a determination that goes against the facts and is disruptive to decades-old balances and mindsets. The interim agreement between Iran and the international community to limit the nuclear program in Tehran in exchange for initial relief from international trade and financial sanctions revealed the range of President Barack Obama’s radical diplomacy and extent to which he is determined to act unilaterally. He was constricted neither by concerns of America's stronger allies in the region — Israel and Saudi Arabia — nor the hatred between Tehran and Washington that has lasted for 34 years and, to a great extent, played a key role in broader developments.
The agreement on Nov. 24 came mostly as the result of U.S. diplomacy, not from an overall successful negotiation between the six countries with Iran. As the well-informed columnist David Ignatius of The Washington Post reports in Kathimerini today, Obama gave approval in March for two of his emissaries to secretly contact members of the Iranian regime, with Oman's intervention. Israel and Saudi Arabia were unaware of this, as were all other allies until two weeks ago, when they were handed the agreement.
It is worth mentioning that the relatively moderate, newly elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani did not take office until August 2013, while it seemed inevitable in September that the U.S. would interfere in a new war in the region after the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons. In retrospect, we can better understand why Obama agreed to step back from his commitment to respond in the event of chemical weapons use in Syria. By avoiding military intervention in a case where the outcome could not have been predicted, the U.S. has contributed to the agreement with Syria that leads to the eradication of its chemical weapons. Thus, they have agreed to set peace talks for Jan. 22 in Geneva between the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the rebels. Obama received a great deal of criticism for his decision to use diplomacy, but this has certainly also helped Tehran —Assad’s most powerful ally — to prove willing for a deal that will limit its nuclear program. If the communication channel between Washington and Tehran remains open now, then maybe Iran can contribute to stabilization in Syria.
No matter how things turn out, the U.S. acted without briefing Israel and Saudi Arabia, although, later on, it assured both its allies that their relations would remain unshaken. Saudi Arabia responded with caution, showing it understands that calculated moves are required, so as not to cause turbulence in its relationship with the United States. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is accusing the U.S. of a "historic mistake," overestimating his country's influence on the American political scene. No matter how Washington insists that it will continue to support its allies in the area, the way in which it broke a decades-old taboo and included its greatest enemy, Iran, in diplomatic developments sends a strong message that the U.S. will not succumb to the pressure of any ally, once it has decided on a course of action. The same is true for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and, of course, Greece. All allies must seek a new balance between themselves and the United States.
Asking for too much is a bit risky, but if this six-month deal is the real "opening" of Iran, it may lead to broader stabilization, allowing a diffusion of collisions between Shiites and Sunnis in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain. The complete reversal of the international embargo against Iran would create opportunities for investment and trading, and perhaps, cheaper energy by putting Iranian oil back on the market. Greece might benefit in many ways, if it makes the right moves — so many ways, that it is worth trying to establish a new relationship between Iran and the rest of the world.
The agreement on Nov. 24 came mostly as the result of U.S. diplomacy, not from an overall successful negotiation between the six countries with Iran. As the well-informed columnist David Ignatius of The Washington Post reports in Kathimerini today, Obama gave approval in March for two of his emissaries to secretly contact members of the Iranian regime, with Oman's intervention. Israel and Saudi Arabia were unaware of this, as were all other allies until two weeks ago, when they were handed the agreement.
It is worth mentioning that the relatively moderate, newly elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani did not take office until August 2013, while it seemed inevitable in September that the U.S. would interfere in a new war in the region after the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons. In retrospect, we can better understand why Obama agreed to step back from his commitment to respond in the event of chemical weapons use in Syria. By avoiding military intervention in a case where the outcome could not have been predicted, the U.S. has contributed to the agreement with Syria that leads to the eradication of its chemical weapons. Thus, they have agreed to set peace talks for Jan. 22 in Geneva between the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the rebels. Obama received a great deal of criticism for his decision to use diplomacy, but this has certainly also helped Tehran —Assad’s most powerful ally — to prove willing for a deal that will limit its nuclear program. If the communication channel between Washington and Tehran remains open now, then maybe Iran can contribute to stabilization in Syria.
No matter how things turn out, the U.S. acted without briefing Israel and Saudi Arabia, although, later on, it assured both its allies that their relations would remain unshaken. Saudi Arabia responded with caution, showing it understands that calculated moves are required, so as not to cause turbulence in its relationship with the United States. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is accusing the U.S. of a "historic mistake," overestimating his country's influence on the American political scene. No matter how Washington insists that it will continue to support its allies in the area, the way in which it broke a decades-old taboo and included its greatest enemy, Iran, in diplomatic developments sends a strong message that the U.S. will not succumb to the pressure of any ally, once it has decided on a course of action. The same is true for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and, of course, Greece. All allies must seek a new balance between themselves and the United States.
Asking for too much is a bit risky, but if this six-month deal is the real "opening" of Iran, it may lead to broader stabilization, allowing a diffusion of collisions between Shiites and Sunnis in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Bahrain. The complete reversal of the international embargo against Iran would create opportunities for investment and trading, and perhaps, cheaper energy by putting Iranian oil back on the market. Greece might benefit in many ways, if it makes the right moves — so many ways, that it is worth trying to establish a new relationship between Iran and the rest of the world.