A New Beginning with an Old Enemy

The disappointment is great, but President Obama must approach the regime in Teheran and seek direct dialogue in spite of the reelection of President Ahmadinejad.

Those who believe that America’s efforts to establish a new relationship with the Islamic Republic have failed following the reelection of President Amadinejad have understood nothing. For the decisive test in these efforts is not to be found in Tehran, but rather in Washington.

Yes, there is great disappointment in response to the election results, especially for the many in Iran who were hoping for a new style of domestic and foreign policy with Amadinejad’s opponent Mussawi. Most likely we will never know for sure whether there was significant fraud in the vote tally for this election, which was already restricted to candidates acceptable to the regime. But the real political power in the country’s leadership would have prevented a true reformer from winning. It would be naïve to think otherwise.

For elections in the Islamic Republic only serve to confirm the status quo of the regime, not to shift power. The highest spiritual and political leader Ayatoallah Chamenei bases his power not on a democratic process, but rather on divine selection. It is he, not the president – whoever he may be – who has the final say in all significant decisions. In his first official reaction to the vote, Chamenei pointed to the very high – 80 percent – turnout for the election as an endorsement of the regime’s legitimacy, “an affirmation for the continued progress of the country and a preservation of national security.”

If President Obama now wants to make an effort, which is long overdue, to achieve a new relationship with Iran he will have to speak with this regime – regardless of who is representing it. That may have been even more difficult with Mussawi, who is ostensibly more open to the West, since he would have to avoid even the appearance of making concessions, something that needn’t concern the blustering hard-liner Amadinejad. But above all, Obama would need to show in a credible way that he is really serious about finding a way to start a new beginning.

In view of the deep distrust with which Tehran views the U.S., it will take a considerable amount of patience and decisiveness to achieve this credibility. No doubt there is even more distrust of Obama’s diplomatic overtures since the regime fears that if it stops demonizing America as “the Great Satan” it will be perceived domestically as weakening resolve.

Barack Obama has sent encouraging signals to Iran. Significantly, his first interview as president was with an Arab network and he announced his willingness to engage in a direct, comprehensive dialogue based on mutual respect. In his message at the Iranian New Year’s celebration in March he condemned making threats as a means of diplomacy and renounced the old goal of regime change in Tehran. In his Cairo speech in early June he was the first American president to admit the role of the U.S. in overthrowing the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in the 1950s, thereby satisfying a demand that Iran had insisted on for many years. So all the verbal signals are there.

Now actions must follow. Obama had wanted to wait until after the Iranian elections. Now the State Department has endorsed the concept that the president’s decision to seek an understanding with Iran is independent of the election’s outcome. In the coming months we will therefore most likely see a formal invitation to engage in talks to which Tehran will respond positively. But that won’t be sufficient for a new beginning; at best it may lead to an unproductive exchange of old accusations, something the Iranians are masters at.

Obama really has to demonstrate that he has the courage of his convictions, even if he encounters resistance at home. Anyone who strives for a new relationship with Iran cannot simply keep harping on the nuclear issue, but rather must be prepared to discuss the complete spectrum of relations.

Whoever wishes to base dialogue on mutual respect cannot turn around and threaten Iran with new economic sanctions if it doesn’t conform with the wishes of the U.S. And whoever is serious about the challenge of overcoming Iranian mistrust cannot expect or demand quick results.

Whether the relationship between Tehran and the West can be put on a new footing, and perhaps with a realistic solution for Iran’s nuclear program, is therefore not dependent on the fixed outcome of the election. Rather it will depend on President Obama’s resolve. Maybe this too will fail in the face of Iran’s intransigence. But the reelection of Amadinejad should not be used as a justification for not at least making the effort.