Where Are American-Iranian Relations Going?

Ever since the American president Barack Obama took power in the White House on January 20, 2009, he has been faced with the legacy of his predecessor Bush, and the most prominent part of this is the presence of his troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Additionally, there were relations with Iran, and the importance placed on these stemmed from a group of declarations issued by the American leadership:

1. In his inauguration on January 20, Obama stated the U.S. “will extend a hand if [countries like Iran] are willing to unclench [their] fist.”

2. Obama didn’t just offer this carrot to Iran but added in the same speech that he was also holding a stick. “It is important to us for us to emphasize that we will use all means available to the United States including diplomacy in our relations with Iran.”*

3. The spokesperson for the White House said, on behalf of Obama, that he supports taking the diplomatic route with Iran but that all options remain open, refusing to rule out taking military action despite new promises of a renewed rapprochement. He added that Obama considers it necessary to make use of each and every element of the American forces to protect his country’s interests with regard to Iran.

In light of the indications mentioned above, both sides preferred the diplomatic option over the military one. Why are both sides striving for mutual understanding as opposed to conflict from which neither of them would benefit? Do either both or just one of them hope to return their relationship to how it used to be, particularly in the period between 1953 and 1979, the days of the Shah’s rule?

It is clear that both parties have their own strategic objectives and possess forces which enable them to further these strategic aims. The United States has enormous material, human and military capabilities. It enjoys domination of nuclear weaponry, a large fleet with which it controls the seas and oceans, a colossal air force and rocket capabilities. Since that time, the United States has held most of the threads of international politics in her hands, be it by means of spreading her military forces throughout most of the world by land and sea, by means of bilateral security agreements with many of the world’s nations or through military alliances.

In light of the colossal capabilities which have made the United States into a great state, her strategies have required her to keep an eye on sensitive and strategic elements in the world. Among these is the Arab land which has been the object of the ambitions of successive Iranian governments. These governments cooperated with Western states to share the spoils, and as a result of the British-Iranian cooperation, the area of Arabistan (Al-Ahwaz) was taken from the hands of the Arabs, and control was taken of the three Arab islands in the Arabian Gulf belonging to the Arab Emirates (Greater Tanb, Smaller Tanb and Abu Moussa) in 1971.

Just as the United Sates has material power capabilities, Iran has important capabilities in the region. Iran has a large geographic area approaching 5.1 million square kilometres, and its population is over 70 million. It has a large amount of oil wealth, particularly in the Arabistan area (Al-Ahwaz) and produces 2.5 million barrels per day. Additionally, the Iranian people are united by one creed and one school of thought, the Jafari Shia school of Islam, the followers of which are characterized by blind obedience to a leadership made up of religious men. All these capabilities have pushed the Iranian governments to regain their local role in a new way, with new mechanisms and strategic objectives that seem to be approaching past objectives.

Iran’s political, military and material capabilities became clear after the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 and the demise of the national government there, something which was supported by Iran’s material and human power. In addition to this, there was the new international climate of the first decade of the 21st century, when other great powers such as Russia and China were coming to prominence. There was also the European Union searching for a role for itself in the world, as well as the coming to prominence of important regional powers such as India, Brazil and Turkey and the rise of states in Latin America revolting against the capitalist system.

As for the Iranian nuclear portfolio, Iranian officials say that it is a program with peaceful intentions and that the United States acknowledges that Iran did have a military nuclear program which it abandoned several years ago. Nevertheless, doubt still fills the American and Zionist consciousness following the Iranian leadership’s attempt to construct thousands of centrifuge devices for the production of enriched uranium without mediation or aid from any other international party. This is the issue which has really placed a strain on the relations between Iran and the United States.

International parties have played different roles which have helped the Iranian leadership stay in its extremist position in completing its nuclear project, particularly in the local enrichment of uranium. Russia provided the Iranian leadership with the Bushehr nuclear reactor and prevented the U.N. Security Council from taking powerful resolutions against Iran under the seventh chapter of the charter. China has played an equally important role by maintaining its trade interests with Iran and guaranteeing the flow of Iranian oil to China; the European Turkey is also eager to maintain its interests in Iran.

Iran’s strategic position with respect to Afghanistan and Iraq (where American troops are present), her position with respect to the Arabian Gulf (an important passing point for oil tankers transporting oil to the world) and her relationship with powerful anti-U.S. parties have given her leverage with the American administration, particularly in Iraq.

The aforementioned cards which Iran has in her hands have pushed the American administration to search for a way out which safeguards the interests of both America and Iran. To a certain extent, they have extended an olive branch to the Iranian leadership through organizing direct, unconditional talks with Iran.

The main priority of the U.S. is to help Iran find a solution to the Afghan problem in order to provide a reprieve for the American and NATO troops in general, as they are sustaining heavy losses in their war against what has been termed ‘terrorism.’ The American administration is preparing to negotiate with the government in the Green Zone to increase the length of the stay of its troops in Iraq, claiming that the Iraqi troops are insufficiently prepared. For this, the U.S. is in need of Iran’s support to provide protection for a secure withdrawal. It is in the interests of the American administration to guarantee the security of the Arabian Gulf through new arrangements in which Iran participates to ensure the security of America’s interests in this important region and to keep the region’s regimes in place without strikes or terrorist threats.

As for the Iranian nuclear portfolio, it would not be so difficult to sort out if it was approached in an integrated way or with a selection of integrated incentives bringing together all the issues mentioned above. The scenario may not be the same as that in North Korea because Korea’s economic situation is extremely poor. This is the opposite of the strategic situation in Iran, with its material powers, particularly in oil. Iran’s interests must be at the heart of any future solution because Iran wishes to progress and develop in a variety of areas.

*This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.