For those of you who aren’t up on it, Obama took the fairly amazing step of creating a video which was a direct appeal to the Iranian people and the leaders of Iran for peaceful, warmer relations. The Ayatollah, in turn, offered his own response, saying that they were willing to see a shift in relations, but also implied that the US dropping sanctions on Iran and dropping Israel as an ally would be prerequisites for any shift in relatoins.
Meanwhile, while it is true that initial Iranian governmental reactions have been luke warm in general, Mahmoud “aint not gays in Iran” Ahmadinejad is up for reelection in June and faces what some have described as a serious challenge from reformers who favor better, closer, warmer ties with the west in general and the US in specific. Of course, we should remember that Iran is not a democracy and its President is largely a figurehead/puppet, and much will depend on how its theocratic Supreme Leader decides to treat this overture.
As I’ve cited before, the Iranian people themselves, overwhelmingly oppose Iran’s drive towards nuclear enrichment if cessation would bring economic benefits and warmer relations with the wests, oppose their theocracy, support democracy and a roughly 50% (+/- 5%) tend to support recognition of a two state solution in the I/P conflict in exchange for warm relations with the US. This trend has stayed true in virtually all of the recent polls up to one conducted just before the most recent US election. There is a real possibility that if Obama pushes hard enough, the people of Iran will be able to have enough grassroots support that they can (finally), live in a democracy that’s economically prosperous and has warm ties with the rest of the world, rather than a thuggish theocracy which imposes its will through its ‘morality police’ and public executions of homosexuals for the ‘crime’ of their sexuality.
But, what’s unclear is exactly where we go from here, and how. I’d contend that it is fairly obvious that American voters and politicians simply would not accept abandoning Israel as an ally any more than they’d be willing to drop Canada or the UK as allies. That’s simply off the table, and such an initiative would receive traction with nobody but fringe elements of the left and the right. Which isn’t to say that when asked general questions about what sort of a role we should play in the peace process that the majority of Americans wouldn’t say that we should attempt to be a neutral broker as much as possible. So, I’d say, dropping support for Israel is a non-starter, but being able to broker a successful two state solution (with or without Hamastan) would be seen as a momentous enough change for the Iranian people and much of their leadership that an actual end to the US-Israeli alliance would not be necessary.
Likewise, demanding that we end sanctions while Iran is still blocking a full IAEA investigation is a non-starter. And without the implementation of the Additional Protocol, “the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.”
Absent that assurance, and especially while Iran continues to support Hamas and more specifically Hezbollah, it does not seem likely that the western community in general or America in specific will be willing, let alone eager, to end sanctions.
So what has to happen from us to get from Point A (representing mutual hostility, distrust, and potential military action) , to Point B (a free and prosperous Iranian citizenry, an end to its support for international terrorism, and an end to sanctions concurrent with Iran being welcomed back into the global community)? I’m at a loss to explain what that course of action could be, other than for Obama, along with European powers, to push for a two state solution as fast as situtionally possible, while continuing to make appeals to the Iranian people themselves with promises of the rewards that increased cooperation could bring.
What are your thoughts?
)