Skip to main content

Obstacles to a U.S.-Iranian Detente



In 1979, shortly after the revolution that established the current Iranian regime, Tehran broke off relations with the United States. Nearly 35 years later, it is now Iran that seeks to end hostilities. When they begin, direct public bilateral talks between Washington and Tehran will constitute a significant breakthrough. Major progress is unlikely anytime soon, however, especially since it is far more complicated for the United States to move forward than it is for Iran.

Under its new president, Hassan Rouhani, Iran has issued a barrage of statements expressing eagerness to negotiate with the United States, a topic it finally appears to have achieved internal coherence on. In a Sept. 18 television interview with NBC, the first with an American news organization since taking office, Rouhani categorically stated that his country has never sought nuclear weapons nor will it ever in the future. He added that the Islamic republic sought peaceful relations with all countries. These comments came on the heels of unprecedented statements issued by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who said that he did not oppose compromise in diplomacy and supported flexibility.

Iran's incentive behind pursuing negotiations is the need to address its seriously degraded economy. This need explains why the Iranians are pushing aggressively for formal talks with the United States and are waiting for the Americans to reciprocate. Media reports have emerged that the Obama administration is in fact preparing to engage in talks with Iranian officials during Rouhani's trip next week to New York for the annual session of the U.N. General Assembly.

Even so, the United States is proceeding much more cautiously for many reasons. For one, the Americans are not under any significant pressure to rush into negotiations with the Iranians. When U.S. forces were in Iraq, Washington needed Iran, something that is no longer the case. There is also considerable opposition to diplomatic engagement with Tehran from several quarters within Washington. U.S. President Obama is at his weakest position since he first became president, particularly after the recent Syrian chemical weapons crisis in which Russia was able to exploit the U.S. desire to avoid military action in Syria. Obama thus risks coming under severe criticism for appearing to concede too much to the Iranians. Beyond domestic political hurdles, far more significant geopolitical obstacles lie in the path to any meaningful U.S.-Iranian diplomacy.

U.S.-Iranian negotiations have implications for the balance of power in the Middle East and for Washington's relations with its allies in the region. U.S. concessions to Iran are of particularly grave concern to Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Saudis and the Israelis fear that a de-escalation of tensions with the United States will only enhance the Iranian position in the region to the detriment of their own.

Certainly, the United States can benefit from cooperation with the Iranians to better manage Syria, especially the threat posed by jihadists. This would not be the first time, since Tehran and Washington cooperated against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and for a period after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But those were tactical-level arrangements that did not alter the overall state of hostile relations between the two sides and thus did not impact U.S. alignments in the region.

The current diplomatic initiative is of a strategic nature, however. Even a modest level of success could enhance the Iranian position and upset the existing geopolitical architecture. From the U.S. point of view, there is no good way to improve relations with the Iranians and balance those ties against its present ties with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab states, Israel, Turkey and Egypt.

The principal reason for this is that even if normal diplomatic relations were restored, Iran would not become an American ally. On the contrary, it would continue to pursue its independent foreign policies. This means it would still be difficult for the United States to maintain a balance of power in the region, especially as the Arab world is in a long-term state of meltdown, which the Iranians are hoping to exploit to their advantage. U.S. and Iranian negotiators are therefore going to have a hard time at the bargaining table.

Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why States Still Use Barrel Bombs

Smoke ascends after a Syrian military helicopter allegedly dropped a barrel bomb over the city of Daraya on Jan. 31.(FADI DIRANI/AFP/Getty Images) Summary Barrel bombs are not especially effective weapons. They are often poorly constructed; they fail to detonate more often than other devices constructed for a similar purpose; and their lack of precision means they can have a disproportionate effect on civilian populations. However, combatants continue to use barrel bombs in conflicts, including in recent and ongoing conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, and they are ideally suited to the requirements of resource-poor states. Analysis Barrel bombs are improvised devices that contain explosive filling and shrapnel packed into a container, often in a cylindrical shape such as a barrel. The devices continue to be dropped on towns all over Syria . Indeed, there have been several documented cases of their use in Iraq over the past months, and residents of the city of Mosul, which was re

Russia Looks East for New Oil Markets

Click to Enlarge In the final years of the Soviet Union, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev began orienting his foreign policy toward Asia in response to a rising Japan. Putin has also piloted a much-touted pivot to Asia, coinciding with renewed U.S. interest in the area. A good expression of intent was Russia's hosting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in 2012 in Vladivostok, near Russia's borders with China and North Korea. Although its efforts in Asia have been limited by more direct interests in Russia's periphery and in Europe, Moscow recently has been able to look more to the east. Part of this renewed interest involves finding new export markets for Russian hydrocarbons. Russia's economy relies on energy exports, particularly crude oil and natural gas exported via pipeline to the West. However, Western Europe is diversifying its energy sources as new supplies come online out of a desire to reduce its dependence on Russian energy supplies . This has

LONDON POLICE INDIRECTLY ENCOURAGE CRIMINALS TO ATTACK RUSSIAN DIPLOMATIC PROPERTY

ILLUSTRATIVE IMAGE A few days ago an unknown perpetrator trespassed on the territory of the Russian Trade Delegation in London, causing damage to the property and the vehicles belonging to the trade delegation , Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said during the September 12 press briefing. The diplomat revealed the response by the London police was discouraging. Police told that the case does not have any prospects and is likely to be closed. This was made despite the fact that the British law enforcement was provided with video surveillance tapes and detailed information shedding light on the incident. By this byehavior, British law inforcements indirectly encourage criminals to continue attacks on Russian diplomatic property in the UK. Zakharova’s statement on “Trespassing on the Russian Trade Mission premises in London” ( source ): During our briefings, we have repeatedly discussed compliance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specif