April 21, 2008 9:58

Would Obama end the U.S.-Iranian Cold War?

Posted by Scott MacLeod | Comments (10) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

After a week in Tehran speaking with politicians and analysts across the political spectrum, I came away with conclusions on two important issues. Iranians are confident if not over-confident in their overall strategic position, and are not so worried about a military strike before the Bush administration leaves office nine months from now.

And, as I have written in a time.com piece today, there's a widespread feeling that the election of Barack Obama may be an important opportunity to lessen or end U.S.-Iranian hostility. One of President Ahmadinejad's vice presidents told me that if he himself was an American voter, he might have cast his ballot for Obama.

An Iranian Map of the United States

On Iran's position in the region, Iranians pour on the irony in giving Bush much of the credit for bolstering Iranian fortunes--albeit, of course, unintentionally. They gleefully point out how Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan toppled neighboring regimes that were the most hostile to Iran's interests. And they are keenly aware that the invasion of Iraq and bungling of the occupation has helped more than quadruple oil prices to more than $115 a barrel--which nicely provided the major oil-producing nation with vast windfall revenues to help cushion the effects of the Bush-driven U.N. sanctions against Iran. After one Iranian official ran down the list of Iran's geopolitical gains during the Bush administration, I felt compelled to jokingly respond by saying, "You're welcome!" That prompted quite a jolly laugh on his part.

Iranian officials believe that the Bush administration has the intention to attack Iran--Bush has repeatedly warned Iran about its alleged nuclear weapons program-- but at this point lacks the capability to do so. One official assured me that Iran had the capability to launch a powerful retaliatory attack--perhaps a reference to what mischief Iran could inspire through proxies against U.S. interests in Iraq and Israel, which could help fan flames of anti-Americanism throughout the Islamic world. But he also said that a bigger Iranian deterrent is what a U.S.-Iranian clash would do to the global economy through the disruption of the world's oil supplies. I spoke to a few analysts who expressed fear about a Bush attack, but compared to other Iranians they came off as either naive or as trying to promote Bush's war-mongering image in the Middle East. Officials and analysts close to the government seemed unanimous in almost completely dismissing the possibility.

I was struck by the extent to which Iranian officials are seeing positive signs in the prospect of Obama or even John McCain being elected president. McCain has a very negative image in Iran, partly because of his rather insensitive joking for an American leader about bombing Iran. At least 300,000 Iranian lives and perhaps many more were lost after Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 and enjoyed support from the U.S. during an eight-year war. In 1988, a U.S. Navy warship shot down an Iranian passenger flight en route to Dubai, killing the 290 people aboard. Nevertheless, Iranian officials are intrigued by recent statements by Henry Kissinger calling for direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations. Iranians believe that Kissinger is an influential advisor to McCain and they have great respect for Kissinger's weight in American foreign policy circles. It's easy to see how if Iranians decided to follow through with a "Grand Bargain" with the U.S., they would feel more comfortable and confident dealing with an American president who would involve a Kissinger in the process.

Yet, Obama is the candidate that Iranians much prefer. Besides reflexively sympathizing with an African-American with Islamic family roots, they believe Obama's personal experiences in that regard make him more understanding of the developing world and especially the Muslim world and hence more capable of approaching Iran with a better perspective and with more sincerity. They are also impressed with what they feel is Obama's diplomatic, respectful language, which they see as being in utter contrast with insulting U.S. rhetoric dominant during the Bush administration.

Some Iranian officials and analysts go so far as to say that Obama's election could be a historical turning point. As one Iranian put it to me, "This could be a moment of truth for the U.S. and for Iran." What he probably meant was that Obama's possible willingness to make a significant outreach to Iran could be what is needed to convince Iran's leadership that Washington is truly serious about ending the 30 years of hostile relations. In this view, Iran itself could never make the first move or provide the initial compromises, because Iran is the weaker party, and it is feared that concessions would simply embolden the stronger party to demand more. Looking back over the last four U.S. presidential terms spanning nearly 16 years, Iranians regard Bill Clinton as wishy-washy and Bush as strong hostile. Thus, a clear-cut diplomatic outreach by Obama would be a sea-change in American attitudes, from Iran's perspective.

Iranians believe such a bold diplomatic initiative by Obama would be a moment of truth for Iran in the sense that Iran's leadership would have to decide whether to continue its "controlled" hostility to the U.S., which it uses for domestic and international support, or bite the bullet and enter into a cooperative relationship entailing major compromises on issues like the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Iranians realize that another Obama may not come on to the American scene for quite a while, and that rejection of his olive branch--if one is indeed extended-- might inexorably push the region to the World War III that Bush has warned about. Although Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatullah Khamenei has the ultimate say, his moves are influenced by the winds blowing in Iranian politics. Iranians go to the polls in '09 when Ahmadinejad, a hard-liner, is likely to face a strong challenge from more pragmatic candidates, even from within the so-called fundamentalist camp. There's a feeling that McCain's election in the U.S. would aid Ahmnadinejad's re-election whereas an Obama or Hillary Clinton presidency may provide more ammunition to Iranian hopefuls arguing for a more pragmatic approach to the U.S.

Iranian officials were at pains to insist to me that they have no aggressive hegemonic plans for the MIddle East, that they are simply content to exploit the new strategic benefits they have gained thanks to the Bush administration's own goals in the region. They are eager to point out that except for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iranian and American interests in the region strongly converge. They say that both countries support the Iraqi government of Nuri al-Maliki and would like to see stability in Iraq. One analyst said that Iran wanted the U.S. to succeed in Iraq, but not to succeed so much that Washington would then turn its sites on changing the regime in Tehran. Iran's interference in Iraqi affairs, the analyst suggested, was simply part of the U.S.-Iranian chess game. Furthermore, officials say that both countries are determined to curb the rise of extremist Sunni Muslim groups in the Middle East and prevent the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan. As an oil exporting country, Iran is in sync with American desires to keep the oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Iranian may have been correct in saying that an Obama presidency would be a moment of truth for the U.S., too--if he failed to decisively help defuse U.S.-Iranian tensions, it could auger against American standing in the Middle East for years to come. Yet, a serious American effort to achieve a rapprochement with Tehran--whether by Obama or whoever else is inaugurated U.S. president next January-- would clearly put Iran's true intentions to the test. Some in Iran want the confrontation to continue, both for ideological reasons and to strengthen their position in domestic politics. But other Iranian leaders clearly see advantages in a rapprochement with the U.S. Normal relations with the U.S. would consolidate Iran's strategic position in the region, make Iran the most significant, unchallenged power in the Muslim Middle East and strengthen Iran's economy by dramatically easing Iranian trade with the world.

--By Scott MacLeod/Tehran

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

Reader Comments (10)

Ffred:

Good post. Good article. I have high hopes for Obama, but right now he needs to stay on message and avoid sniping.

Posted by Ffred | April 21, 2008 11:52 PM

Joe:

American citizen probably have more influence over whose going to be next president of Iran rather than Iranian citizens, if one would examining past several Iranian presidential elections, one would conclude that Iranian tend to elect person with same personality traits as of newly elected US president, so more power to US citizens!

Posted by Joe | April 22, 2008 12:14 AM

thankfultobefree:

FYI -- Henry Kissinger's the featured guest of "Uncommon Knowledge" this week at NRO. Today he's talking about how withdrawal from Iraq will simply move the jihadists' battle elsewhere. See here.

The rest of the series will be shown here:
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

Posted by thankfultobefree | April 22, 2008 12:15 AM

thankfultobefree:

FYI -- Henry Kissinger's the featured guest of "Uncommon Knowledge" this week at NRO. Today he's talking about how withdrawal from Iraq will simply move the jihadists' battle elsewhere. See here.

The rest of the series will be shown here:
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

Posted by thankfultobefree | April 22, 2008 12:15 AM

jason:

The Iranians just love all the attention they are getting by being belligerant. Articles are written about them and now whom they feel should be the American president seems important- as if they even cared about democracy. But one sentance from the Clint Eastwood movie the Good (Obama) The Bad
(Saadam Hussein) and The Ugly
(Ahmenidinejab) fits well - " If your going to shoot - shoot - don't talk shoot. Yet Iran seems to be doing allot of talking.

Posted by jason | April 22, 2008 4:14 AM

Call:

Yes, the Iranians would be tickled code pink by a president who would find new ways to capitulate. I can't wait for the day.

Vote McCain in '08.

Posted by Call | April 23, 2008 5:48 AM

nk+:

It is folly to listen to people like Jason above who say: "as if they even cared about democracy". Jason, in 1951, the people of Iran democratically elected a prime minister. In 1953, because the British wanted to retain 100% rights in Iran's oils, to the detriment of Iran, who was getting about a penny on the dollar for oil in their country, and the democratically elected government wanted to nationalize those interests. They asked the CIA to stage a coup and install the Shah. Furthmore, Iran has always been one of the most important countries in the world, well before oil was found in its soil. It was once the center of the entire world's culture. In the mountains of Iran, Zoroaster developed the vicious idea of monotheism, one which Jewish scholars admit was later adopted into Judaism. Do some reading before you make stupid comments here which may be taken as gospel by other unknowing readers. Spreading ignorance is far worse than being ignorant.
--------------------------------

Scott, why are journalists so hard-pressed to emphasize that Ahmadinejad, though the President of Iran, is very much powerless and criticized at home for being so vocal (allowing himself to be misinterpreted by opposition that will fake news to slander Iran)? I see one sentence above stating that he has no real power, but you don't seem to believe it and even try to convince the reader of this. This is propaganda. As a trusted journalist, you have the obligation to make sure that the news is not interpreted falsely so as to satisfy any political agenda. I find that unappealing as must a lot of readers.
--------------------------
Finally, will Obama end a cold war? Only if he unaligns Israel with the US agenda in the region. Israel is hell-bent on invading Iran because if Iran acquires nukes, then Israel basically becomes just a much smaller, much less capable country in the same region. The US won't need Israel if they ally with Iran. That's Israel's greatest fear... and we all know how capable Israel is without the US (not even capable of beating a third rate proxy group like Hezbollah).

Posted by nk+ | April 23, 2008 10:16 AM

nk+:

One more thing...

Scott, I very much enjoyed the blog. I didn't want anyone to think otherwise per what I wrote above :) Keep up the good work.

Posted by nk+ | April 23, 2008 10:19 AM

Scott MacLeod:

nk+

Thanks for your last note and your thoughtful contributions in general. No offense taken, of course.

I think Ahmadinejad's position is not so black and white. It's true that he doesn't hold all the power or the ultimate authority in Iran. But that's not the same as saying he has no influence on the ultimate decisions or on iranian public opinion for that matter. Also, to a great extent, he does represent the outlook of the regime as a whole at this particular juncture. You're right that the media generally highlights Ahmadinejad and his statements in a way that makes a caricature of Iran. All I can says is that TIME is very aware of the diversity of views and influences in Iran, even within the regime itself, and we've tried our best to reflect that in our reporting.

Posted by Scott MacLeod | April 23, 2008 12:23 PM

roro44:

Nero 7 Premium | Nero 8 Ultra Edition | Alcohol 120% | DAEMON Tools | Okoker DVD/CD Data Burner | DVDFab HD Decrypter | CloneCD | MagicISO Maker | Amazon DVD Shrinker | AnyDVD | برامج 2007 | برامج 2008 | برامج 2009 | برامج 2010 | برامج جديدة | البرامج الجديدة | برامج مجانية | تحميل البرامج | برامج للتحميل | برامج | برنامج | Free Windows | Free Windows downloads | Free downloads | Free Software | Free Software Downloads | Downloads | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |

Posted by roro44 | September 26, 2008 7:04 PM