An Unsanctioned Iran Is Scary—Nukes or Not
This article was published in full with the National Interest.
Click here to read the full article.
—
Anwar El Sadat’s historic 1977 trip to Jerusalem changed the political dynamics in the Middle East. The current rapprochement between Washington and Tehran could have the same effect. A comprehensive deal between America and Iran would change the balance of power in the region.
Cynics of the nuclear negotiations insist that Iran is seeking a nuclear bomb, and the danger of that scenario is quite obvious. But the nuclear threat should not distract the international community from the very real, nonnuclear dangers posed by a resurgent Iran free of economic sanctions. Iran’s hegemonic ambitions in the region will grow if sanctions are lifted, strengthening the regime and the Iranian economy. The direct involvement of Tehran in illicit activities in the Arab world is a major source of mistrust between the strong Sunni ruling families of the Gulf and the Shia mullahs in Iran.
Iran’s regional ambitions make key U.S. allies—such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel—hesitant to embrace any rapprochement between Washington and Tehran.
Click here to read the full article on NationalInterest.org
Related articles
- Iran Protests US Sanctions in Call With Kerry (nytimes.com)
- US-Iran rapprochement starts to reshape Middle East power balance (irishtimes.com)
- A Long Road To Normalisation (saisaonline.org)
“There is a growing risk that Washington will overlook Iran’s destabilizing regional activities in a shortsighted attempt to sign an agreement, score a win for diplomacy, and pivot away from the Middle East.”
Shortsighted? Why? On the contrary, I think it is a very intelligent and responsible move from the Obama administration. Let me tell you what was shortsighted:
The more peaceful and incremental democratization that the US snuffed out in Iran in 1953; the chaos that the US’s client state, Israel, helped bring about in Lebanon in the eighties; the dictatorship that was so unnaturally sustained in Egypt for so long so as to protect Israel; the chaos that America brought to Afghanistan by supporting radical jihadists in the eighties, some of which would later rise to power as the Taliban; the support that the US gave to Saddam Hussein in the eighties (to use WMD on the Persians) as he and the Iranians bled each other white.
That is shortsighted. Reconciliation isn’t. Not at all. Let me tell you why.
Iran’s youth are ambitious, educated and intelligent. The Persian language, culture, tradition, and lifestyle are an extraordinarily rich mixture stretching thousands of years. Iran’s history as a country is greatly celebrated with tremendous cultural, scientific and artistic achievements. The country has a robust institutional structure, and is far more democratized than any other Arab country. Iran was a useful ally post 9/11 in the short 2001-2003 period, capturing up many Al-Qaeda operatives and leaders.
And since you intern at WINEP, we should probably talk about Israel. Theoretically, Iran and Israel’s interests are very much aligned. Iran has a mythical presence in Jewish history as one of their kings (one of the world’s greatest kings) freed the Jews from captivity 2,000 years ago; Cyrus in the only gentile to be designated as Messiah. They both disdain Sunni extremists (who are a menace not only to Israel, but to their Arab neighbors as well). The two pipelines to Turkey from Qatar and from Haifa (to pump natural gas to Turkey’s Nabuco pipeline to feed Europe) are great; Israel can be contracted to pump Iran’s gas as well (from the shared Qatari-Iranian Sars fields), which has a tremendously lower extraction cost (since the field is not in the middle of the sea, like Israel’s Tamar field). It’s a win-win. Iran gets their gas exported to Europe, and Israel gets paid good money for their technical and logistical services.
Like I said in one of my earlier comments for another National Interest article, extremists on both sides (American and Iranian) have been defeated, or at least sidelined for now. Reconciliation should start right away. Iran should drop its support for extremists (Quds, Hezbollah, Dawa, Mahdi, Hamas [kind of], etc.), Israel should drop theirs (PMOI, MEK, MKO, NCRI, RAJAVISTS, etc.), and the US should stop training and arming “moderate rebel” groups. The answer to everything cannot be “more guns” and more hate; that makes no sense.
You’re working for an influential think tank and I hope you take what I say seriously, or at least look into it and try to see things differently. Reconciliation is powerful. Forgiveness is powerful.
As for me, a Levant Arab, I have no problem riding that Persian horse. An Arabian (Hashemite-Saudi) horse has been galloping us to nowhere since 1916. I am certain that stability will be brought to West Asia as soon as Iran and Israel make up. Then, both nations can prosper and so can the nations surrounding them.
As for now, I could care less if Egypt and the GCC are left standing a bit forlornly, feeling sad and alone.
Thank you for your comment. I encourage you to read my previous article, “A Roadmap for Nuclear Negotiations with Iran.” I also hope you’ll read “That Smile: Rouhani Knows What He’s Doing.”
If you do, you’ll get a better understanding of my views towards Iran, the Iranian people, and US-Iran rapprochement. (And you might be surprised to find that much of your positive rhetoric above mirrors my own optimistic, favorable attitude toward Iranians and reconciliation with the West, generally).
In the article, I am describing a hypothetical nuclear deal–a comprehensive deal that includes major sanctions relief. I used the word shortsighted to highlight the dangers posed by the Iranian government’s regional ambitions. In other words, it would be a mistake to let an otherwise attractive deal obscure nuclear negotiators from the fact that the regime in Tehran has, at times, had a destabilizing effect on other states in the region (e.g. resurgent sectarianism in Iraq and Hezbollah’s role in Syria).
At the same time, “shortsighted” describes the hypothetical scenario in which America signs a deal and pivots away from the Middle East.
On its face, rapprochement is not shortsighted. And I wish the sanctions didn’t hurt everyday Iranians as much as they do. But giving Khamenei, the IRGC, and other hardline groups in Iran sanctions relief will fund their ability to meddle throughout the region. And while it’s certainly possible that we are witnessing a soft revolution in Iran, and that the regime won’t use renewed oil revenue to fund its illicit activities elsewhere, I’m afraid that there is far more evidence to the contrary, especially in recent history.
Mistrust runs deep on both sides, so before there’s any major sanctions relief I hope both sides take the disciplined approach, building trust slowly before sanctions are lifted.
Again, thank you for your comment. If you get a chance, I hope you’ll also check out The Middle East Video Blog. We’d love to get more Middle Eastern opinions on our show: http://www.middleeastvideoblog.wordpress.com.
I just finished reading both articles. You know, I spend a lot of time dismantling the belief systems of bigoted, prejudiced and intolerant individuals. This time, it seems, I resorted to forming an opinion of someone by reading one article that they’ve written, finding out about who they are associated with, and then picking on them. The same tactics used by those I condemn.
I’m an idealist. You’re an IR academic and, hence, a realist. I see now, though, that we’re basically on the same wavelength.
Mea Culpa.
p.s. I will be checking out your video blogs as soon as I stop procrastinating and do some actual work.
Correction:
I did not mean to say “… any other Arab country”. That was a slip. Iranians aren’t Arab; I would hate to misinform anyone.
Thank you.
Thanks very much, Sammur. It’s quite refreshing to have a mature back-and-forth like this. I see that you also commented on the full article in The National Interest. If it’s not too much trouble, could you post a follow-up?
I’m going to get far more readers on that website as opposed to here, and I’d hate for them to walk away from your first comment without doing what you did: reading a few more articles of mine to get a more holistic feel for my views towards US-Iran Relations.
I’m asking this favor because I think it would be a bit unprofessional for me to comment on my own article in TNI: that kind of author/reader dialogue is much more appropriate here, on my blog. Either way, thanks again for the informed, responsible feedback. I can only hope that all of my readers will be as respectful as you.
Till next time,
Jay
Done.
Thanks, Sammur. Check out MEVB’s latest episode: “It’s All About Israel and Iran.” I go into some depth about Persian-Judeo history. I think you’ll enjoy it and I’d love to get your feedback!