Is Iran coming in from the cold?

[Borachio]

Well, Warpus, that's kind of answering my very specific questions with a total blanket generalization.

Perhaps I should preface all my questions with a particular phrase, so that we now have: "In so far as anyone is in control of anything at all" is Rouhani likely to be able to achieve a rapprochement with the US?

In a similar way to asking "is Lvov likely to be able to achieve the decommissioning of chemical weapons in Syria?" could be a meaningful question.

But yes, indeed, in the end, no one is in control of anything. Neither me nor my bowels.

 

[warpus]

It's just that a lot of people seem to have this naive view that the president of country X gets to call all the shots and that it's as simple as that. Not you, mind you, but I was hinting that you can't really answer your question well enough unless you first understand Iran's political scene, the players involved, etc. which most of us probably don't.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Why is balance of power out of style?

Iran-US relations can't just warm up because Iran might be a better ally. The US wants to keep potential rivals down, not let them dominate a region.

 

[Borachio]

It's just that a lot of people seem to have this naive view that the president of country X gets to call all the shots and that it's as simple as that. Not you, mind you, but I was hinting that you can't really answer your question well enough unless you first understand Iran's political scene, the players involved, etc. which most of us probably don't.

OK. I'll rephrase my question again.

How likely is that Iran is going to achieve rapprochement with the US, given that the current President of Iran, Rouhani, is making much more conciliatory noises than his predecessor, I've-a-dinner-jacket Ahmadinejad?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Iran has been seeking a rapprochement with the US since at least 2001. The US - pushed by Israel and Saudi Arabia - have constantly rebuffed those attempts. This attempt is far more open than the previous overtures, so it will be interesting to see how the US responds. I think this is possibly a strategy on Iran's part to take some of the heat off Assad, myself.

Indeed.

I think the real blame lies with the Bush administration for labeling them part of the "axis of evil" while trying everything they could to overthrow their sovereign government, including the use of terrorists. Unfortunately, the Nobel peace prize winning president's own policies haven't been much better. And neither one spoke out against the Mossad's assassinations of civilian scientists.

 

[classical_hero]

Those scientist were working on a military project, thus they can never be considered as being civilian.

Here is another good reason why should be supporting Saudi Arabia.
Rape victim sentenced to 200lashed She also received 6 months in prison for her crimes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Those scientist were working on a military project, thus they can never be considered as being civilian.

According to whom? Known liars?

Then I'm sure you won't mind in the least if they and other foreign governments decide to target Australian scientists in the same manner who are positively known to be working on military projects.

 

[Silurian]

Those scientist were working on a military project, thus they can never be considered as being civilian.

So would it be ok for the Iranians to kill people working for Boeing.

 

[Silurian]

Rouhani has spoken too Obama

From USA Today

President Obama said Friday he spoke with new Iran President Hasan Rouhani by phone, the first top-level U.S.-Iranian contact in more than three decades.

Rouhani confirmed the phone conversation in a Twitter message.

Obama said the two leaders discussed the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, and "I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n-congress-statement-sept-27-touhani/2884413/

Added Rouhani twitter


https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani

 

[warpus]

OK. I'll rephrase my question again.

How likely is that Iran is going to achieve rapprochement with the US, given that the current President of Iran, Rouhani, is making much more conciliatory noises than his predecessor, I've-a-dinner-jacket Ahmadinejad?

It's not an easy question to answer, because it's probably mostly up to the U.S. They won't do it because "Iran is good" or whatever. They'll only do it if it's politically covenient & if it benefits them. There are so many variables involved, most of them secret, it's just hard to say.

 

[Tahuti]

It's not an easy question to answer, because it's probably mostly up to the U.S. They won't do it because "Iran is good" or whatever. They'll only do it if it's politically covenient & if it benefits them. There are so many variables involved, most of them secret, it's just hard to say.

Well yes. But it also comes from the Iranian side. Iran on one hand and the USA (and Israel) on the other are natural allies, but irrationality on both sides has prevented this potential alliance from coming to fruition in the past.

It certainly wasn't possible with Ahmadinejad, as he was determined to oppose Israel and the USA as an end in itself, so an rapprochement with the USA was out of the question during his tenure. I still hope Netanyahu won't destroy the US rapprochement with Iran, not in the last because Israel itself would gain from good US-Iranian relations, something which Ariel Sharon was able to see. However, being at least non-hostile to Iran is finally getting a bit palatable in Israel, politically speaking, due to Hamas' 180 turn from friends-to-enemies on Iran.

The only power that would really stand to lose from an Iranian-American deal is - obviously - Saudi Arabia. Religion and oil and all that.

 

[warpus]

There are many reasons why keeping Iran as an enemy would be beneficial to the U.S. In a game of geopolitics, especially when you're a superpower like the U.S., the end game isn't always "let's all be friends". Enemies, real or imaginary, can be very beneficial.

There's just so many variables. We'll have to see how this plays out.

 

[Tahuti]

There are many reasons why keeping Iran as an enemy would be beneficial to the U.S. In a game of geopolitics, especially when you're a superpower like the U.S., the end game isn't always "let's all be friends". Enemies, real or imaginary, can be very beneficial.

There's just so many variables. We'll have to see how this plays out.

Well, the main problem was that the USA under Carter - who should accompany Dubya in the worst of the worst lists - put itself in a very awkward position: Due to the Islamic revolution, Carter stopped backing the Shah. This was crucial to the success of the Shah's overthrowal, as Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was very ill, and it was believed by the Iranians that he would die soon. Since the USA ceased support of him, the Shah's Iranian backers in the military flip-flopped towards Ayatollah Khomeini, as they felt that their alliance with the Shah would have no benefit anymore - they would if they could count on US support.

However, this all happened without the USA shedding the reputation of backing the Shah. Now, the ayatollah already had an irrational hatred of Israel and the US, but even if he wanted to become friendly, the reputation of the USA as being a backer of the Shah meant that he would destroy his domestic reputation if he rapproached with the Great Satan. Carter deservedly was kicked out of office, and Ronald Reagan tried to compensate for the mess Carter left by laying the foundations for the US-Saudi alliance, which marked the final nail in the coffin for any possibility of a US-Iranian rapproachment in the foreseeable future, back then.

However, the US-Saudi alliance is a very unnatural alliance that shouldn't have existed. It's an inheritance of Jimmy Carter's incompetent and ******** foreign policy. Saudi Arabia is hostile to Israel and its regime bases its domestic legitimacy largely on that issue. Iran, with it's hostile Arab neighbours, would otherwise be a natural ally of Israel, and important Israeli figures like Ariel Sharon rightly perceived that, supporting arms deals with Iran in the 1980s to help Iran fight against Saddam Hussain (that's right, after the Islamic revolution).
Now Iran's Anti-Zionist allies have become hostile to Iran itself due to religious differences (Hamas) or being bogged down in a hopeless conflict (Assad & Hezbollah), which is ending the last moral commitments Iran could possibly still have against Israel, this in addition to the fact that large segments of the Iranian populace is sympathetic towards the US. Perhaps, the current Ayatollah allowed to happen the end of Ahmadinejad's presidency just for the current rapproachment to happen. Which would be a good thing, and allows the USA to finally put an end to the horrible alliance it has with Saudi Arabia.

(note that I mentioned Israel a lot of times in this story, as the USA's disposition towards Iran can't be seen without involving Israel either: Israel is too popular among the American public even without the Pro-Israel lobbies, and given Israel and the US have plenty have common enemies and common concerns, it is much better for the US to have another ME ally that - in the current geostrategic environment - has no innate interest to be hostile to Israel. Iran would be that ally.)

 

[warpus]

Any proper analysis of the situation is very interesting to me, but there are so many angles. Saudi Arabia's place in all this is important, you're right.

I just don't know if it's possible for us, since we lack so much information, to predict what's going to happen. A lot of cards on both sides are likely hidden from view.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, one possibility would be that Iran would declare itself to be a Nuclear weapons-free state to reassure the US and Israel that doesn't have any nuclear ambitions. However, should the USA ever offer this as a possibility, this may not be well received among the Saudis who want to stop the Iranians at all costs anyway. If Iran were actually developing nukes, they would be fools - even though the west was willing to believe this.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It certainly wasn't possible with Ahmadinejad, as he was determined to oppose Israel and the USA as an end in itself, so an rapprochement with the USA was out of the question during his tenure.

As it has already been mentioned, Iran has been trying to improve relations for over 12 years now. That clearly includes when Ahmadinejad was in office. He was the victim of a very effective propaganda campaign more than anything else. His comments were repeatedly taken out of context and deliberately misinterpreted.

Well, one possibility would be that Iran would declare itself to be a Nuclear weapons-free state to reassure the US and Israel that doesn't have any nuclear ambitions. However, should the USA ever offer this as a possibility, this may not be well received among the Saudis who want to stop the Iranians at all costs anyway. If Iran were actually developing nukes, they would be fools - even though the west was willing to believe this.

There is nothing "foolish" about defending yourself from incessant attempts to overthrow your sovereign government. If Iran developed nuclear weapons they would make themselves relatively immune from invasion just as North Korea has.

 

[Lord Baal]

Why is balance of power out of style?

Iran-US relations can't just warm up because Iran might be a better ally. The US wants to keep potential rivals down, not let them dominate a region.

BoP is "out of style" because the theory is, and has always been, wrong. There is no consensus among historians or theorists as to what exactly a "balance" is, nor how one can be achieved. Hegemonies have appeared more often than concerts historically, which flies in the face of the BoP theory, and even BoP theorists - of which there are virtually none today - admit that if a "balance" were to ever form, the states comprising it would be just as likely to try to upset it as to accept the "natural equilibrium."

Balance of Threat theory, which posits that states attempt to limit security threats to themselves, is a far more intelligent theory. It doesn't posit any particularly "balance" itself, simply using the term because it already existed in geopolitics; I personally wish Stephen Walt had come up with a different term 29 years ago when he first formulated the doctrine. It merely states that state actors will attempt to limit their own security threats, even if doing so involves actually elevating the power of another state actor. Walt is also smart enough to claim that his theory is just a model, not an explanation, which is why BoT is gaining adherents, particularly in Australia and France.

The US cares about regional stability and continuing the flow of oil. They would also like to keep the price low and keep rivals such as Russia and China out of the region. Iran is superbly capable of fulfilling all of those requirements. It doesn't matter if Iran dominates the region - which it can't - so long as it dominates it at the US's behest.

 

[capslock]

It is pretty clear that Iran senses weakness in US foreign policy after the Syria debacle and seeks to capitalize.

 

[Lord Baal]

It is pretty clear that Iran senses weakness in US foreign policy after the Syria debacle and seeks to capitalize.

It's not so much "sensing weakness" and more a case of realising that American foreign policy in the region is currently in something of a state of flux. Best to take advantage of that before it settles down into familiar patterns.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's not so much "sensing weakness" and more a case of realising that American foreign policy in the region is currently in something of a state of flux. Best to take advantage of that before it settles down into familiar patterns.

There is an outside chance that after Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and threats made about Syria that the Ayatollah finally wised up that we would bomb them if our demands weren't met.