The world watched in anticipation the results of today's historic meeting between Iran and the permanent five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany in a villa on the outskirts of Geneva. Reporters waited for their cues to give their analysis on its outcome which on the surface seemed to be all about Iran’s nuclear transparency or the lack thereof. But I would argue, that the meat and bone of this encounter is in fact less about Iran’s nuclear facilities and more about how America and Iran can once again rekindle old relationships. So in order to project what could be expected from this meeting it is important to understand what each party’s position was going in, first. I start with Iran:
Iran’s demands are straightforward. I make this conclusion based on a proposal that Iran had sent the Bush Administration sometime in 2005. It expressed Tehran's readiness to assist with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by exercising its influence on Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran also offered to assist in the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. In return, it expected the U.S. to lift existing sanctions. And while Iran was suffering economically it knew that the country still had enough regional influence that could make life either easy or hard for the Americans. That proposal fell on deaf ears and America never took Iran serious enough to reply back.
Now, despite the outcome of the June 12th election that has completely undermined the credibility of the current government and has jeopardized the legitimacy of the Islamic regime, Iran’s position remains the same:
a) it demands recognition as a regional power player and political broker in Middle East affairs,
b) it expects renewed guarantees, much the same way it did in the early years of the revolution from the Reagan administration that America would not get involved, directly or indirectly, in regime change, and
c) it wants sanctions lifted that have prevented the country from having access to open market goods and services which it currently buys through hidden channels on the black market at absorbingly high prices.
America’s position is also not so complex. It wants access to Iran as a strategic Middle East country, its market which includes oil, gas and telecommunications industry and to be able to sell American goods and services like it use to during the Shah's era. It also expects Iran to pull its support from terror groups in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza and to stop flaming Shiite factions in Iraq.
How the two parties view each other
How Iran sees America – To the Iranians America appears as a country that is way in over its head. Militarily it is stretched both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, financially the country is in a recession with most of its major industries bankrupt and that the country’s recovery plan looks bleak. Morally they will make the case that capitalism and liberal values have not yielded the results they had promised and to the contrary have lead to a moral decay.
How America sees Iran – To the Americans Iran is looked at as a dictatorship and a coercive regime that brutalizes its people under the name of religion. The June 12th election and its aftermath are clear indications of this oppressive regime which has now made the country increasingly unstable. It is a country that could potentially be on the verge of political collapse. Internationally it is also under pressure in terms of its nuclear development and how all signs indicate that Iran wants to develop the nuclear bomb, if nothing else to learn how to weaponize its nuclear capabilities. It is also a country in economic neglect which means again more of its citizens are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.
So, it is my guess that both sides entered the meeting with their swords drawn taking positions and addressing points to show the other that they have the upper hand.
What card did each country play?
Iran on America – Iran probably started with a position of strength by stating that the country has been in isolation and under U.S. sanctions for over 30 years and as a result played the “I’m self-sufficient card.” Iran likely implied that there is not a single thing America can offer the country that it doesn’t already have. This position aims to reinforce the multi-polar balance of power theory with the intent to force America to concede its hegemonic posture. From Iran perspective it rejects the idea of the world having a single power world order.
America on Iran – America likely played the nuclear card and called Iran a threat to world peace. The U.S. negotiators came prepared to demand full compliance with IAEA rules and a total halt on Iran militarizing its nuclear capabilities. After all, that was the position the Americans had taken all along when going into these talks. They made it clear that they were only interested in talking about Iran’s nuclear program and nothing else. America regards Iran’s finger on the nuke button a serious threat and will do everything it can to prevent from such a threat level ever being reached.
Beyond the rhetoric’s – the outcome
We need to look beyond the prelude rhetoric and high drama of Ahmadinejad speeches at the UN where he talked about an Armageddon, the coming of the 12th Imam and Judgment Day. This discourse is just another way of telling the world we have nothing to lose by going into these talks. It also shows that the government and the Islamic regime as a whole is on thin ice domestically. And it lessens Tehran's credibility internationally. But after the tough talk, in the end, they will have to chose one of three options:
a) Accept international sanctions which could ultimately lead to a collapse of the country,
b) Compliance and engagement with the international community, or
c) Walk away from the talks and engaging in a military confrontation
If I was a betting man I would put my money on option b. But it all really depends on what’s going on behind closed doors in Tehran since it’s the regime's belief that they have nothing to lose. In the end, only time will tell.
---
Shahriar Shahabi is a Middle East political strategist and Paltalk News Network correspondent
No comments:
Post a Comment