Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Thoughts on the Obama-Khamenei exchange
I wasn't able to follow the fallout from Obama's message to Iran in much detail while traveling, but the magic of the internet allowed me to catch up a bit this afternoon (Monday in Singapore). A few quick thoughts:
First, having called for a more accommodating and open approach to Iran, I can only applaud Obama's New Year's message. It showcased his strengths as a leader: confidence, a ready willingness to abandon failed policies, and an ability to see how things might look to the other side. If we follow up with clear, resolute, and disciplined diplomacy, and if we have the patience to realize that you don't unwind thirty years of animosity overnight, we may succeed in defusing a serious problem, and maybe even turn Iran from an adversary into an asset over time.
Second, I though Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's response (given in a speech to a gathering at a shrine in Mashhad) was about what we should have expected, and not discouraging at all. Juan Cole has provided a translation on his website here, and I agree with his analysis here. Stripped of the somewhat harsh rhetoric, Khamenei was making the wholly sensible point that the key to changing the relationship lies in what each country does, not just what it says. After all, how would we respond if some adversary's leader made a friendly speech? We would welcome the words but we'd make it clear that real change would depend on actions, which is essentially what Khamenei did. And I had to love this passage of Khamenei's speech:
Regarding our vital issues, we are not sentimental. We do not make decisions based on emotion. We make decisions through calculation.
Who'd have thought that the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran was a realist? Well, me, but also someone like Trita Parsi, who knows a lot more about Iran than I do. And when you think about it, Khamenei's response was a lot more encouraging than the U.S. reaction when Iran offered to negotiate a "grand bargain" with us back in June 2003. The Bush administration rejected the overture out of hand, and look where that got us.
So I'd call this a good first step. But I'd remind everyone that this journey will be a long one, and if history is any guide, there will lots of opportunities for both sides to stumble.
ALIREZA SOTAKBAR/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
I differ somewhat
I thought Obama's speech was wonderful, clear, devoid of offensiveness (even passively), but also not prematurely compromising.
I thought Khatami's position if he/they continue to hold it (he is the decision-maker after all, not Amhmenijidad), to be a structural rejection.
That is that it appeared to contain the requirement for the US to sever relations with Israel as THE action that would signal to Iran that the US desires something different.
Israel IS in close relationship with the US, and will remain close indefinitely. It is close independantly of geo-politics. Even considering the geo-politics, that FACT of close economic and social relationship compares to a gamble of anything even just ok relative to Iran.
The key to remember is that
The key to remember is that this direct negotiations are only part of the strategy. The proposed bargain to Russia over missile defense as well as better engagement with the Europeans over a joint-sanctions policy are the other visible pieces so far.
My fuller thoughts on this are here: Iran Endgame
Deaf men talking to each other to save the State
and as expected Professor applauding, expecting it is gonna be saved. Because if you take the State from Professor he thinks that his whole career will be finished, he would feel like a fish out of the pond;->> Keep trying Guys.
Interesting thing everybody expects a change as if it will be sent from Heavens on a Golden Tray. Change doesn't come like that, you have to will to change. Compare your Constitutions, when was the last time this proto-type "goddamned piece of paper" composed and since then how much of it is changed?
I have no doubt that as long as you have the same State you will lean on it without even thinking or want to know that when it collapsed it will drag you down to the abyss with her.
You are trying to save something deadly Mates;->>Real deadly.
Grand Sen~or.
BTW, Professor here is an open question for you:
Do you think Freeman's resignation helps to save the State?
Iran and the beginning of a dialogue with the west
Full marks to your President for his initiative last week. Wild enthusiam was never going to be the response from the Iranian side. Through people I know in Iran, this is regarded by the people as very favourable indeed and it should be built upon quickly.
The sooner the west realises that Iran is the most important Arab country in the world, the better. As such it has influence in every Arab country, even Saudi, a country who funded not so long ago the bitter and prolonged war, known as the Iran / Iraq War. These two leaders from Iran and Saudi have since met against a background of possible trust once again and that augers well for the future.
The Western nature of Iran is often forgotten and as such, talks should be fruitful once the objectives of both sides are known and are seen to be achievable. What we do not want is the arrogant right-wing rhetoric from Israel with their mantra of 'bombing nucear facilities' hitting the airways on a daily basis, Israel should remember that these are not the days of the Bush failures when initiatives like this week could never have happened due to the total subservience of the US to the Israeli blackmail machine, running at full speed through the Senate and the House of Representatives, distributing Israeli largesse to anyone with their hand out. This time the initiative has come from a popular and intelligent US President. Refreshing to say the least.
It is now out of the hands of Israel as Obama will not be pleased with warlike drum-thumping emanating from Jerusalem when he in planning a peaceful approach to the most important Arab country in the world today.
Israel should show some restraint, particularly in its repetitious warlike rhetoric. People are now well awake to their past successses in the influencing, perhaps control is a better word, of US Foreign Policy. Those days have gone forever. Try some friendship. Even the US President thinks it is worth the effort.
We should be quietly confident of a great success in 2009-2010. It will be worth the effort.
Your thoughts might have been worth something
if you had realized that Iran is not an Arab country.
How is Khamenei being a
How is Khamenei being a "realist"? The impression I got was that he demanded that the US stop supporting Israel and completely end the embargo before they even re-establish diplomatic relations - much less develop a working relationship and possible alliance on some issues. The former is almost certainly not going to happen, and the latter will only happen as part of the process of negotiation, not before it - and Khamenei almost certainly knows this.
Not to mention that we've tried the "nice" route before, in the Clinton Administration. As Martin Indyk (the former ambassador to Israel, and an important person involved in the 1990s peace negotiations) points out in his book, Clinton offered Khatami a whole bunch of things like greatly improved cultural contacts, the potential for some loosening of business restrictions, and even an apology from Albright for the 1953 coup against Mossadegh. Yet Khamenei's people continued to denounce the US, and then undermined any effort by Khatami to change the situation.
Timing seems to be the key to dealing with the Iranians. You have to catch them at a moment where they want to negotiate with you, or feel under threat from something - like in 2002-2004. Otherwise, the leading lights (meaning Khamenei and his people) tend to be too suspicious of US motives to actually do any meaningful thaw of relations between the US and Iran.
That said, perhaps we could do one or two of the things on Khamenei's list, to see if he is actually serious about thawing things or simply pocketing carrots.
Direct Hit!
Good points Brett. Perhaps Supreme Leader could be nom d'guerre'd as a 'theocon'
Reply to President Obama by Ayatollah Khamenei
Professor Walt ,
Welcome to Singapore!
Juan Cole, as always has tremendous insight on the Khameneis response as does Farideh Farhi http://icga.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-khameneis-response-to-obama.html-; which I encourage, along with, excellent translation of the speech (Khamenei @ Imam Reza Mosque, Mashhad, 21 March 2009: ending section on America) to be read. The Ayatollah should not be underestimated.
Maybe Khamenei should read the SATFP
Maybe Khamenei should read the SATFP especially axiom 11 to expect what may come next. leadership changes in so called democracies doesn't mean dramatic change in the State's politics unless there is a dramatic change in their Constitution. Obama never promised such a change on the Constitution, so he will operate as the Constitution dictates. For rhe FP of such States, Professor and this Blog has a theory to predict and explain the political state of affairs. It will be used for Iran as well, for Iran is just another State with some similar constitution - a mono-law political structure. This theory is based on and around the concept State as it is defined implicitely by the following axioms. So Khamenei and Obama and Professor must not expect some surprices and they don't need to star gazing to read the political future, this theory supposed to replace Star-Gazing, isn't it Professor?!
If Khamenei is so keen on calculations, perhaps this theory will help him a lot on calculating what may come next;->
But the problem with the calculations of Monopolies like States is done by the State in mind and on paper however State is not a real entity, so only Jupiter knows whether Obama's, Professor's and Khamenei's calculations are correct or not;->>
Hey! once you start the calculations with the State given, it is better than no calculation, so cheer up;->>
Here is the theory - roughly;->
The Salvare Apparentias Theory of FP (SATFP).
1. There exist states.
2. A State composed of a nation, a national leadership, national interests and power (economic, military, population, land, etc? ..(any others? pls feel free to add, it is the Blog's theory, not mine).
3. There exists a competitive arena where states acts as they do.
4. There exists no central authority in that arena that can enforce moral or legal constraints.
5. States commit morally dubious acts (dubious according to what? The Blog knows) (see axiom 4)(Why this is here? Didn't the Blog declare that SATFP is essencially amoral?)
6. A State's foreign and defense policy reflects national interest of the state.
7. A State can take deterrent action against other State(s) if the Leadership of the State decides so. (see axiom 11 & 12).
8. A State seeks to increase her national interests when her existence is threatened.
9. A State's power is a potential threat to other states. A state is by definition paranoid of other states.
10. States to increase their National Interests, to decrease potential threat of other States, to assimilate them and to dominate them, impose their Constitutions to other States. (But of course this degenerates all constitutions to a mono-constitution which prepares the Competetive Arena to the favour of the State whose Constitution became the one and only dominant Constitution to pave the ground for so called Globalization - Global Dominance - Ein STAAT, ein LAND (the GLOBE), ein FUERER und ein VOLK where there exists NO THREATt, NO COMPETITIVE ARENA, NO WORRIES and bsst of all NO NEED TO FP - a Paradise on Earth if you believe;->>)
11. A State talks sweet but carries her power peeping under her cloak to deterre the potential threats of other states. (McCain the Presidential Candidate 2008)
12. Powerful States to rule or protect or increase their National Interests divide less powerful states ad infinitum.
13. A State can suspend her constitution if the National Intersts dictates so. Soley the Leadership decides whether the National Intersts dictates that or not and their decision is final, cannot be challenged based on the articles of the Constitution of the State. In such cases the leadership for the sake of the National Interests is not required to disclose the reasons how they reached to a certain decision. When the National Interest of the State requires the constitution of the State becomes just a goddamned piece of paper (as Bush declared).
14. A State to keep her Internal Balance of Threat and National Interest and National Unity must centralize the power and not to share it with any Identifiable National Entity(ies).
15. A State keeps the power of making and implementing the laws solely to herself and does not share this power with any Identifiable National Entity(ies).
16. Salvare Apparentias Foreign Policy is the art of keeping the threats of states in Balance besides saving the foreign policy related phenomena. (How? By shuffling, dividing and mixing nations/races/cultures?!, subjecting them to prototype secularo-fascist laws to reduce their multiplicity to singularity? the Blog knows).
Grand Sen~or
I don't get it
What erudition Senor! My - now I finally get it. One question... are we going to bomb them or not?
Professor Walt - will Ahmenidedzhad lose the upcoming election?
If so, does that signal the start of a new romance?
Will we allow them to have a nuclear reactor if someone else is running the country?
Why can the UAE have a nuclear program, and Iran can't?
On the other hand, if Iran goes nuclear - wont Turkey, the GCC, and Egypt go nuclear?
Iran repeatedly stated civilian nuclear interest - so will these other states - in fact the following all have such plans - all of the GCC (not kidding - including Saudi Wahabia), Syria, Turkey, and all of the Maghreb including Egypt (guess who doing the building there - Areva), Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam + Chile.
What's the difference between these guys, and Iran?
Its not ballistic missiles, since Saudi Wahabia has the Dong Feng-3, and Bahrain has ones for 300 miles. Yemen, Bahrain, Turkey (bought from USA), Syria.
Can anyone fill me in?
PS. seems like your grand theory, Mr. Senor, which negates the impact of the change of a head of state - runs into some trouble.
The difference is
Well, the main sticking point is that except for Basharopolis, Iran has a rowdy history of acting out against the region with rocket rich rejectionists, out right terrorist orgs and openly desires designer hegemony as part of her statecraft.
The other cats dont.
The other cats dont. Israel
Israel already has such a designer hegemony dream in action to restore the Salamon's Kingdom funded and fueled by the EUS, why wouldn't another State have similar dreams in the region. What about the US? With such a Grand Dream to Boss the whole world including her own SPEEs. haven't you read it from Obama's message to Iran? He said "in the end we decide who is a State who is not!".
Dream on Guys! But don't make and expect us to pay for it!
Grand Sen~or.
It is your theory
I have told you before, it is not my theory, it is this Blog's theory, it is also Professor's theory since he hasn't refute it, it is abstracted from his comments pfosted here. I am not here to introduce theories. I am here to show you how your conceptual system is useless and I am getting there, look even you don't get it and admit that it runs into some trouble;->>
I am doing a Grand Job here Mate!
Why don't you ask your questions to our Realist Professor?
He already gave the answers though;-> "Wait and see, fingers crossed, then we can comment on it based on the Theory..." yeah that's what he would say adding "You see there are a lot of un-predictable human elements involved in FP, that is why we have to read tea leaves to predict the future developments in FP, I am watching even from Singapore who will say what and what action they take next."
Well, if you base your theory on useless, archaic concepts like State then confusion looks like reality.
Grand Sen~or.
BTW, the name is not Senor, it is Grand Sen~or!
Also, if you don't like the SATFP. if you think it is not good enough, why don't you bring your theory to compete with it?
where's the substance?
Yes, of course, we should be encouraged by Khamenei's response to Obama's message - it means that they are at least taking his overture seriously and are willing to "change our behavior if they [the US] changes its behavior." But if you listen to the speech in Farsi, there's also a long laundry list of injustices done to the "Iranian nation" by the United States since the beginning of the revolution that Khamenei wants addressed. Where does that leave us? It's not just enough to say that they the acknowledged Obama's message and therefore we must be encouraged - where's the common ground here?
I think that perhaps the biggest sign of encouragement we should be watching out for is any possible hint of a major change in US policy towards Iran. As someone who doesn't approve of the regime in Iran, I nevertheless find myself in near-complete agreement with Khamenei on most of the injustices done to Iran since the advent of the revolution. Is the Obama administration willing to institute that deep a change in its policies toward Iran?
The specifics of a possible Obama U-turn remain to be seen, and so, alas, I for one still remain in the pessimist camp (especially given Dennis Ross's role in all this!).
Iran has its skeletons
Every regime in the world has to repent for wrongs that they've done.
Or, we all have to start with the present, as is Obama's approach.
Are they willing?
true if...
I absolutely agree, but surely we must take into account the distribution of power between the parties in question. The US is a far more powerful country with a great deal more leverage than the Iranians in the world; Iran is an insecure country on the verge of economic collapse (third worst inflation rate in the world after Zimbabwe!) - one has a lot less to lose by repenting than the other, unless, of course, our problem is with the type of regime in power in Iran.
They, too, must repent; but the US must begin the process. Otherwise round and round we go again... If nothing else, it will further isolate the Iranian radicals in charge and demonstrate to the world the good will of one party in contrast to the other. Khamenei wants some action; well, here we come aziz!
Take it into account, don't apologize for them
You risk the parallel with early 30's Germany by that analogy. At that time, Germany had been isolated, suffered in an exagerated way from the depression, and had limited options for revival.
Of the limited options, fanatics organized the fascist military approach, of RAPID regional domination.
At the point when that could have gone a different direction, a different choice, did external relationships CONTROL their choice, or did they in fact choose.
In retrospect, if the goal of naziism was to get out from under the crippling Versailles monetary requirements, they succeeded. They no longer are subject to those requirements, which did not have a sunset date in the original.
What is Iran's goal? What is its strategy?
What CHOICES is it making?
why not?
Why not apologize for one's mistaken policies? Especially in a region with a rather vivid history of colonial rule and imperial domination? I have a problem with the German analogy because it overlooks the vast differences in history and geopolitical circumstance the two country found/find themselves in.
If we listen to some of the rather candid discussions about Iran's objectives in Tehran, it would become clear that the Iranians want to be (a) given a recognition of the legitimacy of the IRI regime, and (b) taken seriously as a regional player in the Middle East. In this way, they suffer from the same kind of identity crises that other regional outcasts tend to suffer from: they are torn between wanting the world to recognize their glorious Persian past (a consequential past) and expecting the world (really the US and the EU) to let go of some its (to them) unjustified interests in the region.
As for choices, it's made just about the worst choices one could imagine: teaming up with dictators, proliferating terrorists, denying the legitimacy of other states, etc. But those are the choices of the Ahmadinejad's and Khamenei's of Iran - there are other pragmatists that we can deal with, and whose role we can strengthen by calling the blatant bluffs presented to us by the likes of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad.
true if...
I absolutely agree, but surely we must take into account the distribution of power between the parties in question. The US is a far more powerful country with a great deal more leverage than the Iranians in the world; Iran is an insecure country on the verge of economic collapse (third worst inflation rate in the world after Zimbabwe!) - one has a lot less to lose by repenting than the other, unless, of course, our problem is with the type of regime in power in Iran.
They, too, must repent; but the US must begin the process. Otherwise round and round we go again... If nothing else, it will further isolate the Iranian radicals in charge and demonstrate to the world the good will of one party in contrast to the other. Khamenei wants some action; well, here we come aziz!