Michael Axworthy: Friendly President or not, the West must engage Iran over their differences
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
In Iran the opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi is still defiant, and the fissures within the ruling elite of the Iranian system are still there. This may yet, with the possibility of further demonstrations, create serious problems for Supreme Leader Khamenei and his favoured president Ahmadinejad. But for the time being the security forces appear to have faced down the pressure from popular unrest.
This means the international community and in particular President Obama now have the problem of how to handle an Iranian regime which many of its own people believe to have faked an election and to have effectively staged a coup in order to maintain themselves in power. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad continue to blame most of the recent unrest on foreigners, and Ahmadinejad has an unpalatable record of provocative rhetoric on the nuclear issue, coupled with threats to Israel and remarks that have appeared to endorse Holocaust deniers. So Ahmadinejad's attack on Obama's recent statements yesterday was a reversion to form.
All of this sharpens Mr Obama's predicament. But the logic of engaging Iran in discussions about her role in the Middle East and about nuclear weapons never depended on the Iranian regime being a friendly, wholesome partner.
The next steps – as they would have been with a government led by Mousavi – will be to develop existing contacts over Afghanistan and Iraq, and to test the Iranians' readiness to discuss the nuclear problem realistically in face-to-face talks with senior US representatives. Such moves would in themselves be a challenge to the Iranian leadership: a challenge to enter the real world (at least in this respect) or face the consequences.
It would have been preferable and much easier if a less hostile president had emerged from the election of 12 June; if the Iranian leadership had not opted to impose the fantasy of a landslide Ahmadinejad victory. But the need to address the Iranian problem is no less pressing now than it was previously, and negotiation is still the only real option.
Even before Obama, the Bush administration examined the case for military action and (perhaps reluctantly) rejected it. The reasons for rejecting it still stand. Engagement with a country like Iran should not be seen as a reward for good behaviour, but rather as a necessity, albeit now a more unpalatable one.
The writer is director of the centre for Persian and Iranian studies at Exeter University and author of 'Iran: Empire of the Mind'
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
That said, it is clear that the situation in Iran is not conducive to productive negotiation at this time. The reasons are that it lies to its own people as well as its adversaries. Thus, a lying Iran cannot be trusted to engage in meaniingful negotiations unless it is pressured to act honestly. I see no such pressure at this time. Therefore engagement of Iran will not result at this time in an outcome that is acceptable to any self respecting people. Unfortunately, I think that any engagement of Iran must first be predicated on the threat of meaningful consequences to it's regime if ithey fail to engage in good faith. As to negotiating in good faith, the government of Iran will gain great credibility if it acta as a true nation state - that is be honest to its people, bend to their will, stop killing those that it perceives as a threat to the current "leadership's" continuity, and, most importantly for those of us outside Iran, accept from the outset that the very nature of negotiation requires give and take from both sides. Until it meets thse minimums, it should be treated as a rogue state.
I agree with Mr. Axworthy that Iran must be dealt with. I disagree that engaging its current regime for the sake of engagement will be productive at this time. History teaches us that to do so with an emerging nation with an oppressive regime can only end one of two ways: the regime's opponents,both within its borders and without, will either capitulate or, more likely, fight a very bloody war against an emboldened and much stronger regime that perceives itself as the entire world's destiny. One need only look at Chamberlain's approach to Nazi Germany to see where such engagement leads.
While the Western systems are, indeed, imperfect, so are all others. Most of us Westerners like our systems, as do apparently numerous people from other systems, as demonstrated by immigration to the West without corresponding emigration to places like Iran. Humans seek first security, next freedom. Unfortunately, most of the world is not very secure for the individual. Iran, however, appears to have the wherewithal to provide its people security. Its people therefore now seek freedom, much as did the the educated class in the United States 230 years ago. Its government, however, does not perceive itself as secure. If it did, it would act differently.
U.S. regulators closed four small banks on Friday -- two in Georgia, one in Minnesota and one in California, bringing the total of U.S. bank failures to 44 this year.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp said the closings were:
Iranian authorities have barred journalists for international news organizations from reporting on the streets and ordered them to stay in their offices. This report is based on the accounts of witnesses reached in Iran and official statements carried on Iranian media.
Iran's hardline president lashed out anew at the United States and President Barack Obama on Saturday, accusing him of interference and suggesting that Washington's stance on Iran's postelection turmoil could imperil Obama's aim of improving relations.
"We are surprised at Mr. Obama," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in remarks to judiciary officials broadcast on state television. "Didn't he say that he was after change? Why did he interfere?"
Bernard Madoff would be stripped of all his possessions under a $171 billion forfeiture order handed down only days before prosecutors seek to put the disgraced financier away in prison for the rest of his life.
excoriate
MEANING:
verb tr.:
1. To severely criticize someone or something.
2. To strip off the skin.
ETYMOLOGY:
From Latin excoriare (to strip or to skin), ex- (out) + corium (skin, hide). Ultimately from the Indo-European root sker- (to cut) that is also the source of words such as skirt, sharp, scrape, screw, shard, shears, carnage, curt, carnivorous, hardscrabble, and incarnadine.
"Why is she [Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, president of Philippines] being excoriated for trying to implement her campaign promise?"
Efren L. Danao; Give Light, Not Heat, to Cha-cha Issue; The Manila Times (Philippines); Jun 17, 2009.
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
If you wish to be loved, show more of your faults than your virtues. -Edward Bulwer-Lytton, author (1803-1873)
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
Iran's Economy Needs More Than A Vote
But booting out Ahmadinejad would be a good start.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla