Iran Responds to Obama New Year Message

Related Post: Three Degrees Of Engagement - The Obama Message To Iran

Earlier today, we projected a three-step process to interpret the course of "engagement" raised by President Obama's message to the Iranian people and leaders. Specifically, we cautioned:

"Obama’s message raises the prospect of a genuine negotiation, yet the pointed challenge to Iranian leaders to show that they are peaceful also indicates that Washington wants the higher ground from the start of talks. In itself, that general position is to be expected. It is also to be expected, however, that Iran will portray itself as the peaceful party and ask the US to mend its past ways.

Well, Step 2 --- Iran Responds --- is following that script exactly:

Aliakbar Javanfekr, an aide to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Iran welcomed "the interest of the American government to settle differences".

But he said that the US government "should realise its previous mistakes and make an effort to amend them".

Meanwhile, Iranian energy minister, Parviz Fattah, was telling the World Water Forum that Tehran would "finish and operate" the Bushehr nuclear plant by the end of the year: "Iran has chosen a direction for achieving peaceful nuclear energy. We have mainly reached this aim."

All very expected: on the one hand, Iran is welcoming the prospect of talks with the US. On the other hand, it is setting out clear lines that it does not want crossed --- specifically, Iranian sovereignty over a nuclear energy programme.

So, within 24 hours, on to Step 3: "What is important is that Washington does not follow Obama’s message by trying to box Iran in on issues such as the nuclear programme, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, and general relations with the Arab world."

Three Degrees Of Engagement: The Obama Message To Iran

Latest Post: Iran Responds to Obama New Year Message

So President Obama, following weeks of discussion within his Administration, has made a very public move towards Iran with his Nohruz (Iranian New Year) video message. Will this clear away the "muddle" of US policy, which we were discussing only yesterday, and offer a productive resolution of the difficulties in US-Iran relations?

Here's a three-step process to follow the road of engagement:

1. US STRATEGY

The Obama message is a public diplomacy masterpiece, similar to his January interview with Al-Arabiya speaking to the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Like President Bush, Obama spoke to the Iranian people about their heritage and achievements and a common sense of humanity. Unlike Bush, however, Obama also addressed directly Iranian leaders with the proposal of a diplomatic route to settlement of the issues in US-Iranian relations, overcoming the hostilities of the last 30 years.

That is a huge difference, as it sets aside the impression that US policy is seeking a "velvet revolution" for regime change.

The public diplomacy of Obama's general statement, however, did not even begin to outline the US approach to the "issues". Beyond the call for Iranian leaders to choose peace, Obama did not refer to the Iran nuclear programme. Nor did he broach the regional issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine) shaping the US outlook.

That's to be expected, of course, in a message of goodwill: no need to complicate New Year with an overload of politics. Still, it means that the second step is awaited, and this has to come from Tehran not Washington.

2. IRAN'S RESPONSE

It would be foolhardy to expect Tehran to make any commitment or to raise the issues that Obama did not specify. There is, after all, a Presidential campaign being waged in Iran. President Ahmadinejad will not make any concession on Iran's current position, and it would be electoral suicide for any of his challengers to address the nuclear or regional issues in detail.

The most, therefore, that can be expected from Iran is a general response to match Obama's overture. That will still be very useful in "decoding" the Iranian perspective on engagement. Who offers the response? Does it propose direct talks? If so, will those talks occur before the elections in June? Is there a reference to the specific possibility of US-Iran co-operation on Afghanistan?

At the same time. this would only be a proposal to discuss. It would point to the continuation of the limited private talks that have probably occurred and possibly direct contacts later in the year.

Which puts the central question back to Washington.....

3. THE BROADER US APPROACH

The unanswerable question which has been percolating beneath US discussions since January is what happens if "engagement" doesn't unfold according to the American diplomatic script. Is the process one which will accept a negotiation with Iran to meet the interests of both sides? Or is it a case of seeing if Iran will diplomatically accept all US conditions and, if (and when) it does not do so, putting on more economic pressure?

Obama's message raises the prospect of a genuine negotiation, yet the pointed challenge to Iranian leaders to show that they are peaceful also indicates that Washington wants the higher ground from the start of talks.

In itself, that general position is to be expected. It is also to be expected, however, that Iran will portray itself as the peaceful party and ask the US to mend its past ways.

What is important is that Washington does not follow Obama's message by trying to box Iran in on issues such as the nuclear programme, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, and general relations with the Arab world. The Clinton tour of the Middle East was foolish, if not dangerous, in its ham-fisted attempt to unite Arabs against the Tehran menace, thus isolating Iran from any place in the post-Gaza discussions and outcomes.

That Clinton approach raised the spectre of a Dennis Ross, who has long advocated the velvet fist strategy, shaping US policy. It's a prospect that Stephen Walt has warned against, in a blog that we have reprinted today.

It is too much to expect Washington in the near-future, as Walt suggests, to re-define its strategy so it will accept an Iran nuclear programme. What is important, however, is that the US does not follow Obama's message with pressure for further economic sanctions and that it damps the public rhetoric blaming Tehran for stoking every Middle Eastern fire.

In short, if there is a period of relative silence, rather than diplomatic fury, then the prospect of engagement- long-term engagement- is very real.

[Read the full text of Obama's message to Iran here]

Video: The Obama New Year's Message to Iran

Latest Post: Iran Responds to Obama New Year Message
Latest Post: Three Degrees Of Engagement: The Obama Message To Iran

Overnight President Obama spoke by video to "the leaders of Iran" (the transcript is below). Apparently there is reaction in the Iranian press. We'll watch developments and have a full analysis. The issue, however, is not that a message was sent --- President Bush did the same in December 2002 when the US launched Radio Farda to broadcast into Iran --- but the substance of "engagement" in Obama's words:

So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

TRANSCRIPT

THE PRESIDENT: Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world.

This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with friends and family.

In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nowruz is just one part of your great and celebrated culture. Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place.

Here in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans. We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.

For nearly three decades relations between our nations have been strained. But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together. Indeed, you will be celebrating your New Year in much the same way that we Americans mark our holidays -- by gathering with friends and family, exchanging gifts and stories, and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.

Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations. Those are shared hopes, those are common dreams.

So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.

You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.

I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."

With the coming of a new season, we're reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.

Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak.

A Modest Proposal to Engage Iran

Amidst all the bluster and misinformation surrounding the issue of US-Iranian relations, a clear, concise proposal is always striking. Replying to his fellow Foreign Policy blogger Dan Drezner, who failed to distinguish between a nuclear energy programme and a nuclear weapons programme, Stephen Walt offered this suggestion:

A realistic approach to Iran's nuclear program

At this point I don't think it is possible to persuade Iran to give up full control of the nuclear fuel cycle. They've committed a lot of money and prestige to acquiring this capacity, the program is popular domestically, and it is legal within the confines of the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]. So if our bottom line is for them to abandon enrichment, etc., we're almost certainly going to fail.

Our goal, instead, should be to convince Iran that it is better off not developing nuclear weapons, because that’s the issue we really care about.

This means not enriching uranium to weapons grade, not reprocessing spent reactor fuel to extract bomb-making material, and not building or testing an actual device. Obviously, Iran would have to agree to sufficiently thorough inspections to ensure compliance.

I don’t know if it's possible to achieve this goal, but here's how I'd try.

First and foremost, the United States has to take the threat of military force and regime change off the table. Why? Because that's the main reason why Iran might like a nuclear deterrent in the first place. From Tehran's perspective, they have three nuclear powers in their neighborhood (Pakistan, India, and Israel), and U.S. troops on two sides (in Iraq and Afghanistan). U.S. naval forces patrol the Iranian Sea and Persian Gulf, and it is the stated policy of the U.S. government -- the world's strongest military power -- to seek the removal of the current Iranian regime. Indeed, we are reportedly engaged in various covert operations there already. Iranians can see that Saddam Hussein is dead and buried but Kim Jong Il is not, and they know one of the reasons why. They also know that Muammar al-Qaddafi agreed to give up his own WMD programs only after the Bush administration agreed not to try to overthrow him. Under these circumstances, it would be surprising if Iran wasn't interested in its own deterrent.

This means that the Obama administration's likely approach ("bigger carrots and bigger sticks," as outlined by special envoy Dennis Ross) is wrong-headed. We may need to think up different inducements, but bigger sticks (e.g., stronger sanctions) sends the wrong message, and repeated statements that military force is still "on the table" only gives Tehran additional incentive to master the full fuel cycle and then proceed to weaponize. If we are serious about diplomacy (and not simply looking for a pretext to use force later), Step 1 has to be reducing Iran's perceived need for a deterrent capability of its own. And as a number of Iran experts have already argued, the best way to do that is to pursue a comprehensive settlement of the key security issues that presently divide us.

Second, we need to explain to Iran that possessing a known nuclear weapons capability is not without its own costs and risks. Today, if a terrorist group somehow obtained a nuclear weapon and then used it, we would not suspect Iran of having provided it and they would face little risk of retaliation. Why not? Because we know they don’t have any weapons right now. But imagine how we might react a decade hence, if we knew that Iran had built a few nuclear weapons and some terrorist group whose agenda was somewhat similar to Iran's managed to explode a bomb somewhere in the world, or even on American soil? Under those terrible circumstances, Tehran would have to worry a lot about U.S. retaliation, even if it had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack. Nuclear forensics is hardly perfect (or so my physicist colleagues tell me) and the United States has been known to shoot first and ask questions later in the past. (I'd remind Iranian officials that former Deputy Sec/Def Paul Wolfowitz recommended attacking Iraq less than a week after 9/11, and we eventually did invade that country, even though it had no WMD and had nothing to do with al Qaeda's attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon). So Iran should not be confident that we'd act with precision and restraint in the aftermath of a nuclear terrorist attack, and that concern ought to give them pause about whether joining the nuclear weapons club is a net plus.

I'd also point out to them that acquiring nuclear weapons will encourage other states in the Middle East to follow suit. Given that Iran has a lot more latent power potential than its neighbors in the Gulf, it should prefer to confine the competition there to the conventional realm, where its larger population and considerable economic potential will inevitably give it considerable influence.

Thus, from a purely realist perspective, Iran might actually be better off with the "Japan option": possessing the latent capability to build nuclear weapons if circumstances required, but avoiding the costs and risks by refraining from exercising that option. If we want to convince Tehran to forego nuclear weapons, therefore, our diplomatic efforts ought to focus on explaining this situation to our Iranian counterparts, instead of merely brandishing bigger sticks or waving bigger carrots.

It is impossible to know if this strategy would work, but it is worth remembering that as far as we know, Iran has no nuclear weapons program today. Iran has signaled on several occasions since 9/11 that it was interested in a negotiated settlement with the United States. There have also been several other moments when the two states managed to cooperate in more limited ways. And if diplomacy doesn't succeed, the United States and its allies in the region can always fall back on deterrence. By saying that the United States should "non-violently" prepare for an Iranian nuclear weapons capability, I take it that Drezner recognizes that preventive war won't solve this problem and could easily make a lot of other problems worse. We've deterred bigger and tougher adversaries in the past, and while I'd strongly prefer that Iran decide not to become a nuclear weapons state, I'm not going to panic if it does cross that line at some point down the road. And neither should anyone else.

Special Relationship Update: Brown Can't Watch Obama DVDs

Two weeks ago we noted the exchange of gifts between Barack Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The British Prime Minister gave the President a pen holder carved from the oak of HMS Gannet, which took part in anti-slavery operations. Obama gave Brown 25 DVDs.

Which seems a fair, thoughtful exchange. Except that when Gordon sat down to enjoy, let's say, Porky's II, he only received an eyeful of disappointment.

As many of us who have smuggled DVDs back from the US know, they are only coded to work in North America. When a Daily Telegraph reporter called Washington to report this small technical point was missed, "A White House spokesman sniggered....He was still looking into the matter when my deadline came last night."