United States in a Bind over Iran Nuclear Negotiations

Introduction

As nuclear negotiations between Iran and P5+1 countries is sluggishly grinding towards the end, a number of patterns have emerged which present contrasting positions between rhetoric and praxis, prior to and during the negotiations. It is important to stress that these negotiations to all intents and purpose is between Tehran and Washington DC and as things are shaping up, it is crucial to move away from bombastic reductionist geopolitics and focus on the realpolitik considering other interconnected events.

Pre-Status Quo

For the past 3 decades United States has used any means to demonise Islamic Republic of Iran even though the latter is no match on her huge material and intellectual resources. One may surmise that it will be difficult to find a US citizen/resident/official with a positive of the country and her citizens. Of course there are a minority who appreciate and respect Iran beyond altruistic reasons; nevertheless their views may carry little weight beyond perception as ‘noise’.  Since Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979, Washington DC have found it excruciatingly difficult to accept the reality that the ancien regime is gone.  The mental template of realpolitik inflexibility has allowed Washington DC to consistently boxed itself into an unfavourable corner with the possibilities of even subverting her national interest.

Misinformation Incorporated

It is apparent that in geopolitics, misinformation is a huge investment against ‘unfriendly’ countries. United States used misinformation weapon to distort Iran image around the world especially in Western Europe since the Islamic Republic came into being in 1979. One of the mantras of misinformation against Tehran is that the leadership is irrational hence depicting the country as unstable, uncertain, fragile and a threat in its neighbourhood despite lack of evidence. On the contrary one would notice Iran is a democracy with centrality of power in Tehran received as a heritage of the Shah. 

It was the Shah, then a US ally, who centralised power under his rule. Demographically one appreciates that while most of the population is Shia by religious disposition, the most populous ethnic nation, Farsi, is less than 60% and are mostly found in the centre of the country. See map below. Iran has a population necklace of minorities all around its borders with co-ethnic nation community in neighbouring countries offering tempting potentials for insurrection/irredentism. See map below.

Iran Demographic Distribution

Instability and uncertainty driven by irrationality is not a recipe for surviving for more than 3 decades in a turbulent neighbourhood including prosecuting a defensive war against Iraq between 1980 and 1988. With another necklace of foreign military bases around the country, Tehran will be most foolish to let down her guard. See map below. US investment around Iran challenges her earlier commitment not to invade or attack Iran in the 1980 Algiers Accord. Misinformation can be the vehicle for bilateral expression of grievances and deeply entrenched misgivings. It is essential to stress that Iranian nuclear programme was commenced with US approval under the Shah of Iran.

Necklace of Surrounding Foreign Military Bases

Prudent Reactions and Windfalls

It must be testified that Tehran never had time and resources to export its revolution beyond her borders for a number of reason including but not limited to purging the population of those associated with or suspected to be favoured/benefited from the ancien regime politics, bureaucracy, economy and social fabric; and then the long 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war which really set the country back almost a generation. Iranian geopolitical footprint is spatially limited in Middle East although in its realpolitik, relations with Oman and United Arab Emirate has been stable & viable among the Gulf States and other regional players.

Despite the above mentioned items, Iran invested heavily in Lebanon (conflicts) with a 2-pronged geopolitical strategy of supporting Hezbollah internally and externally through enhancing strategic relationship with Syria then under President Hafez Al-Assad (a policy unchanged by President Bashar Al-Assad). This strategy was deployed to foil any attempt to have Lebanese governments leaning toward United States/Israel in Beirut. (Read Syria and Iran Diplomatic Alliance and Power by Jubin Goodarzi). Over the decades Hezbollah has risen in profile and stature as an indispensable & strategic geopolitical player in Lebanon and Middle East respectively to the consternation of Washington DC and regional players.

Geopolitical windfalls to Tehran must have handed Iran a form of ‘shock and awe’. The twin invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 respectively were inverse or reverse rewards to Iran by United States. What was the calculation of Washington DC in the preparation and implementation of these policies mirrored actions based on historical amnesia. An Iraq without Sadaam Hussein in the shambolic manner of its invasion and post-invasion can only allow any political vacuum to be filled by Iran. 

Even without direct Tehran influence, physical and violent destruction of her western and an eastern neighbours plus presence of an unstable eastern neighbour automatically makes her the stable patch in the neighbourhood. See map below. Her profile should surely increase; it becomes a centre of demand and supply for those areas in the neighbourhood with huge lacks in goods and services. In essence United States cannot blame Tehran for taking advantage of the gain or even wish to reverse those gains.

Neighbourhood of 'Fire'

Sanctions Long Duree

The Islamic Republic has been placed under economic sanction by Washington DC since 1979 and there is limited flexibility or withdrawal along the lines of 1980 Algiers Accord. Tehran has been under economic sanctions of various stripes for over 3 decades and in a sense have developed dependable social, economic, political and geopolitical projects as a result. Sanctions serve many purposes for the party placing the sanction and elicit different reactions from the party suffering the sanction. Despite the hollow glorification of economic sanctions by its imposers, sanctions are not wholly adhered to because of the complexity of interests and interlocking relationships between various stakeholders within the imposing country including huge resources required to monitor its effectiveness.

Iran neighbours have benefited from the economic sanctions as they naturally became entrepots for transferring various goods and services desperately needs of Iranian market. Even some US allies in the region turned blind eye when necessary to benefit their economic interests. The complexities of economic sanction present various kinds of strategic opportunities within and beyond the country. Internal interests that benefit from the sanction would fight against its elimination. Some foreign interests that boldly flouted the sanction hence developing pseudo-monopoly in the Iranian economy are bound to recalibrate their investment against potential competition if and when sanction is lifted. A high profile example is United States feigning ignorance/blind-eye while her Afghanistan project purchase petroleum products from Iran.

With this background the suggestion by section of western observers that sanction prompted Iran to accept negotiation is wholly preposterous. What these sentiment express is lack of information and ignorance of an array of Iran assistance and cooperation with United States including Taliban overthrow with United States on various strategic issues of importance to Washington DC. Washington DC has long spurned Tehran offers for diplomatic engagement. (Read Going to Tehran by Flynt Leverett & Hilary Mann Leverett). Negotiation between strong parties cannot be imposed rather strategic interest of both parties guide response and agreement.  On both sides various expectation and strategic initiatives have failed and both sides are privy to inevitable geopolitical changes around the world and in the neighbourhood.

It is important to stress that the nuclear negotiation commence under the former president, Dr Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, an individual savagely demonised by the western media. He and members of Islamic Republic leadership were and are not irrational after all. The fact that the negotiation started in secrecy, with US allies in the region kept in the dark by Washington DC says volumes. In addition, despite bombastic hyperboles of revolutionary propaganda, Tehran was fully aware of its vulnerabilities and opportunities. Its core strategic political and geopolitical objective remains nationalistic. For this ideal majority of the population are willing to make huge sacrifices in addition to playing for the long haul. Similar description can be made of the Cuban revolution.

There was something lacking in the western context of (Iran) Others, Other peoples and Other countries. Deliberate ignorance of information and attention to proximate data on others are dismissed. While Iran may lack parity in economic, technological and military department with US; Iranians are ready to die for their revolution. Above all Iran was not and was never isolated physically. Even Cuba, an island in the Caribbean, was placed under economic sanction by Washington DC for the past 50 years, has survived.  Despite the 50+ years sanction, Havana is stable, certain and developed impeccable anti-imperialist and medical geopolitical credentials. Expectations that collapse of USSR will drive her underground remains a dream for its antagonists.

End of Battle of Red Lines

Going beyond rationality of diplomacy and engagement of Iran, it is apparent and certified that Tehran is a credible party for tough negotiations, a party open and willing to make compromises and is equally a ‘demon’ that can negotiate with ‘Satan’. Beyond the rhetoric the last year has produced important milestones based on mutual respect along the project time line while various redlines remain immovable, changing and shifting.

Amplification of trust is evident in the measures adopted by both parties to advance the negotiations. One can surmise that Tehran has not only displayed flexibility but conducted its diplomacy with coherence. Various centres of power in Iran have coordinated and cooperated to advance a unifying ‘grand strategy’.

It is obvious that a deal may not be clichéd for a simple reason. United States centres of power including its strong influencers/lobbyists may not be ready for Washington DC rapprochement with Tehran. Incoherent foreign policy, inconsistent implementation of strategy, misreading of geopolitical reconfigurations and insertion of wishful variables may force the negotiation to end in a stalemate. The ease with which sanctions were enacted may force the hand of those who enacted them as they struggle existentially to come to terms with an ill-fated 'dogma' that all sanctions cannot be removed at once.  

Tehran has concluded that extension of the current negotiation time-table is not in her interest. President Obama has given a number of mixed reactions to current ‘progress’. So until Washington DC resolved its internal crisis which only diminishes its geopolitical capital not surprisingly, Tehran can only sustain business-as-usual of the previous 3 decades of US ambiguity and ambivalence. Nevertheless it remains obvious that things are not going economically well with P3+1. A pattern of geopolitical pattern to come!