About Iran
[-Back to Election 2008-]

Bahman Baktiari

Bahman Baktiari, Director of Research and Academic Programs in the School of Policy and International Affairs

The most striking spectacle of this year's primary election season has been the sight of crowds of up to 20,000 cheering Barack Obama. Senator Obama never has any trouble summoning up applause, but he gets his most heartfelt response when he turns to foreign policy. Should the United States put the "war on terrorism" at the heart of its foreign policy or treat it as just one concern among many? Should U.S. bomb Iran or allow negotiation to resolve the dispute over the nuclear issue? Should it negotiate with its enemies or wait for them to mend their ways ?
 
In rallies held across the country, Obama reminds his supporters that he opposed the Iraq war from the start, insists that United States should devote its full attention to al-Qaeda rather than Iraq, and will begin to withdraw American troops from Iraq as soon as he becomes president. He also would "engage in aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran if elected president, similar to Richard Nixon's diplomacy with China.
 
To John McCain, the Republican nominee, this is all dangerous nonsense. Senator McCain argues that withdrawing from Iraq would spell disaster for the Middle East and humiliation for the United States.
 
Whoever wins in November 2008, surely one of the biggest issues will center around how to end U.S. occupation of Iraq. Obama wants to redeploy most of 160,000 troops in Iraq within 18 months becoming President. McCain is sticking to the status-quo policy of keeping the troops there until there is a stable government and peace in the country.
 
But both strategies are high-risk. Obama's strategy might produce a cascade of problems. The precarious Iraqi state might collapse. The civil war could intensify as various sectarian groups smell victory. McCain's talk of staying in Iraq for 100 years worries both Republicans and Democrats, and it is doubtful if the United States can stay any longer in Iraq beyond 2009.
 
But the Iraq question cannot be resolved unless the United States resolves its differences with Iran. As the biggest neighbor of Iraq, Iran's influence in Iraq is now greater than it has been for decades. Iraqi leaders make visits to Tehran and negotiate on substantive issues, including border security and joint energy projects. Iranian businessmen are investing heavily in Iraq's southern regions, and Iran's intelligence operatives are deeply embedded throughout Iraq's nascent security forces and within the Shiite militias that have great street power in the south, as well as in several neighborhoods of Baghdad.
 
The question is then not whether the United States should negotiate with the Iranian government, it is the question of how the United States and Iran can move their discussions forward without getting bugged down by what one expert called the "weight of history." This "weight" has shackled U.S.-Iranian relations for decades. The 1979 Iranian Revolution, and the ordeal of the American hostages who spent 444 days in captivity, has poisoned relations between the U.S. and Iran for nearly 30 years. And many Iranians still chafe because of U.S. support for the 1953 coup which toppled their elected government. Inflammatory rhetoric like "The Great Satan" and the "Axis of Evil" for decades has impeded most rational dialogue.
 
But I believe that both countries have learned from the past 30 years of acrimonious relationship, and have reached a point that it is impossible to pursue tough policies against each other when everything from sanctions to threats of military action has failed to change anything on the ground. Although the clerical regime in Tehran is saddled with serious economic problems, it has failed to deliver on its promises, and the young population in Iran no longer listen to fighting words from the regime. But Iranians have a strong sense of nationalism and independence. The ruling clerics have used Western opposition to Iran's nuclear program to generate national unity and purpose inside Iran.
 
It is difficult to forgive past injustices and outrages, but once a dialogue begins, both nations have enough positive experiences in their past to help them focus on the future. Iran is a country that is three times larger than France, with a population of 70 million. Its lands are rich in the history and culture of a Persian empire that stretches back 6,000 years. Its people are understandably proud of their heritage and their contributions to art, science, and learning. The United States was the first county in1905-1906 to recognize the Constitutional Revolution in Iran, with Americans arriving in Tehran to help the new Constitutional government when both Britain and Russia harbored colonial intentions vis-a-vis Iran. Between 1965-1979, over 70,000 Iranians were given student visas to study in the United States, today they constitute one of the most educated and influential emigrant groups in the U.S.
 
Just like the hostage crisis of November 1979 put Iran and the United States on a path of mutual satanization, November 2008 provides a unique opportunity for them to start a new path of mutual understanding.