Iran Uprising Changes Nuclear Calculus

The Iran Uprising is a game changer. The regime has been delegitimized for large portions of the Iranian population. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prevails--and that is by no means certain--he will be greatly weakened, handcuffed in his ability to play the nuclear card as a nationalist rallying cry. Pressed at home, the regime will need to show some gains internationally; the nuclear issue must be compromised to realize those gains.

On Sunday, I was a realist, posting on my blog my agreement with leading Iran analysts. I said:

Post election, the Obama administration faces the same diplomatic challenges with Iran as before - chief among them containing Iran's nuclear program. While Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reformist hope, might have been able to reverse the fierce nationalistic politics Mahmoud Ahmadinejad injected into the Iranian nuclear issue, the ultimate arbitrator of Iran's policy is neither man, but the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.

As Carnegie Endowment scholar Karim Sadjadpour notes, "We should be clear about what we're dealing with. Just as we deal with Assad's Syria and Mubarak's Egypt, we now have to deal with Khamanei's Iran."

By Tuesday, I had changed my view. I had painted my face green. Why? The massive outpouring on Monday that sent a 5.5 mile-long demonstration through Tehran. The stream of Twitter posts. The sheer resolve of the Iranian people not to accept the regime's rule.

This is no longer Khamanei's Iran.

The clerical regime has been delegitimized for millions of Iranians. Even under the best case for the regime - a recount that declares Ahmadinejad the winner by a majority--the president will be weakened. He will be the imposed leader, not the hero of the disfranchised against the corrupt elite. He will be unable to use the nuclear issue to stir nationalist passions, posing as the hero-president defending the nation against the oppressive West. He will be the oppressor.

The nuclear program could lose its security appeal. Just as conservatives in the United States promote missile defense as a security placebo, presenting it as the answer to foes real and imagined, only to see it crash when real problems come to the fore and its empty promise is exposed, the Iranian government's fetishization of its uranium enrichment program could collapse.

The program has nothing to do with Iran's real problems. It offers no solution to the economy, to equality, to security. It is a drain on the country, not its salvation. It will not be abandoned quickly, but its role and importance could be greatly reduced, its progress slowed, its threat contained.

A weakened Ahmadinejad will be pressed to compromise. As Omid Memarian notes, "If the Iranian government engages with the U.S. in the coming months and years under Ahmadinejad's second term, it will surely be harder for the Iranian government to ignore their responsibility to the Iranian people."

Iran will have an increased need for Western trade and investment to address at least one of the core issues generating the Uprising--the catastrophe that is its economy. Ahmadinejad will find his allies more distant, less willing to extend their protection against international sanctions. If President Obama's agenda with Russia works as intended, Russia will not only be pushed away from Iran, but pulled towards the US.

Leslie Gelb concludes:

[T]here isn't much Tehran can do to improve these conditions without reconnecting with the West and especially the United States. Western economic sanctions have not brought the clerical house down, but they have severely reduced investment, credit, and trade. Which means the bosses in Tehran will have to unclench their fists and make some face-saving gestures back toward President Obama. Also, there's no doubt that they understand that once they open the economic doors, the West will require that Iran's nuclear program be placed on the bargaining table as well.

If Ahmadinejad is forced out, prospects also improve. Some analysts have somewhat mechanically assumed that because Mir Hossein Mousavi was involved in the revival of the Shah's nuclear weapons program by the Islamic Republic in the 1980's, he would champion the uranium enrichment program now. If he had barely won election, and while the issue remained a nationalist touchstone spanning political camps, there was some truth to this prediction.

But that was before the Uprising. Nationalism now has new, more powerful and more meaningful expressions. Mousavi was always more open to dialogue with the West. As president, his discourse could now include the nuclear program with much less fear of attack.

Finally, the Uprising also changes US perceptions of the inevitability of an Iranian nuclear bomb, the feeling that time is not on our side, and gives us a much more sophisticated and nuanced view of Iran that counters the crude "Iran as Nazi Germany" portrait that has dominated most of the debate.

Obama has also handled the issue well, preventing the US from becoming an issue at all in the post-election conflict. He recognizes that the Uprising is not about us. It is about the self-determination of the Iranian people. The right wing strategy of regime change failed completely, for it never understood that only the people of a nation could change its regime.

As Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) points out in support of Obama's approach, "For us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy...and to use us, really, to retain their power."

All this increases the leverage for the US and other nations in renewed negotiations with the next Iranian administration--whoever is president.

Comments

[Truthsfire]

Not in an "expert" position here, but the information I've read is that the nuclear situation won't change a whole lot WHOEVER wins the election. Iran's nuclear program is a matter of national pride and whether they're backing Mousavi or Ahmadenijad, the Iranian people still want a nuclear program. Also I'm not sure that they're going to trust US, whoever wins the election. Don't get your hopes up that we're going to have some "magic wand" that negates the threat Iran poses. The situation's still very dicey.

[LizM]

How do you define 'nuclear program'?

[Truthsfire]

Includes energy-grade reactors. Probably also includes weapons, but it might be a while before they'll be able to make them (not sure if that ought to make a difference to us). Basically, Iran's nuclear program is whatever effort they're making to produce nuclear energy, and I've read they have NO intentions of giving that up. You heard otherwise? As I said, I'm not an expert, just recalling what I've read.

[Tuckerndfw]

The president of Iran has no control over Iran's nuclear program so you entire premise is flawed, not to mention all that drivel about "game changing" "uprisings."

Those old Iranians who control Iran's government and voted for Ahmadinejab still remember the last dictator the US imposed on them in 1953. And, they're not likely to tolerate another. Regardless how many traitors ("reformers") they have to hang.

[freshnotbitter]

The whole area is going nuke as long as Israel has nukes. There is not two ways about it. However, it would be nice to know that the people in charge are rational if they are going to have nukes, which they will.

It is really weird to see all the bloggers talking about "if" Iran gets nukes. Of course they will have nukes.

[dsws]

I've read so many contradictory things about Iran in the past few days. The Ahmadinejad win was 100% phony. The Ahmadinejad win was 100% real. Ahmadinejad won, but not by anywhere near the stated margin. It's theocracy for Ahmadinejad vs secular democracy for Mousavi. It's theocracy for Mousavi vs secular military dictatorship for Ahmadinejad. There's not a dime's worth of difference between them. The revolution is unstoppable. The Ahmadinejad rallies are bigger than the Mousavi rallies. The people are united behind Mousavi, but the military, police, and paramilitaries are united behind Ahmadinejad and will inevitably crush the resistance. It's up in the air, but it will be settled on the streets. It's up in the air, but it will be settled behind closed doors by the clerics. It was all set up in advance. Everyone is making it all up as they go.

I exaggerate, but not by much.

[LizM]

Well, this is certainly a complicated and changing situation with conflicting narratives. But, there is nothing new or surprising in that.

That is why it is so very important to find sources of information that are trustworthy and enlightening and they don't come any better than Joe Cirincione.

[mmc2068]

Where was all this Western media coverage when Bush and his cronies in the conservati­ve-stacked US Supreme Court illegally installed him as president? Oh, that's right. It's only undemocratic when backward, Muslim countries do it.

[slaxx]

big difference between the two situations. blame gore. he's the one who backed out.

[mmc2068]

So, Joe Cirincione thinks Iran has a "fetish" for its uranium enrichment program? What about Israel's widely-known "secret" nuclear weapons arsenal? Or America's admitted one, for that matter?

Biased much?

America's founders knew that the best defense against tryranny was for individual citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms, if and when needed.

I believe this should be applied on a global scale and that individual nations should have a similar right, per international law, to keep and bear nuclear arms. It really is the only way to prevent a tyranny of nations against other, often poorer, nations, in this case, the rich, white, Judeo-Christian West against the poorer, browner Muslim MIddle East.

[GoodFeathers]

Iran's Nuclar (no spelling error) program unites all Iranians. It's a matter of national pride. What's going on right now is like a family infighting. When we, the outside world, start to interfere with their national programs, they will turn the gun on us.

[jsgaetano]

Realistically speaking, there was never any fear of attack in the first place.

If anything, Iran had far more to fear from a nuclear armed Israel than the other way around. The far right's rhetoric in Israel made McCain's "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" seem tame by comparison.

[GrainOSand]

Illegitimacy cannot lead. Great leaders are loved, cherished, and respected -- not feared! The people of Iran have set the standard...no matter the official tally. Truth can be silenced but it cannot be killed. As long as it lives, illegitimacy is in deep trouble. I take no sides in this because of the selective and nationalistic nature of much of the reporting here in the States and because of the history of U.S. meddling in other people’s affairs. However, it seems the people of Iran are saying the outcome of the election is illegitimate. I side with the people. The sheer number suggests more than an inkling of credibility. The pictures speak a thousand words and it is no wonder that the ruling power in Iran are trying to quash the pictures.

May love prevail over evil in Iran

[GrainOSand]

"ruling power in Iran is trying to quash the pictures."

...or

"ruling powers in Iran are trying to quash the pictures."

[JonathanDS]

As we occasionally imagine to ourselves that the forward movement of time makes us more and more civilized, our notions about war meanwhile experience a strange convolution. Instead of the old system of soldiers fighting on a battlefield, we find so-called innocent civilians and non-battlefields all shuffled together into the mix. How can we be stirred to animosity towards an entire nation, a general pre-requisite for rallying behind a war, if we know a sizeable portion of that nation's populace could easily be on our side, yet likely to become casualties? With a very short list of nations that might someday engage us in a nuclear war, I believe this latest development in Iran is creating an inner war between our civilized and less-civilized selves.

[research]

First of all, the new guy is not a reformer!

Second, This just proves there is no safe Nuclear power.

You may trust a country and give them nuclear power tech

only to have them turn on you and use that tech to develop Nuke bombs.

So why is Obama giving UAE nuclear tech?

[HelloFunnyWorld]

In quoting Les Gelb - "[T]here isn't much Tehran can do to improve these conditions without reconnecting with the West and especially the United States....." and "....there's no doubt that they understand that once they open the economic doors, the West will require that Iran's nuclear program be placed on the bargaining table as well." - The picture becomes clear-er. Thank you.

It has already been reported that Nethanyahu's recent 'change' in tone towards Palestinians & the MidEast, came from knowing there was already a strategy in place to do the work for him vis a vis Iran.... and the domino effect this would have on this entire region.

[slaxx]

bibi had no change in tone. it was "palestine can be come a soverign state so long as it does not become a soverign state."

obama's tone toward isreal and the middle east probably had a greater effect on bibi than anything else. he sees his greatest ally befriending his enemy. either he joins in the movement or gets left behind.

[MrPilkington]

You really believe that Mousavi opposes Iran's nuclear program don't you? LOL

My advice to Iranians, whoever they voted for is to mind Aesop's fable "The Crow and the Pitcher"
Beware of Flatterers

[slaxx]

"You really believe that Mousavi opposes Iran's nuclear program don't you? LOL"

where do you get that from? that's not what he said.

[Hass]

Nonsense. The same Iranian people massively support their nuclear program, which is not under the control of Ahmadinejad anyway.

[Hass]

Nonsense. THe same Iranian people are totally in support of their nuclear program and would hate any government that sells it out in order to stay in power. Iranian presidents aren't in charge of the nuclear program anyway.

[piul05]

I tend to agree with you there, and I would also add that Mr. Cinricione statement that "The program has nothing to do with Iran's real problems. It offers no solution to the economy, to equality, to security", is quite incorrect.

Iranian petrol is heavy, expensive to refine even if they had the most modern technology to do so (which they don't because Western powers offered to provide it, just to go back on their word); as a result, they have a cronic shortage of fuel and other petrol derivates. Having to import the added-on value product from the commodity they export means that any profit they make is wiped off.

Going nuclear would not only answer the country's energetic needs, as it would also free the whole of their oil output for export. And that is not even to mention that the latter is a finite resource, anyway.

Iran's nuclear project will remain on its present course regardless of whom is in power.

[Hass]

In fact Iran has an excellent economic case for developing nuclear power which is why the US encouraged Iran's nuclear program in the first place.

And Iran has an excellent strategic reason to want its own independent nuclear fuel source -- considering the sanctions we've imposed on them.