By negotiating a Shiite truce, Tehran embarrassed Washington last week and arguably proved itself to be a more potent stabilizer of southern Iraq.
Iran's role in Iraq came as a sharp reminder that the George W. Bush administration's accusations of Iranian mischief notwithstanding, Iranian influence in Iraq is both undeniable and multifaceted. As Washington starts to come to terms with this reality, the Middle East inches closer to its moment of truth: Is the United States ready to share the region with Iran?
As the risk of a U.S.-Iran war is deemed to have dropped in the past few months, in spite of the resignation of Admiral William Fallon and President Bush's designation of Iran as the United States' number one threat, a modicum of optimism for U.S.-Iran relations in 2009 has emerged.
The poisonous atmosphere between the Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad administrations has prevented the two countries from exploring areas of common interest. With a new U.S. president taking office in January 2009, and with the Iranian presidential elections in March of that year, both Iran and the U.S. may have new presidents by mid-2009. Such a development would certainly help create a window of opportunity for the two countries to reduce tensions and begin resolving their differences.
But both Tehran and Washington have a proven track record of missing political opportunities. And in this specific case, even if the two parties make use of changing political circumstances, much indicates that readiness to seek a strategic accommodation is lacking in Washington.
This is not necessarily due to a lack of will but due to a failure to appreciate what a resolution to U.S.-Iran tensions would require -- from the United States.
Among the U.S. presidential hopefuls, Republican John McCain and Democrat Hillary Clinton seem intent on continuing Washington's current thinking on Iran. While McCain has sought to soften his position from last year's gaffe about bombing Iran by emphasizing that war would be the absolute last resort, he has been critical of Hillary's rival, Barack Obama, for favoring direct diplomacy.
Hillary Clinton is on the record favoring talks, but prefers to strengthen Washington's containment policy as a first choice. During the presidential debate Wednesday night, the former first lady proposed an anti-Iranian nuclear umbrella for the entire Middle East.
"I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel," she said. "We will let the Iranians know, that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions."
Obama, on the other hand, stands out as the sole candidate articulating a broader strategy on Iran centered on diplomacy. Yet even though Obama is less likely to miss the political window of opportunity in 2009, it remains to be seen if his administration would be clear on what Iran would expect in a give and take -- and if he is ready to consider such an arrangement.
The discussions in Washington regarding any potential opening to Tehran have centered on boosting economic incentives in hope that larger economic carrots would compel a change in Iranian behavior. At times, the idea of offering security guarantees has been considered in an effort to deprive Iran of incentives to develop a nuclear deterrence against the U.S.
Though both of these components may be necessary to put U.S.-Iran relations on a different footing, they are likely not sufficient. The notion that the U.S.-Iran standoff can be resolved solely through economic incentives and limited security guarantees is premised on the realities of yesteryear's Middle East. Current facts on the ground are quite different -- Iran's regional influence is unquestionable and rolling Iran back out of Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps even Gaza may no longer be realistic.
The question is no longer -- if it ever was -- what economic incentives are required to change Iranian behavior. Rather, to reach a settlement with Iran that could help stabilize Iraq, prevent a Taliban resurrection in Afghanistan, reach a political deal in Lebanon and create a better climate to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. must arguably grant Iran a role in the region and begin focusing on how to influence Iranian behavior rather than how to roll back Iranian influence.
Neither Washington nor Tehran can wish the other away. While the United States' days in Iraq may be numbered, it is not likely to leave the entire Middle East anytime soon. Nor can Washington continue to design policies and arrangements in the region based on the notion that Iran can be neglected and excluded. Sooner or later, Iran and the U.S. must learn how to share the region.
But a full comprehension of what a future Middle East order with Iran fully rehabilitated in its political and economic structure has not been reached or considered in Washington. While keeping Iran out is no longer a realistic option -- at a minimum Iran has sufficient spoiler power to undermine any initiatives aimed at prolonging Tehran's exclusion -- bringing Iran in from the cold will have momentous repercussions for the region's order and for U.S. allies that currently are benefiting from Iran's exclusion.
It is understandable that Washington is unprepared for this scenario. After all, Tehran has itself been notoriously incapable -- or unwilling -- to define the regional role it envisions for itself and the implications this would have for the U.S. and Iran's neighbors. With Tehran reluctant to clarify what it wants, Washington has been left guessing. Tehran's failure to be more forthcoming about its ambitions has also enabled rivals to describe Iranian objectives as hegemonic.
Nevertheless, reality requires Washington to begin considering not if, but the extent of an Iranian role in the region that the U.S. and its allies can agree to. This may necessitate a paradigm shift in Washington's approach to Iran and the Middle East, but failure to reconcile with Iranian demands justified by the new balance in the region will likely disable future administrations from turning political opportunities into real diplomatic breakthroughs -- irrespective of their positive intentions.
Trita Parsi, author of the newly released "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S." (Yale), is president of the National Iranian American Council. This analysis was first published by IPS.
Iran CAN be a stabilizing force in the region - and stabilization is sorely needed there. Another wise adage is that you keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Direct talks with Iran are a MUST. The alternative is a sinking morass in Iraq that will only get worse and then, those 4000+ lives sacrified for a misguided, ill-advised, modern-day crusade WILL TRULY be in vain.
Maybe Obama or Hillary will pay attention and learn something, one can hope. Actually neither of them seems to understand much about the middle east, except that we don't own it.
The chance that McCain will learn something new, as opposed to keeping his old assumptions, is remotely small. It may take him four years just to figure out that al Qaeda is a Sunni organisation.
Bush and Cheney don't care about reality, they take their orders from God and their corporate friends.
Charting the future of the Middle East is not the prerogative of any government. It will be decided by the actions of the region's people. From women's rights activists in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, to labor organizers and student dissidents in Egypt and Tunisia, to the alienated young people of Iran itself, the Middle East is seething with resistance -- and it's aimed at corrupt, repressive regimes which have crushed the people's rights and stunted their economic potential. Except for those who are bewitched by religious extremists, or who are frightened that they may lose state salaries or subsidies, there are few outside the political elites in these countries who do not instinctively understand this.
Iran's government does not deserve full international respect, so long as it continues to suppress its people's rights. Those who say they believe in peace should realize that it isn't possible until justice is enforced. The people of the region, including Iranians, are beginning to demand justice more insistently than they ever have before. They're the only ones who have the prerogative to determine the future of their countries.
What America should do is cautiously negotiate with Iran about stabilizing Iraq and Lebanon
There is a strong barrier here that won't be resolved by simple sharing.
"The question is no longer -- if it ever was -- what economic incentives are required to change Iranian behavior. Rather, to reach a settlement with Iran that could help stabilize Iraq, prevent a Taliban resurrection in Afghanistan,"
is mis-leading. To me it sounds like you are saying that somehow the Iranians are supporting the Taliban and preventing us from destroying them. This is not supported by the facts. Just as Al Queda, the Taliban are Sunni and hate the Shia Iranians as much as they hate the US, and vice versa. When you promote propaganda such as this you are supporting the same kind of disinformation that got us into Iraq and that the Neocons are still trying to use to get us into Iran.
"It is understandable that Washington is unprepared.... After all, Tehran has itself been notoriously incapable ... to define the regional role it envisions for itself .... With Tehran reluctant to clarify what it wants, Washington has been left guessing. "
Really Washington has been left guessing? They don't seem to have to guess. They seem to have one consistent policy: Do exactly what we want and then we will talk to you. The Iranians came to the Bush administration after 9/11 and offered to put everything on the table. The US not only rejected their offer, the censured the third party country that brought them the offer. (Chomsky Hegemony or Survival). Unlike many other powers in the region (India, Pakistan, Israel) Iran has tried to adhere to the IAEA process as they develop peaceful nuclear power. Our own National Intelligence Estimate confirmed what Iran has been saying all along: that they have no active weapons program. Yet, the Bush administration continues to threaten to attack them without a shred of evidence. I don't know what kind of "definition" you expect from the Iranians under such circumstances.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8888
Neocons, by their increasingly exploitive actions, are only hastening the time when the Shiite-Sunni conflict takes a back seat to getting rid of Western imperialists.