Tweet
What's your opinion? Do you think the US should hold high-level bilateral talks with Iran without preconditions? If yes, what level should these talks be at?
Here's a post I made a few days ago in a discussion related to this. Pick it apart with positive or negative criticisms.
Here's a post I made a few days ago in a discussion related to this. Pick it apart with positive or negative criticisms.
Iran doesn't have any major armed opposition groups, though it does have two military arms who beyond the Supreme Leader are independent of one another, the Revolutionary Guards and the regular military. The Revolutionary Guards answers only to the Supreme Leader, and often pursues actions and policies that are contradictory to those of the elected portion of the Iranian government, the Maljis and the President.
It is a rather dichotomous setup, but I don't think this division can be realistically exploited by external forces. Any perception of foreign involvement/direction by the Iranians will result in complete failure of any oppositional movement. Again, if the Iranian people believe there is foreign influence upon the actors attempting to exact a change in the political system, they will reject those actors. Thus a political change can only take place in an environment that is free from foreign involvement and must be entirely homegrown.
The Iranian people are very conscious of the US-backed 1953 coup against Mossadeq and American (and even Israeli support) of the Shah and his repressive, brutal policies. It is a very emotional issue for them just as the 1979-81 hostage crisis is for Americans.
Groups in Iran such as the pragmatists (e.g. Rasfanjani) and reformists (e.g. Khatami) completely denounce any efforts by outside parties to effect a change in Iranian policy. Just a few days ago there was a meeting between Khatami and former/current EU/UN leaders, and Khatami instantly and bitterly denounced suggestions that such a meeting constituted an endorsement for him to run again for President against Ahmadinejad in 2009.
Most people in Iran do support democracy, and Iran already has a few democratic institutions, though combined with autocratic institutions that can overrule the parliament and President. The vast majority of Iranians would prefer that the Supreme Leader be elected. So there is no need to find oppositional groups to support democracy because the support is already there. Though the press in Iran is not entirely free, there is however a marked amount of freedom and a wide range of opinion, including dissident, that is tolerated.
Personally, I believe that best policy with regards to Iran is to not to make statements or undertake actions that serve to strengthen the hands of the hardliners. Remember, Iran was for all practical purposes a US ally, fully supporting the US-led NATO intervention in Afghanistan. There were face-to-face meetings between high level US and Iranian officials that are now a subject of debate with regards to "preconditions" between McCain and Obama. The thawing of relations that began to trickle in the late Clinton Administration serendipitously turned to a flood in the first year of the Bush Administration, during the aftermath of 9/11. All evidence points to Iran under the reformist President Khatami seeking to re-establish diplomatic relations with the US with the blessing of the Supreme Leader, and perhaps a re-alignment even more favorable than that. In 2001, circumstances existed that could have effected a nearly 180 degree turnaround in US-Iranian relations, the possibility of which was then destroyed by the "Axis of Evil" statement in Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address. This missed opportunity is very regrettable, for at that point in time I believe the stars aligned and there existed a window for a "Nixon to China" moment. It also served to make the 2005 triumph of the hardliners under Ahmadinejad inevitable.
Since then, there have been a number of complications that have re-driven the wedge between the US and Iran, such as the Iranian nuclear program as well as material and other support to Shi'ite militias in Iraq. It might be a number of years before the circumstances again exist for a US-Iranian reconciliation.
It is a rather dichotomous setup, but I don't think this division can be realistically exploited by external forces. Any perception of foreign involvement/direction by the Iranians will result in complete failure of any oppositional movement. Again, if the Iranian people believe there is foreign influence upon the actors attempting to exact a change in the political system, they will reject those actors. Thus a political change can only take place in an environment that is free from foreign involvement and must be entirely homegrown.
The Iranian people are very conscious of the US-backed 1953 coup against Mossadeq and American (and even Israeli support) of the Shah and his repressive, brutal policies. It is a very emotional issue for them just as the 1979-81 hostage crisis is for Americans.
Groups in Iran such as the pragmatists (e.g. Rasfanjani) and reformists (e.g. Khatami) completely denounce any efforts by outside parties to effect a change in Iranian policy. Just a few days ago there was a meeting between Khatami and former/current EU/UN leaders, and Khatami instantly and bitterly denounced suggestions that such a meeting constituted an endorsement for him to run again for President against Ahmadinejad in 2009.
Most people in Iran do support democracy, and Iran already has a few democratic institutions, though combined with autocratic institutions that can overrule the parliament and President. The vast majority of Iranians would prefer that the Supreme Leader be elected. So there is no need to find oppositional groups to support democracy because the support is already there. Though the press in Iran is not entirely free, there is however a marked amount of freedom and a wide range of opinion, including dissident, that is tolerated.
Personally, I believe that best policy with regards to Iran is to not to make statements or undertake actions that serve to strengthen the hands of the hardliners. Remember, Iran was for all practical purposes a US ally, fully supporting the US-led NATO intervention in Afghanistan. There were face-to-face meetings between high level US and Iranian officials that are now a subject of debate with regards to "preconditions" between McCain and Obama. The thawing of relations that began to trickle in the late Clinton Administration serendipitously turned to a flood in the first year of the Bush Administration, during the aftermath of 9/11. All evidence points to Iran under the reformist President Khatami seeking to re-establish diplomatic relations with the US with the blessing of the Supreme Leader, and perhaps a re-alignment even more favorable than that. In 2001, circumstances existed that could have effected a nearly 180 degree turnaround in US-Iranian relations, the possibility of which was then destroyed by the "Axis of Evil" statement in Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address. This missed opportunity is very regrettable, for at that point in time I believe the stars aligned and there existed a window for a "Nixon to China" moment. It also served to make the 2005 triumph of the hardliners under Ahmadinejad inevitable.
Since then, there have been a number of complications that have re-driven the wedge between the US and Iran, such as the Iranian nuclear program as well as material and other support to Shi'ite militias in Iraq. It might be a number of years before the circumstances again exist for a US-Iranian reconciliation.
Comment