How do you solve a problem like Iran?
The United States of late has experienced intense difficulties maintaining relations with other governments unwilling or unable to cooperate with American demands. Leaders of “rogue nations” such as Iran have expressed no desire to comply with the United States and in turn, the United States has been unable to accomplish anything of substance in the region. With an economy fueled by oil, a young and highly educated population, and a huge stake in virtually all Middle Eastern affairs, Iran directly factors into American foreign policy decisions.
In order to take steps towards finding a progressive solution to Iran, The United States has to come to terms with three basic concepts. First, the UN imposed sanctions are not hurting Ahmadinejad’s regime but further bolstering it. Second, diplomacy and soft power and more effective than hard power in 21st century conflicts, especially when considering that going to war with Iran is not an option. Finally, the United States must realize that strong relations with Iran represent more than just standard diplomatic relations but could shift the outlook of the entire Islamic Middle East.
The UN imposed sanctions with strong American backing are supposed to stifle economic growth and create hostility between Iranians and Ahmadinejad’s regime. However, a reverse effect is occurring, as the sanctions are not hurting the country as a whole, but rather the largely conservative rural groups and the working middle class. Since the struggling middle class can be blamed on external factors, it provides a viable scapegoat for the government. By standing up to the United States and international community which is imposing these sanctions, support only grows for him back home. Furthermore, the American government continues to ignore that clearly Iran does not need them to survive. The U.S. has to realize that in the 21st century, Iran has other allegiances and trade relationships that can sustain its economy. Had the sanctions not been imposed, Ahmadinejad’s incompetence would have been undeniably due to his own decisions and policies, which would have left him vulnerable. Instead, he maintains support due to the sanctions in a country desperate for change. Until the sanctions are re-tooled or lifted entirely, Iran will continue to make friends with American enemies while the current regime will remain supported and in power.
To solve even the most elemental problem, communication must exist for a solution to be created and successfully executed. The United States has neglected to create a real soft power strategy with aims of improving relations with Iran and its people. Diplomacy and other methods of soft power are more effective than hard power, especially when dealing with uncooperative governments. Ousting Ahmadinejad is possible through the use of soft power if America dedicates itself to the cause. The United States had no reservations in using extreme methods of soft power when ousting the progressive Mohammad Mossadegh in favour of the ruthless Shah. The CIA and its cohorts managed to turn an entire nation against their leader in favour of a man who maintained his authoritarian grasp on Iran until the Islamic revolution. Essentially, the United States is here because of a mistake made decades ago, and it is time to reverse that grave error in judgement by using soft power the right way. If nothing else, the American government owes the use of soft power to the Iranian people, who were notoriously robbed of the democracy they now so much desire today.
Ahmadinejad is no Saddam Hussein. Despite the best efforts of the United States to make him out as a lunatic and ruthless dictator, that is far from the case. He is a master tactician and manages to maintain support in a country he arguably should not be running. He brings up fair points that question America’s motives in the region and they need to be addressed because they are also the questions that the rest of the Middle East is asking. Why can other countries, most notably Israel pursue nuclear technology while Iran is persecuted for doing so in a transparent manner? Why does the United States pour billions of dollars into supporting Israel, per capita a very wealthy nation, while tens of millions of Americans are under the poverty line? These questions among others deserve answers, and by ignoring them and those who are asking, the United States is not doing itself any favours.
If relations between Iran and the United States do not improve it cannot be for the lack of effort from the American side. If war breaks out in the Middle East or if tensions continue between Israel and Iran, blame can rightfully be placed upon the unwilling United States. The Bush administration alienated the Iranian government by placing it in his infamous “Axis of Evil” along with North Korea. Obama has to invoke change on the issue and separate himself from his predecessor. He must make it clear that the new American government is making conscious diplomatic efforts so that Ahmadinejad is left solely accountable for the state of Iran-US relations.
America has made pre-emptive war a staple in their foreign policy and now more than ever they need to institute pre-emptive diplomacy to prevent future relations from deteriorating in the first place. Anti-Americanism is arguably the most serious threat to American national security and the spreading sentiment can only be (weakened) by a revelatory global diplomatic presence. The United States has garnered enough blame for the Middle East’s laundry list of problems without providing even more basis for anti-Americanists to further their cause.
In 1961, American Henry Kissenger’s advocacy for US talks with the Soviet Union led to intense diplomatic talks. His idea influenced future high level diplomacy and was officially termed “strategic dialogue”. Essentially, the theory behind strategic dialogue is that governments sometimes need to put differences aside and initiate dialogue that is beneficial for both parties. The United States and Iran both know there is an upside to better relations, but strategic dialogue needs to take place in order for that upside to be realized.
Iran represents far more than one leader or one government or even one people. It represents the entire Middle East, namely the Islamic part of the region. If America can find a way to get Iran and its Shi'a population on its side, global leadership will become a far smoother process. Whether looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, defeating terrorism or halting the spread of anti-Americanism, Iran is the large piece of the puzzle. If the United States can solve Iran and regain some form of credibility in the region, resolving other global security dilemma's will be increasingly possible.
