Tweet
ON THE PROSPECTS OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE US AND IRAN
Sargis Harutyunyan
http://www.noravank.am/en/?page=anali tics&nid=1597
02 February 2009
Though the biggest expectations from the work of the new US
administration concern the financial and economical spheres, but
there are also many questions in the sphere of foreign policy which
require tough decisions from the 44th president of the United States.
The continuous escalation of the tension in the line of
Afghanistan-Iran and the developments expected in the line of
India-Central Asia, the latest war between Israel and Palestine
and general situation in the Middle East, Russian-Ukrainian gas
crisis with all its consequences on the post-Soviet territory and
Eastern Europe. This is the incomplete list of the issues that
Washington has to face and to which it has worked out fundamental
approaches. Moreover, after entering White house Obama will find out
that there are some issues where time is working against the US.
Therefore the point is at what extent the new US administration is
ready to bring in some correctives into the foreign policy strategy,
because one thing is clear: in this changed world the US can not
follow the strategy of the 1990th. Moreover, this was realized by
the Bush administration, because there are many examples when Obama
will simply implement the changes which were planed in the days of
Bush's presidency.
The issue of20the prospects of the relations between the US and
Iran is one of the most important. This issue is essential for us on
two grounds:
It has never concerned mainly those two countries and it always has
a regional effect.
For the recent times American-Iranian relations has become almost
of the same importance for the national security of Armenia as the
relations between the US and Russia.
Situational survey Since the Islamic revolution in 1970, for the
first time in about 30 years, in November 2008 the president of
Iran decided to congratulate the person who was elected on the
post of the president of the United States. Of course this step by
Mahmud Ahmadinejad logically corresponded to the chain of events,
which in the end of 2007 witnessed to the thaw in American-Iranian
relations1. Nevertheless the fact that from the first days of the
new administration both parties decided to continue their relations
in new informational environment is equally important2.
>From this point of view the last Israeli-Palestinian war is worthy
of note.
In spite of the traditional rigorous statements by Iranian side,
the fact is that in those 20 days of war Tehran had not taken any
practical step against Israel.
It is known that in the period from January 8 to 14 from the territory
of Lebanon at least six missiles were launched in the direction of the
settlements in the North of Israel. This gave a reason to be lieve
that Iran by means of Lebanese "Hezbollah" organization intended to
force Israel two-front war. But the fact is that the war was over and
"Hezbollah" stood off military actions. All foregoing becomes more
obvious if we take into consideration the fact that during that war
on January 2-3 the secretary of the Supreme national security council
of Iran Said Djalali visited Damask and Beirut and met not only with
the leaders of those countries but also with the leaders of "Hamas",
"Hezbollah" and "Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine". It
is unlikely that organizations which receive financial, political
and military support from Iran would reject the decision of Iranian
political authorities to strike along the northern borders of Israel3.
There can be one conclusion. If the decision of Iran not to make
concessions to Israel is particularly assured then the foregoing
position of the Iranian party could interest only Washington. If in
2006, when "Hezbollah"4 was fighting against Israel, Tehran wanted to
show Washington its capabilities in the Middle East then now when the
agreements with the US are in process, Iranian party could not have
such a purpose. It is more probable that today restraining "Hezbollah"
Iran wants to show the US the benefits of the collaboration.
Conclusions The developments in at least two directions make the
US20reach an agreement with Iran. Firstly, it is the extension of
Russian influence on the post-Soviet territory and Eastern Europe and
secondly, the developments which are expected in the line of India -
Central Asia.
In the case with Russia Iran may facilitate the US in the following
three points:
The general stabilization of the situation in the Middle East, which
allows the US to concentrate more resources in the line of Moscow,
The chance to enter South Caucasus, the Caspian region and Central
Asian and this will be of more importance for the US especially after
Russian-Georgian war, And finally the supply of Iranian natural gas
to Europe, which will reduce the dependence of the European countries
and especially Germany from Russian energy carriers, i.e. it will
reduce the influence of Moscow in the European affairs.
As for the line of India - Central Asian then in this direction the
significance of Tehran role may occur only by now. It is already
known that in the initial period of the Obama administration the US
is going not only to stay in Afghanistan but also to enlarge their
military presence on 30 thousand soldiers. Taking into account the
growing instability in Pakistan and its strained relations with India,
it should not be excluded that in the near future the US will have
to get permission from Tehran to enter Afghanistan and Central Asia,
because other ways go through the territo ries of Russia and China.
It is not a secret that the following operation logic of Washington
in the line of Iran gathers headway: Tehran should be treated the way
Nixon did with China. May be the US will make concessions in the issue
of regional security and lift economic sanctions. Nevertheless the main
issue remains open: What will they do with Iranian nuclear weapons?
1Among such events the report of the National Intelligence Council
of the USA should be mentioned. It said that most likely Iran stopped
its nuclear program in the autumn of 2008. The other important feature
is that in August 2008 American-Iranian agreements were reached about
American military presence in Iraq, and this could not happen without
the consent of the Iranian party.
2E.g. Barak Obama in his interviews twice (on December 7, 2008 and on
January 11, 2009) stated that this issue should be tackled through
diplomatic channels and his administration intended to involve Iran
in settling regional issues.
3This particularly refers to "Hezbollah", which with the help of
Iranian military experts could make Israel retreat and from this point
of view may be it has unprecedented experience in the struggle with
Israeli military machine.
4The possibility that Djalali's visits to Damask and Beirut pursued
that aim should not be excluded either.
Sargis Harutyunyan
http://www.noravank.am/en/?page=anali tics&nid=1597
02 February 2009
Though the biggest expectations from the work of the new US
administration concern the financial and economical spheres, but
there are also many questions in the sphere of foreign policy which
require tough decisions from the 44th president of the United States.
The continuous escalation of the tension in the line of
Afghanistan-Iran and the developments expected in the line of
India-Central Asia, the latest war between Israel and Palestine
and general situation in the Middle East, Russian-Ukrainian gas
crisis with all its consequences on the post-Soviet territory and
Eastern Europe. This is the incomplete list of the issues that
Washington has to face and to which it has worked out fundamental
approaches. Moreover, after entering White house Obama will find out
that there are some issues where time is working against the US.
Therefore the point is at what extent the new US administration is
ready to bring in some correctives into the foreign policy strategy,
because one thing is clear: in this changed world the US can not
follow the strategy of the 1990th. Moreover, this was realized by
the Bush administration, because there are many examples when Obama
will simply implement the changes which were planed in the days of
Bush's presidency.
The issue of20the prospects of the relations between the US and
Iran is one of the most important. This issue is essential for us on
two grounds:
It has never concerned mainly those two countries and it always has
a regional effect.
For the recent times American-Iranian relations has become almost
of the same importance for the national security of Armenia as the
relations between the US and Russia.
Situational survey Since the Islamic revolution in 1970, for the
first time in about 30 years, in November 2008 the president of
Iran decided to congratulate the person who was elected on the
post of the president of the United States. Of course this step by
Mahmud Ahmadinejad logically corresponded to the chain of events,
which in the end of 2007 witnessed to the thaw in American-Iranian
relations1. Nevertheless the fact that from the first days of the
new administration both parties decided to continue their relations
in new informational environment is equally important2.
>From this point of view the last Israeli-Palestinian war is worthy
of note.
In spite of the traditional rigorous statements by Iranian side,
the fact is that in those 20 days of war Tehran had not taken any
practical step against Israel.
It is known that in the period from January 8 to 14 from the territory
of Lebanon at least six missiles were launched in the direction of the
settlements in the North of Israel. This gave a reason to be lieve
that Iran by means of Lebanese "Hezbollah" organization intended to
force Israel two-front war. But the fact is that the war was over and
"Hezbollah" stood off military actions. All foregoing becomes more
obvious if we take into consideration the fact that during that war
on January 2-3 the secretary of the Supreme national security council
of Iran Said Djalali visited Damask and Beirut and met not only with
the leaders of those countries but also with the leaders of "Hamas",
"Hezbollah" and "Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine". It
is unlikely that organizations which receive financial, political
and military support from Iran would reject the decision of Iranian
political authorities to strike along the northern borders of Israel3.
There can be one conclusion. If the decision of Iran not to make
concessions to Israel is particularly assured then the foregoing
position of the Iranian party could interest only Washington. If in
2006, when "Hezbollah"4 was fighting against Israel, Tehran wanted to
show Washington its capabilities in the Middle East then now when the
agreements with the US are in process, Iranian party could not have
such a purpose. It is more probable that today restraining "Hezbollah"
Iran wants to show the US the benefits of the collaboration.
Conclusions The developments in at least two directions make the
US20reach an agreement with Iran. Firstly, it is the extension of
Russian influence on the post-Soviet territory and Eastern Europe and
secondly, the developments which are expected in the line of India -
Central Asia.
In the case with Russia Iran may facilitate the US in the following
three points:
The general stabilization of the situation in the Middle East, which
allows the US to concentrate more resources in the line of Moscow,
The chance to enter South Caucasus, the Caspian region and Central
Asian and this will be of more importance for the US especially after
Russian-Georgian war, And finally the supply of Iranian natural gas
to Europe, which will reduce the dependence of the European countries
and especially Germany from Russian energy carriers, i.e. it will
reduce the influence of Moscow in the European affairs.
As for the line of India - Central Asian then in this direction the
significance of Tehran role may occur only by now. It is already
known that in the initial period of the Obama administration the US
is going not only to stay in Afghanistan but also to enlarge their
military presence on 30 thousand soldiers. Taking into account the
growing instability in Pakistan and its strained relations with India,
it should not be excluded that in the near future the US will have
to get permission from Tehran to enter Afghanistan and Central Asia,
because other ways go through the territo ries of Russia and China.
It is not a secret that the following operation logic of Washington
in the line of Iran gathers headway: Tehran should be treated the way
Nixon did with China. May be the US will make concessions in the issue
of regional security and lift economic sanctions. Nevertheless the main
issue remains open: What will they do with Iranian nuclear weapons?
1Among such events the report of the National Intelligence Council
of the USA should be mentioned. It said that most likely Iran stopped
its nuclear program in the autumn of 2008. The other important feature
is that in August 2008 American-Iranian agreements were reached about
American military presence in Iraq, and this could not happen without
the consent of the Iranian party.
2E.g. Barak Obama in his interviews twice (on December 7, 2008 and on
January 11, 2009) stated that this issue should be tackled through
diplomatic channels and his administration intended to involve Iran
in settling regional issues.
3This particularly refers to "Hezbollah", which with the help of
Iranian military experts could make Israel retreat and from this point
of view may be it has unprecedented experience in the struggle with
Israeli military machine.
4The possibility that Djalali's visits to Damask and Beirut pursued
that aim should not be excluded either.