Rowhani’s election may not be a panacea
By NICHOLAS BURNS
New York Times News Service
Hassan Rowhani’s surprise victory in Iran’s presidential election last week carries important implications for the country’s future as well as for its tortured relationship with the United States.
Rowhani overturned nearly all predictions and the carefully laid plans of Iran’s leadership by defeating a group of much more conservative candidates. In a field of gray conformists, Rowhani was the only one who took a more moderate line on social, economic, and international issues. The key to his success was in capturing the latent underground sentiment for change that spilled into the streets after the 2009 elections but has been repressed since by a brutal regime crackdown.
His election is better news than the Obama administration had expected. Rowhani’s openness to diplomacy on the nuclear issue is a welcome break from the antagonistic attitude of his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and one of the people he defeated, current nuclear negotiator Saeed Jallili. Rowhani seems to understand how isolated Iran has become and how profoundly sanctions have affected Iran’s population. His recognition of Iran’s three-decade isolation from the United States is unusual for an Iranian leader.
Iran is now likely to return to talks with the United States, Europe, Russia, and China in one last attempt to reach a negotiated agreement and avoid war over Iran’s increasingly advanced nuclear research effort. Obama was right this week to welcome a new round of negotiations as there is still time for diplomacy. While negotiations will be difficult, it makes sense to exhaust diplomacy before considering the use of force.
But Rowhani’s election may not be the panacea that many are trumpeting.
First, Rowhani has always been a strong supporter of Iran’s nuclear program. While he is a more polished diplomat than most Iranian leaders and worked well with Europeans in earlier rounds of nuclear diplomacy, it is too early to believe he will overturn the ossified anti-Americanism that has defined Iran’s revolutionary regime for three decades.
Second, it will be Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, not Rowhani, who will call the shots on issues that matter. Khamenei has tight control of Iranian foreign policy and the military. And he has exhibited for over 20 years a closed, bitter, mistrustful, and even paranoid attitude toward successive American administrations. Iran will show up at negotiations but is unlikely to yield on the key concessions the United States and others will demand.
Third, Iran has been racing ahead on its nuclear agenda while acting in a desultory and uninspired manner in talks with the United States over the past six months. Indeed, in a sober Washington Post article last week, three well-respected American leaders — former Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg, former National Security Adviser Steve Hadley, and former Senator Joe Lieberman — warned “the time is fast approaching when diplomacy will be of little or no value or credibility.” They worry that Iran’s advances in powerful new centrifuges and a heavy-water reactor are “significantly reducing the time that Tehran will need to produce a nuclear weapon.”
Iran will be Obama’s most difficult challenge in 2013. He should respond by putting a proposal on the table that would accept a limited Iranian civil nuclear capacity but prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power under strict and severe international oversight. He would be smart to couple this with even tougher sanctions and the continued threat of force.
Obama will also need help from the rest of the world. Israel will need to be patient and let the United States lead. Russia and China should be more forceful in pushing Iran to compromise. And if negotiations actually make progress, congressional leaders in Washington will have to refrain from insisting on unreasonable demands, which could torpedo any agreement.
The road ahead with Iran remains twisted, unpredictable, and perilous. To paraphrase President Reagan: Engage Iran, don’t trust yet and verify.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.