Opinion » Lead

Updated: June 18, 2013 00:52 IST

What Rouhani’s election should mean for Washington

    Flynt Leverett
    Hillary Mann Leverett
Comment (4)   ·   print   ·   T  T  

If it wants to negotiate productively with Iran, the U.S. needs to accept the reality that the Islamic Republic is a political entity that represents legitimate national interests

Friday’s presidential and local council elections in Iran show that the Islamic Republic is far more stable and politically dynamic than western conventional wisdom commonly acknowledges. Moreover, the election of Hassan Rouhani — who headed the Islamic Republic’s Supreme National Security Council for 16 years and was Tehran’s chief nuclear negotiator with the West for much of that period — presents Washington with an opportunity, for Mr. Rouhani understands the U.S.-Iranian diplomatic agenda in an existential, granular way. If, though, the Obama administration wants to engage a new Rouhani administration effectively, and to put the U.S.-Iranian relations on a more positive trajectory, it will need to overhaul U.S. policy in four fundamental ways:

Accept it

First, Washington must accept the Islamic Republic as an enduring political entity representing legitimate national interests. Virtually since the Islamic Republic’s creation out of the Iranian Revolution, American elites have declared it is an illegitimate order, so dysfunctional and despised by its own population as to be at imminent risk of overthrow.

In reality, the Islamic Republic is a legitimate order for most Iranians living in Iran. Its animating idea — the ongoing project of integrating Islamist governance and participatory politics — appeals not just in Iran, but to Muslim societies across the Middle East. Despite decades of military, clandestine, and international economic pressure, it has achieved more progressive developmental outcomes — e.g., in alleviating poverty, delivering health care, expanding educational access, and (yes) improving opportunities for women — than the Shah’s regime ever did, and has done better in these areas than its neighbours (including U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey).

The Islamic Republic isn’t going anywhere. Even among those Iranians who want it to evolve significantly, most of them still want it to be, at the end of the day, an Islamic Republic of Iran.

Washington needs to accept this reality if it wants to negotiate productively with Tehran. Among other things, acceptance would mean calling off the “dirty war” America is conducting against the Islamic Republic — including economic warfare against civilians, threatening secondary sanctions against third countries in violation of U.S. WTO commitments, cyber-attacks, and support for groups doing things inside Iran that Washington elsewhere condemns as “terrorism.”

When President Richard Nixon took office in 1969, believing it was strategically vital for America to realign relations with the People’s Republic of China, he ordered the CIA to stand down from covert operations in Tibet, and ordered the Seventh Fleet to stop aggressive patrolling in the Taiwan Strait. Nixon did these things so that when he reached out diplomatically to the Chinese leadership, it would know he was serious.

The Iranian leadership needs to see comparable steps from President Obama, rather than the farce of Mr. Obama’s “dual track” policy, whereby Iran is threatened with the “stick” of open-ended intensification in America’s dirty war if it won’t surrender its internationally-safeguarded nuclear programme for the “carrot” of perhaps being allowed to buy airplane spare parts from the West.

Second, Washington must deal with the Islamic Republic as a system, and stop trying to play Iran’s public against its government. On a positive note, the White House press statement about the Iranian presidential election refers to Iran by its official name — “Islamic Republic,” something the Obama administration has refused to do since 2009. But the statement does not congratulate Mr. Rouhani; it congratulates the Iranian people “for their participation in the political process, and their courage in making their voices heard … against the backdrop of a lack of transparency, censorship of the media, Internet, and text messages, and an intimidating security environment.” Such a posture will not facilitate productive diplomacy after Mr. Rouhani takes office.

A failing tactic

Similarly, Washington should stop looking for Iranian “moderates” who, by U.S. definition, are moderate only because American officials believe they might be willing to subordinate some of Iran’s sovereign prerogatives for more economic ties to the West. The Clinton administration tried working around Ayatollah Khamenei and dealing only with reformist President Mohammad Khatami during Mr. Khatami’s first term. A decade later, the Obama administration tried working around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and dealing directly with Mr. Khamenei. Every time, the tactic fails — and will fail again if Mr. Obama repeats it on a newly inaugurated President Rouhani.

The Islamic Republic was designed to encompass multiple, competitive power centres — e.g., the Supreme Leader, the presidency, parliament. As Leader, Mr. Khamenei has allowed three Presidents — Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mohammad Khatami, and Ahmadinejad — to pursue very different, self-defined agendas, but has also restrained them when he judged their agendas might weaken the Islamic Republic’s identity and long-term security. Mr. Khamenei’s relationship with President Rouhani is likely to play out in similar fashion.

Washington does not help its cause by trying to manipulate one power centre against another. In Tehran, deciding to realign relations with America will take a consensus — a consensus encompassing both Leader and President.

Third, Washington must recognise Iran’s legal right, as a sovereign state and as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to enrich uranium under international safeguards. As we wrote in The Hindu last month, “If Washington recognised Iran’s right to enrich, a nuclear deal with Tehran could be reached in a matter of weeks”; but “as long as Washington refuses to acknowledge Tehran’s nuclear rights, no substantial agreement will be possible” ( This will be no less true under President Rouhani than it has been previously.

There is a strong consensus in Iran — cutting across the factional spectrum, ratified by Ayatollah Khamenei, and supported by public opinion — that the Islamic Republic should not surrender its nuclear rights. In this year’s election campaign, Mr. Rouhani was criticised for his approach to nuclear diplomacy with the West; in 2003-2005, during Mr. Rouhani’s tenure as nuclear negotiator, Tehran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment for nearly two years, and got nothing from the West in return. Mr. Rouhani — who holds advanced degrees in both Islamic law and civil law — vigorously defended his record, arguing that his approach helped Iran avoid sanctions while laying the ground for subsequent expansion of its enrichment infrastructure. Looking forward, he explicitly committed himself to defending the Islamic Republic’s right to enrich. There will be no nuclear deal absent U.S. acknowledgement of that right.

Ill-conceived strategy

Fourth, Washington must stop cooperating with Saudi Arabia and others to spread violent, al Qaeda-like Sunni extremism across the Middle East as part of an ill-conceived strategy for containing Iran. This strategy is currently on display in Syria, where, from the onset of unrest in 2011, the Obama administration has sought to use an opposition increasingly manned and supported by foreigners to overthrow the Assad government and damage Tehran’s position. The administration is now stepping up support for the opposition — saying explicitly this is intended to prevent Tehran and its allies from “winning” in Syria.

The Islamic Republic has demonstrated that it can be a constructive partner in fighting the spread of violent Sunni extremism. By escalating the conflict in Syria, Washington will, first of all, enable the deaths of tens of thousands more Syrians; it will also — as it has done before (e.g., in Afghanistan and Libya) — incubate a long-term security threat to itself and to all countries with an interest in Middle Eastern stability. The only way out of the Syrian conflict is serious diplomacy that facilitates a political settlement between the Assad government and its opponents. Iran is critical to achieving this.

If Washington really wants better relations with Tehran following Mr. Rouhani’s election, the course is clear.

(Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett are authors of Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran and teach international relations, he at Penn State, she at American University)

More In: Lead | Opinion

The American "hegemonic" attitude as a "hard power" is seen very
often .What else proof is required, than Iran a country continuosly
facing "economic-sanctions" yet had its polls and paved way for a
smooth transition.
Iranians know the spoil-sport the U.S. is playing in Middle east.Initially it was for oil assets and later to usurp its hegemonic hard power to have its
say in the region.
The situation in Libya ,after Gaddafi's decline provoked by west and in Syria to overthrow the long believed "secular Alawite government" to cut the strategic link between Iran and Hezbollah and isolate them shows America in a bad frame unable to accept the ground realities.
only healthy and constructive dialogue with Iran can help progress the cooperation in the region, else wanting even the newly formed
government in Iran to satisfy American wishes will bring gross
disagreement with the very notion of U.S. among the commeners of these

Posted on: Jun 19, 2013 at 17:46 IST

The de facto Islamic Republic agents in America once again spreading their "vision" of politics and international relations that would make Khamanei proud.

from:  Sassan
Posted on: Jun 19, 2013 at 03:34 IST

Rouhani's election as President of Iran is not going to reduce the tension in the Middle East. Rouhani has declared that the nuclear enrichment will continue in Iran. Nuclear enrichment is the main reason for tension between Iran and the rest of the world. If Iran does not stop nuclear enrichment, Iran will remain as the center of tension in the Middle East. But Rouhani's conciliatory tone toward the US and rest of the world is welcome. The real power in Iran rests with the theocratic Ayatollah Khamenei and his crew of Ayatollahs. All the explanation of accepting Iran as an enduring political entity and as a system is a bunch of nonsense to promote the book by two leftist authors from the US.

from:  Davis K. Thanjan
Posted on: Jun 18, 2013 at 22:55 IST

It's a joke really. Of all the countries in the Middle East, there are none barring
Israel and Turkey whose general populace is of such friendly disposition towards
the US than Iran.
And yet, who are the US "allies"?
1) Saudi Arabia where other religions and even moderate forms of Islam are officially persecuted and where the general populace despises the West.
2) Pakistan which along with Saudi Arabia forms the greatest threat to international peace and stability in the region and in the world.
3) Other states that more or less fit into the above picture and have neither a
remotely modern political system nor a tolerant secular society, let alone civil
If Iran has the ill influence of Khamanei, these other states aren't better either. By engaging Iran and distancing itself from the others, the US could help ease tensions in the Middle East.
Kudos to the authors for pointing out the schizophrenic, nay even suicidal attitude adopted by the US towards Iran as of now.

from:  Vivek
Posted on: Jun 18, 2013 at 17:10 IST
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor



Recent Article in Lead

A file photo of Gujarat Chief Minister Anandiben Patel.

Gujarat: a tale of two cities

The Gujarat Chief Minister’s attempt to distinguish herself from her predecessor by making women’s issues a priority hardly gets around the deep discrimination that Muslims in the State face in the form of communalism and a lack of housing. »