On the Good Foot in Iran?

There are some increasingly louder hints that relations between the US and Iran are approaching a thaw. A few moments to note:

First, US President Obama says (on al-Arabiya, no less) that "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." So is Obama offering Supreme Leader Khamenei a low-five? Couldn't Obama just clench his fist and give Khamenei a "terrorist fist-jab"? Somehow it seems more appropriate.

Then, reformist former president Seyed Mohammad Khatami throws his hat in the ring for this year's upcoming Presidential election (TiVo alert: June 12). Khatami was the President from 1997 until 2005, when he was unseated by current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Khatami was twice elected by a large majority on reformist platform, but lost support as his reformist policies wilted under pressure from conservative theocrats. Khatami is himself a high-level cleric, and traces his lineage back to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). Khatami sought to break down Iran's isolation during his term, but US-Iran relations were monopolized by radicals on both sides -- Iran's Revolutionary Guards pushed nuclear development and funded Hezbollah (among others), and Bush shot down any chance of dialogue when he cast parts for Axis of Evil: The Good, the Bad, and the Insane.

Ahmadinejad came to power on a populist platform fueled by anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments. He often brought out this fiery rhetoric (America=Satan, Wipe Israel Off the Map, etc.) during his term, partially as an attempt to distract from his failing economic policies. So with the economy still sputtering, and his primary opponent a well-known Americaphile, we prepared for another outburst of bombastic nuttiness. But it never came.

Instead, on the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Ahmadinejad said that he was ready to engage with the Great Satan (video). While this is not the first time Ahmadinejad has said he is open to dialogue, it is incredible, given the situation (remember he was speaking to a crowd of thousands of mostly hard-core revolutionaries yelling anti-Western slogans and playing Knock-The-Head-Off-The-Decadent-Western-Leader) that he made a point to show this openness. This says that Ahmadinejad no longer sees anti-Americanism as the political wedge issue it was in the past. And it may mean that dialogue will happen regardless of who prevails in the June election.

There are several reasons for this shift. Top of the list is the new US President. Obama may not guarantee successful dialogue, but under Bush it would have been impossible. The US withdrawal in Iraq, even in the planning stages as it is, helps reassure Iran that the US does not mean to be an imperialist power in the Middle East. Economic concerns also factor in, with Iran's economy suffering and in need of investment. Reuters reports that Royal Dutch Shell and Total have interests in developing Iranian natural gas deposits, and Iran would be sure to benefit if the US embargo were lifted.

Dialogue with Iran, even if eventually successful enough to allow full inspection of Iranian nuclear capabilities, establish formal diplomatic relations, and reduce or eliminate trade embargoes, will be slow and difficult. Hard-line elements in the US and Iran will continue to militate against restoration of full relations. For the US hard-liners, the issue is Iranian support of Islamic militants in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and Iraq. For the Iranian hard-liners, the issue is US support for Israel. As long as these issues have pull in their respective countries, progress towards full relations will be difficult to achieve. Diplomacy cannot be carried out piece-meal, and it cannot be carried out if politicians on either side are too preoccupied with their opinion polls.

Here's some advice for President Obama: when greeting Iranian leaders, feel free to shake hands, offer a low-five, or give a fist jab. Just don't try the traditional George W. Bush man-greeting.


March 16 Update: Khatami has thrown in the towel, seemingly bowing out in favor of Mir-Hossein Moussavi. The Reformist camp now has two candidates for June's presidential election:

Mir-Hossein Moussavi -- Prime Minister from 1981 to 1989, current member of the Expediency Council (Iran's highest non-elected political body), and head of Iran's Academy of Arts. Moussavi is seen as a honest and centrist politician, drawing support from the reformists and some conversatives. He flip-flopped on a decision to enter the race, finally throwing his hat in March 10.
Mehdi Karroubi -- Speaker of Parliament until 2004, founder of reformist Assocaition of Combatant Clerics, and 3rd place Presidential candidate in 2005. Karroubi is seen as farther to the left than Moussavi, and has drawn support from leftists like Gholamhossein Karbaschi, formerly mayor of Tehran and influential in Khatami's previous presidential runs.

Some observers say that the Reformists will eventually narrow their camp to one candidate; clearly two candidates will make it more difficult to defeat Ahmadinejad. There are real differences between Moussavi and Karroubi, but both put economic issues at the top of their agenda. Moussavi is promoting his strategic "20-Year Outlook Plan", while Karroubi has promoted quasi-socialist policies such as distributing shares in Iranian oil companies and making substantial monthly payments to Iranian families.

Overall, Moussavi is seen as the favorite to become the sole Reformist candidate. He has a wider base of support among the political elite, and enough Reformist credentials to pull in the left wing vote. Karroubi's former organization, the Association of Combatant Clerics, has already endorsed Moussavi. However it is yet to be seen whether Ahmadinejad will be able to convince conservatives and tradionalists that he can fully represent their interests -- the addition of another centrist or right-wing candidate would make the road to victory much smoother for the Reformist camp.

Episode IV in Somalia?

Practice Question #1
Claude Monet :: Impressionist painter
Somalia :: _______

a) Octuplet-bearing California woman
b) Locale for new Johnny Depp movie, Pirates of the Gulf of Aden
c) The not-as-cute Jonas Brother
d) Failed state

Remember to show your work!

.........................

Please read Erratum Terrium's previous article on Somalia for background on the current situation (or if you need a study guide for Practice Question #1).

Last week Sharif Sheikh Ahmed was elected "President"* of Somalia, replacing the departed "President"*, Abdullahi Yusuf. Ahmed, as loyal Erratum Terrium readers may remember, was the political leader of the ICU (Union of Islamic Courts) -- which as its name suggests, is a loose confederation of sharia advocates. The ICU created a militia, which was able to wrest control of much of southern and central Somalia from various warlords during 2005 and 2006. They were able, for a short time, to bring a semblance of order to this land wracked by constant turmoil and disaster since 1991 (if not longer). Ethiopia invaded shortly after this order was established, suffered through an Iraqesque occupation, and have just finished withdrawing their troops in the past few weeks**.

Ahmed, an English-speaking former schoolteacher, is the country's best chance for peace. This is unfortunate for him. Men of peace do not have a long life span in this part of the world. According to the BBC, the presidential palace was hit by mortars on his first day there. The Al-Shabab militia, an off-shoot of ICU resistance to Yusuf's transitional government, has expressed no desire to work with Ahmed despite shared Islamist values. International reaction to Ahmed has been cool, despite his urgent appeals for aid.

A few days ago US Vice President Biden outlined a "new tone" for foreign policy under the Obama Administration***. Part of this new tone must be a reconsideration of the Bush Administration's blind opposition to Islamist politics. Political Islam contains a wide spectrum of beliefs and goals, and we can not continue to put any Muslim who speaks ill of the United States or advocates sharia into the same category as Osama Bin Laden. This mentality creates unnecessary enemies and wastes opportunities for our democracy-loving country to foster positive political developments in Muslim countries. To be sure, there are many Islamist groups who support terrorist acts and encourage abuse of women, children, and ethnic minorities. We cannot become blind to their reprehensible actions in our effort to legitimize Islamist politics. It is a delicate balancing act. Some would suggest that it is naive to think we can win over these hard-core America-haters with some sacks of rice. And they are right to be critical. But it is far more naive to believe that we can expand our circle of allies when we refuse to deal with political groups who don't already fit our narrow prerequisites. Metaphorized version: You will not win any converts preaching to the choir.

Somalia would be a great place to listen to Biden's "new tone" in US foreign policy music. Ahmed's new government needs international support, and it would not cost us much geopolitical capital to provide that support. We cannot guarantee success by acting, but not acting may guarantee failure. I need not quote Gandhi here. Instead I will offer this quote:

"...Today everyone thinks he or she is right and doesn't want to dialogue. We must abandon this culture. We must sit together, talk and come up with solutions to our problems. That is the best way forward."

Well said, Mr. President-Elect.

....................................

* The "President" of Somalia rarely exercises control over most of the country, most notably in the northern autonomous regions of Somaliland and Puntland.
** Withdrawal subject to further considerations (see Platt Amendment).
*** It is still a little exciting to say, type, read, or think the words: "the Obama Administration".