Positive Signs Ahead for US-Iranian Relations?
A good reason for optimism arose in late June upon the announcement of the Iranian presidential election results that secured a popular majority and victory for Hassan Rouhani. Since then, little about the transition in power has been spoken of in western media until very recently. The handover from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the newly elected undoubtedly necessitates it’s own bureaucratic procedures and domestic initiatives are likely to precede the more complex aspects of addressing an international agenda immediately following the election. However, the fact is that for Iran, foreign affairs crucially ties into the domestic situation that the nation is in dire need of contending with. But now, three months have passed and the country’s leader has had the chance to assertively situate himself in office. It seems that a preliminary blueprint for how his new administration intends to conduct it's diplomacy with the United States which was so severely severed under Ahmadinejad, now shows positive signs for hope.
In June's elections, of the four candidates cleared by a committee to participate, the newly elected Rouhani was by far the most moderate. It came as a surprise to many that for a nation where the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, wields such influential sway, that the majority of people would oppose the candidates whom were most likely to attract Khamenei's support. It’s no surprise that given the central Islamic importance cloaked behind the figure of the Ayatollah, that his desire for a new leader was likely to be one whom shares his religious conservatisms and a more hard-line position. But when the results were announced, in a suggestive optimistic nod to the idea of a more democratic style of government, the liberal candidate Hassan Rouhani had received 60% of votes.
To highlight a bit of the decision that the voters were faced with and to highlight the climate of political viewpoints of those other candidates, a rundown of the results is appropriate. It follows as such:
Of the four candidates, three of them with Rouhani included, had significant foreign policy experience that involved leadership positions on the coveted Supreme National Security Council which is overseen by Ayatollah Khamenei. The one candidate with less of a history in international policy was that of Mohammad Qalibaf who nonetheless has been the mayor of Tehran for eight years.
Of the political matters for Iran viewed to be most important, typically implies foreign policy as well as top domestic agendas, Khamenei often acts as a central authority for dictating and coordinating affairs with other heads of state. But it's shown occasionally that during the previous presidential terms including Ahmadinejad(2005-2013) and the moderate rule by Mohammad Khatami(2001-2005), an irritability for Khamenei had transpired due to defiant leadership styles that were at times contentions with that of the supreme leader. Ahmadinejad for example was non-conciliatory with other members of state and obviously to other foreign powers, particularly the west. In the latter half of Ahmadinejad's second term, he was largely restricted from asserting political power because of Khamenei's disapproval for the aurora of control in which Ahmadinejad elicited and the spiraling economic state as a result of the imposition of strict western sanctions.
The issue at odds for Khamenei during the Khatami term was the president’s liberal stance. Khatami sought stronger world alliances while lessening the emphasis of the hard-line members from Iran’s Islamic Republic including the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp and Shiite Hezbollah party members. However, the nature of foreign affairs during the early 2000’s wasn’t at the same precarious state that Iran now is confronting, so Khatami’s stance by opponents was then viewed as ideologically weak.
In this recent election, some experts contended that mayor Qalibaf was the candidate most likely viewed as a favorite by Khamenei because of his paucity of experience working with the previous presidents on foreign policy. This some argued might make for less of a contentious position for the Supreme leader. Thus with Qalibaf as president, the Ayatollah could be left to dictate international matters more assertively with the other heads of state and not be confronted with challenges from the president.
Unlike Qalibaf, of the three candidates with international experience, Saeed Jalili was the most hard-lined. He was seen as least likely to show significant efforts for improving Iran’s humanitarian situation which hopefully will include relaxing incarceration of political prisoners, limiting nuclear ambitions and advancing diplomacy with the West. So ideological were his views that is was said that Khamenei would likely have been encumbered with many difficulties in facing an office occupied by Jalili.
Ali Akbar Velayit on the other hand had direct experience for thirteen years as a foreign policy advisor for Khamenei in the eighties and nineties. He was seen as the most publicly supported candidate by the Ayatollah.
But despite any personal favoritism from the Supreme Leader, the outcome was to be determined by the vote of the people. And for this election, efforts were made to bring legitimacy to the polls in order to assuage the popular concerns that still lingered from the chaos having erupted during 2009 when activist Green partiers protested the reappointment of Ahmadinejad. That situation lasted for several days, resulted in dozens of deaths, thousands being jailed including the moderate candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi who still remain under house arrest.
Hassan Rouhani's platform for this year addressed the need to significantly improve the international relations in pragmatic terms that are likely to involve concessions on the nuclear arms issue. This moderate stance is one which neither Jalili or Velayati would have been very apt to consider. A recurring insult used against Rouhani by his hardline opponents which fueled debate during the election were accusations that Rouhani pandered to the interests of the US, Israel and the West in 2003. At the time, Rouhani was head of Iran’s national energy council and he made the decision to cease uranium enrichment as a conciliatory gesture for negotiations.
Now the country’s become faced with the situation of do or die as conditions are in such a state of peril after three years of harsh sanctions which include a ban on oil exports to NATO countries, Iran's exclusion from the international monetary system and much public scrutiny. Therefore, the election outcome undoubtedly hinged on the public's expectancy for who might effect the most dramatic improvement.
Given the highly educated and cultured society which much of the nation consists of, it was a signal of acknowledgment for the need to empower a leader who can advance a conciliatory position on world issues, not the isolationist, egotist frame of mind that ensued under the previous Ahmadinejad presidency.
Evidence that Rouhani is intent of implementing such a policy is best observed most recently from the exchange of private letters between him and president Obama. The exchanges between leaders are thought to have been initiated by Rouhani and discuss the need for considering diplomatic efforts in order to ease and eventually eradicate the stifling actions currently imposed upon Iran. Additionally, a very encouraging op-ed letter written by Rouhani was published in the Washington Post last Thursday. The letter made strikingly positive intonations for coming to terms with differences and an intent for Iran to present itself responsibly on an international scale that would involve outstretched cooperation.
The thought that such changes from this once formidable Middle Eastern leader may be advanced that could potentially offer a state of US relations not seen since before the revolution in 1979 certainly is a far cry for hope. But all leaps can only begin with small steps and with the extent of what’s to be improved for the people of Iran it’s not beyond belief that such efforts might gradually begin to take form.
The start of the United Nations World Conference begins today in New York. It will take place for nearly two weeks as world leaders conduct televised speeches and participate in various meetings. It’s been speculated that some dialogue between our country’s president and the newly elected may occur. Or if not, atleast a representational committee of advisors from each country may conduct direct talks which still would be viewed as a significant improvement from the strained relations of the recent past.