Shayan Ghajar

Now that Iran has formally sent a letter of declaration to the IAEA regarding the Tehran Declaration brokered by Turkey and Brazil, the negative reactions from Western states have intensified. The letter, from Ali Akbar Salehi, a vice president of the Islamic Republic as well as its nuclear chief, outlined Iran’s main goals in the Declaration Monday as well as affirming its commitment to deposit 1200kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) into Turkey’s safekeeping.

Western reactions to the Tehran Declaration remain utterly dismissive. Consequently, many countries welcoming the Tehran Declaration are criticizing Western policymakers for ignoring the opportunity for dialogue and reacting as if the Tehran Declaration were the extent of Iran’s willingness to negotiate, rather than a starting point. This rift shows most prominently in Turkey’s current friction with the United States, and may indicate a more global trend in which regional politics and interests supersede the importance of good relations with the United States.

Salehi’s letter to the IAEA specifically lists the goal of avoiding confrontation in two of its five subsections. In section two, Salehi hopes that the Declaration will lead to a “positive, constructive non-confrontational atmosphere leading to an era of interaction and cooperation.” In section five, he alludes more directly to Western threats of sanctions, asserting the declaration will help in “avoiding all kinds of confrontation through refraining from measures, actions and rhetorical statements that would jeopardize Iran’s rights and obligation under the NPT.”

Indeed, Iranian Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani said Sunday that Iran will withdraw from the Tehran Declaration if sanctions are approved by the U.N. Security Council. Sanctions, it is clear, would not only sabotage the first major concession Iran has made since the nuclear program was uncovered, but would unlikely alter or delay Iran’s program. The choice the United States faces is a between a symbolic gesture of punishment towards Iran, or a substantive engagement that may lead to greater progress in alleviating Western fears about Iran’s nuclear program.

Roger Cohen of the New York Times, reflecting what is becoming a view among progressives, argues that it is time for President Obama to bite the bullet and engage Iran diplomatically, with the Tehran Declaration as a starting point for dialogue. America may be a world superpower, but its ability to dictate the rules in international games of diplomacy is on the wane in an increasingly “post-Western world.” Cohen points out that America is already committed to two conflicts in the Middle East, which have shown the limits of its power in the region. As a result, “The West’s ability to impose solutions to global issues like Iran’s nuclear program has unraveled.”

President Obama, Cohen argues, should have taken the Tehran Declaration as a sign that his dual-track policy of pressure and openness to dialogue worked—Iran agreed to the declaration to prevent sanctions. With this success in mind, the Tehran Declaration marks a chance for the U.S. “to be prudent, given past Iranian duplicity, but this is progress. Isolation serves Iranian hard-liners.” By using a stick without indicating any willingness to give a carrot also, Cohen concludes, Obama has damaged other nations’ trust in his much-vaunted openness to dialogue without preconditions.

Cohen’s conclusion highlights another major consequence of ignoring the Tehran Declaration: Turkey, a NATO member and longtime ally of the United States in the region, feels snubbed, patronized, and frustrated. By dismissing the major gamble Turkey made in brokering the agreement, and by extension the unexpected success where European attempts to gain a similar compromise failed, the United States is adding yet another grievance to a long list of sensitive issues between the two nations, ranging from Israel’s recent war in Gaza to the controversy over the vote in Congress to accuse Turkey of perpetrating genocide after World War I.

Hürriyet Daily News, Turkey’s most prominent English-language daily, featured three articles discussing Turkey’s reaction to the West’s dismissal of the Tehran Declaration. The most detailed analysis of Turkey’s sentiments regarding the lack of support following the Declaration is a piece by Mustafa Akyol, aptly titled “America is unwise to dismiss the Tehran deal.”

Akyol explains that Hilary Clinton’s token praise for Turkey’s efforts came across as patronizing, and implied that the Declaration was a failure rather than, as Turkish officials termed it, a “historic” first in the nuclear discussions. Akyol also highlights an oft-ignored yet extremely relevant point: while the U.S. claims 1200kg is too little to be a relevant exchange, it was President Obama who urged the Turks to haggle for that quantity of LEU in the first place.

Dismissing or marginalizing Turkey’s efforts also belies a forgetfulness on the West’s part as to why Turkey succeeded where the West failed. Turkey, Akyol points out, has credibility in the Middle East, while the West, after two recent wars and the ever-contentious support of Israel’s right to nuclear weapons, does not. To ignore Turkey is to ignore the greatest force for negotiation in the nuclear dispute, the sole source of confidence for both sides.

An article in the Washington Post indicates there are already signs of a major shift in the relationship between Ankara and Washington as a result of the past week’s nuclear negotiations and talk of sanctions. The Post quotes a senior official in Washington as saying, “We’re always going to have important issues with Turkey that we’re going to cooperate on. But, of course, on a matter so important to us, it will inevitably have an impact on the way Americans and Congress and the president will interact with Turkey.” Such rhetoric was unthinkable even months ago; yet because Turkey is willing to stand up to its most powerful ally for its interest in maintaining regional peace and border security, Washington seems ready and willing to downgrade such a previously healthy relationship.

While the past cooperation between Turkey and the West was highly beneficial to both parties, Turkey is basing its stance regarding Iran on legitimate security and economic concerns. Geneive Abdo and Gönül Tol highlight Turkey’s numerous concerns in the event of sanctions or military attack on Iran in an article on the Huffington Post. Turkey and Iran have increased their symbiotic relationships in their energy sectors, border security, and trade. The two nations seek to increase trade to $30 billion per year this year. In the energy sector, Iran supplies much of Turkey’s natural gas and has numerous deals with Turkish companies for the transport of energy to Europe. With regards to regional security, the two nations share a border and a common enemy on their frontiers: the Kurds. In short, sanctions on Iran would significantly damage Turkey’s economy as well, and any instability resulting from a Western strike, or an insecure Iran with its back to the wall, would certainly spill over into Turkey’s border.

The choice President Obama faces is simple. He can pursue sanctions, thereby giving Iran every reason to pull out the stops in its nuclear program, and simultaneously alienating America’s most important ally in the region, Turkey, or he can live up to his promise to prioritize dialogue over threats and confrontation.