Mahmood Monshipouri

SAN FRANCISCO – The latest technical proposals to emerge from meetings at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to defuse the standoff over Iran’s nuclear project represent a clear and convincing victory for diplomacy over the cold war rhetoric that had seen Tehran denounced repeatedly by the Bush administration as part of an “axis of evil.” Under the emerging agreement—still to be ratified by Washington and Tehran and far from a done deal—Iran would ship low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Russia for further enrichment that would then be returned to Iran for use in medical research and treatment. This development occurred despite that fact that Iran is capable of producing the appropriate fuel on its own, and it speaks volumes about the reach and effectiveness of diplomacy.

So far, traditional diplomacy, albeit in the context of new political and economic realities at home and abroad, has prevailed where sanctions, the threat of still further international isolation, and even covert military operations or the possibility of preemptive strikes by the United States or more likely by Israel have failed. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei and other representatives from France, Russia, and the United States have, for now, given their tacit approval to this agreement, with ElBaradei describing it as “a balanced approach to the problem.”

This step draws a line under the “axis of evil” rhetoric, which proved to be both futile and deeply divisive, as shown by growing splits within the Western alliance, as well as with traditional rivals such as Russia and China. This rhetoric inspired a harsh debate in the West and beyond over whether military interventions—unilateral or otherwise—could transform the Middle East. It has become abundantly clear that the preoccupation with such rhetoric during the Bush administration deflected attention from conducting reasonable diplomatic efforts aimed at seeking regional solutions to some of the most contentious issues of the day.

What may prove to be a lasting thaw in the half-century cold war between Tehran and Washington dates from the Obama administration’s expressed willingness to talk with its Iranian counterparts without any preconditions, a step that addressed long-held perceptions in the Islamic Republic that it would be junior partner in any such talks. Now, two questions arise: what brought about a major change in Iran’s policy on the enrichment of uranium so promptly in recent weeks? And, is this apparent change sustainable, given that Iranian leadership is clearly divided on the question of whether to pursue the nuclear program?
While it is true that the Obama administration is working on wide-ranging sanctions package against Iran in case current diplomatic endeavors to contain its nuclear program fail, it is worth examing why the continuation of sanctions or the use of intimidation have failed to produce any results. Arguably, diplomatic accords stand a better chance of altering Iran’s foreign policy behavior than the continuing sanctions and containment policies imposed by the West. Unlike the situation of the past few years, European and American diplomats have placed their multilateral diplomacy in high gear by meeting their Iranian counterparts and keeping matters from reaching UN Security Council. It seems as though they have succeeded, since the Iranians have adopted a different approach—at least for now—notwithstanding divisive leadership in Iran.

Now that Iran seems to have reached an agreement with the IAEA on the method as well as on the rules of investigation, it can use this opportunity to depoliticize its nuclear activities and programs. This agreement does not resolve all outstanding issues between Iran and the United States, but it surely defuses the tension for the time being. Meanwhile, the Europeans’ approach may prove to be vindicated: trade deals and technical assistance could have a moderating influence on Iran. Economic necessities and pressures for rebuilding the country, some experts say, eventually will compel Iran to engage with the West rather than pursuing futile confrontation. Multilateral diplomacy and dialogue are still the art of the possible. The Obama administration must welcome this development while seizing this moment to defuse regional tensions, especially at a time when it is largely preoccupied with the war in Afghanistan.

Future cooperation with Iran also could enhance the possibility of addressing the Palestinian issues in the occupied territories and Hezbullah in Lebanon—two thorny issues in the side of the region’s stability. Obviously, the occupation of Iraq alienated some of key U.S. allies. In such an environment, the return to multilateral diplomacy under the new administration in Washington is a prudential course of action. Iran could also play a positive role in stabilizing U.S. efforts in Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, where the U.S. military and the Obama administration are trying to agree on the scope of the U.S. and NATO mission there.

In hindsight, nothing has fundamentally altered the old adage in the Persian Gulf region that the more Iran is isolated, the more it becomes part of the problem; the more it is engaged, the more it becomes part of the solution. This reality has not been lost on the part of the Obama administration.

Mahmood Monshipouri is an Associate Professor of International Relations at San Francisco State University. His most recent book is entitled, Muslims in Global Politics: Identities, Interests, and Human Rights