Iran-Transatlantic Relations Need New Software

by Nabi Sonboli

Part 3: Looking forward

Mausoleum Imam Reza

There are many more fields of cooperation between Iran, the EU and the US than areas of differences or competition. Stability and development in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Arabian Peninsula to the Levant; contributing to global energy security; security of supply and transit of gas to both the EU and Asian countries; expansion of economic relations and its benefit for EU and US markets; control and containment of terrorism and extremism; preventing drug trafficking, etc., are among the common interest of all sides. It is not understandable why some people, instead of concentrating on so many common interests, are only blowing up minor issues and problems. Even the nuclear issue is not a big problem between the two sides. EU and US participation in the Iranian nuclear program is the best mechanism for confidence building and best objective guarantee for being sure about the nature of the program.

If we compare the Iranian behavior in Iraq and Afghanistan with some of those in the region who are called strategic partner and/or allies by the US and EU countries, the US and NATO have benefited much more from Iranian contributions than others. Appreciating Iranian positive role by constructive behavior and positions is necessary to strengthen mutual confidence.

Those who see their benefit in weakening and even destroying relations between Iran and US-EU need to rethink about that. The more weakened the relations have been, the more they have lost their influence on Iran and the regional developments. Those who push for isolationist policies need to understand who will benefit from such policies. During the past decades, different tendencies have tried to influence Iranian foreign policy: Asianists, Europeanists, Americanists, Isolationists, Globalists, and the supporters of non-alignment are some of them. The shifting focus of Iran’s foreign policy to different directions stems from the existence of different tendencies inside the country. The US and EU pressures have just undermined the position of those who support better relations between Iran and the West. This is why gradually the number of those who are ready to support rapprochement is shrinking.

The US and EU may be able to close their doors, but the key to all doors is not in their hands. Many doors have remained open for Iran. The new generation of businessmen is familiar with Beijing and Shanghai much more than Hamburg and London. The next generation of intellectuals and engineers are more familiar with Indian, Russian and Malaysian universities than French, German and US ones.

Long term pressures and pushes by the US and some European countries have led to less Western influence on Iranian public opinion. The majority of people is neither pro-West, nor anti-West. However, the constant anti-Iran propaganda, blowing up minor issues and creating big problems like sanctions, and launching wars in the region, have led to a loss of credibility of the West among the people. Double standard policies toward democracy and human rights have made these mottos less attractive. The people look for a better life, but none of the foreign countries can claim that they have been supporting a better life for the people. Supporting Saddam during the Iraqi war against Iran, launching the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and imposing sanctions for Iran’s nuclear program that the people support, do not endorse the allegation of wanting a better life for the people in Iran and the region.

Furthermore, gradually a kind of consensus has been created among different political groups on most of foreign policy issues. Stability, solidarity and national unity are the red lines. Iran’s society will not support anyone who crosses them. All political groups oppose a military attack and most of them even oppose any sanction. In addition, the structure of power (put in comprehensive terms) in Iran is pluralistic and different political groups have enough social, political and economic bases to continue their influence on politics. Consequently supporting changes in Iranian politics and/or waiting for them to happen, will not lead to major behavioral changes in foreign and even in internal politics. Hence, we witness more continuity in Iran’s foreign policy than change. This is why neither the wait and see policy nor pro/against positions toward different political groups has led to the expected result.

Additionally, most of the issues that Iran’s foreign policy is involved in are both strategic and international. These features limit Iran’s room to maneuver in its foreign policy. Iran cannot change its positions without witnessing necessary changes in the behavior of others, especially that of the US. However, Iran has not limited its flexibility, like the US and the EU. The latter, by passing different laws and resolutions has bound its hand and limited its options. These self restrictions contribute to self-defeating. The failure of past US sanctions and regulations against Iran shows that this process does not work.

Because of fundamental changes, the old software does not work between Iran and the US and the EU. The interdependence between EU-US has prevented EU-Iran relations from working properly. The experience during the past three decades demonstrates that neither side is unilaterally able to write an appropriate program for a working relationship. To establish mutually beneficial relations, writing a common and effective program is necessary.

Nabi Sonboli holds an M.A.in international relations. He is a Research Fellow at the International and Legal Studies section of the Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS) in Tehran and is currently representing the institute in Berlin working on scientific cooperation.
    

Iran-Transatlantic Relations Need New Software

by Nabi Sonboli

Part 2: Geopolitical aspects

Bridge of Culture, Isfahan

Geographically, Iran is a big country with more than 70 million young population, vast gas and oil resources, located among four major sub-regions: the Persian Gulf, AfPak, the Caspian Region and the Middle East. Iran’s relations with most of its neighbors have been stable during the past two centuries and although Saddam made a big mistake in attacking Iran, Iran-Arab relations also have been satisfactory for a long time. The influence of the Arabic culture and language on Iran and the Persian language cannot be ignored. Because of common history, religious connections and geographical proximity, a separation of Iranians and Arabs on both side of the Persian Gulf is not possible. Social communication is increasing. Every year more than one million people from Iran and Arab countries visit religious places in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Economically, without the Iranian market there will be no UAE as an important international transit economy. The economy of land locked areas in central Asia and Afghanistan will develop much better by connecting them to the Iranian economy, and the Persian Gulf and Turkey through Iran.

Iran’s strategic location plus historical and cultural connections with its neighborhood have contributed to its influence in the region. Iran’s social, economic, technological, and scientific developments in comparison to its surrounding also support the sustainability of the system and its resistance against foreign pressures. All these factors have led to the failure of sanctions and efforts to isolate Tehran. Pressures against Iran have just thickened the wall of mistrust between the two sides.

While the US and the EU have gradually increased the pressure on Iran, they have benefited from Iran’s policies on many important occasions, for example Iran’s opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union and its support of the Afghan resistance movements that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War; opposition to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and supporting freedom of Kuwait; the condemnation of the 9/11 attacks; the support of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against the Taliban; the active participation in state-building and reconstruction of Afghanistan in the post-Taliban era; the active participation in Iraq’s reconstruction and supporting peace, stability and development there, ….

While Iran has been following such positive roles from which the transatlantic countries have benefited, some of their regional allies have played a negative role and have increased the US and the EU burdens especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, the US has condemned Iran and the Bush administration wrongly called Iran as part of “Axis of Evil”.

Summarizing, geographically, economically, politically and culturally, Iran is located at the center of four strategic regions and sub-regions: the Caucasus, Central Asia, AfPak, and the Persian Gulf. During the past three decades and even more, the transatlantic countries have not been able to play a leading role in these regions and solve the problems. During the next two decades the situation will not change to their benefit. Neglecting Iran’s role, the unilateral interventions by the transatlantic countries also have only exacerbated the security situation there and increased their burden.

Bringing peace, stability and development to these regions is among the common vital interest of Iran and the West, (especially the EU, because of its geographic proximity).Those who are not familiar with the realities in the region talk about isolation and sanctions against Iran, but those who are familiar with the realities know very well that Iran is the axis of stability among many instable regions and its isolation is neither possible nor productive.

Nabi Sonboli holds an M.A.in international relations. He is a Research Fellow at the International and Legal Studies section of the Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS) in Tehran and is currently representing the institute in Berlin working on scientific cooperation.
   

Iran-Transatlantic Relations Need New Software

by Nabi Sonboli

Part 1: Past experiences and current realities

Foreign policy is a constellation of applicable ideas and behaviors raised and done by a political system. To understand the foreign policy of a country we need to know the real behaviors on the ground and the applicable ideas with enough support in the political system. Reading the news, especially those that may be distorted or targeted to specific audiences, does not contribute to understanding a country’s foreign policy. When a politician or researcher thinks about the foreign policy of his/her country (s), he takes into account at least two important factors: past experiences and current realities (both internal and external). Although, past experiences between Iran, the US and some influential European countries like UK are not promising, current realities require all sides to learn from the past and think about the future.

During the past two centuries, the number of negative experiences in Iran and its neighborhoods influencing Tehran’s threat perception, have been much higher than the positive ones. From early the 19th till early 21st century, we have witnessed the occupation of the northern part of Iran by Russia in early 19th and the 20th century and by the Soviet Union during the second world war; the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in early 20th century; the invasion of all regional countries from North Africa to Afghanistan by France, the UK, the US, etc. We experienced the long extended intervention of Russia, the UK and the US in Iranian internal politics; the military coup against democratically elected prime minister Mosadeq by US-UK; the support of the Shah dictatorship by western countries; regional and international support for the Iraqi war against Iran; the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by the US and its allies; and three decades of unilateral and multilateral economic, military and technological sanctions; …. There is a long list of negative experiences that influence threat perception of Iranians with any political inclination.

To compare these with positive actions during the same period of time, we can find few cases that the US and main European counties have provided support for Iran. Europe’s limited support of the constitutional revolution in Iran in early 20th century; Germany’s support of Iranian resistance forces against the British occupation of the southern part of Iran; the US ultimatum to the Soviet Union to withdraw from Iran after the second world war, are among the few positive actions contributed to Iranian national security and desires. Despite the incomparable weight of negative to positive behaviors, the image of the West and even the US in Iran has not been so negative. Forgiveness and forgetting as some Iranian cultural characteristics have led them mostly to be optimistic and to think about the future. However, these historical experiences have contributed to a lack of confidence toward the West in general, and the US and the UK in particular. As transatlantic cooperation against Iran increases, the negative image and mistrust that were limited to a few countries in the past expands to include all.

The second factor influencing the decisions is current realities. Iran’s regional policy is based on regional realities surrounding the country and imposed on the region. During the past three decades we have been living in one of the most unstable and war-ridden regions in the world. The Iraqi war against Iran (1980-88), the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan (1979-89), the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait with the subsequent clashes between the US, the UK and Iraq, followed by the invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies (1990-still continues), the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the civil war in Afghanistan (1989-2002), the invasion of Afghanistan (2002- still continues), the war between Russia and Georgia (2008) etc. We have not witnessed any year without war or crises for three decades in the Iranian neighborhood. The background of all these instabilities and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Caucasian region and the Middle East shows clearly that Iran has had no role in creating them. These instabilities have been the main obstacle toward regional economic, social and political development, and the root cause of the current problems. Iran has not benefited and will not benefit from these instabilities in its surroundings.

Naturally these wars and instabilities influence the threat perception of any nation living there and Iran is not an exception. This situation has shaped two elements of Iran’s grand strategy: independence and resistance. Iran’s efforts to achieve autarky and independence in different economic and technological fields including nuclear energy, nanotechnology, biotech, airspace, etc., have been evident during the past decades. Following such a policy with limited resources is difficult and costly, but the lack of confidence toward the US, the UK etc., and living in an insecure region have encouraged Iran to diversify its foreign relations and increase its independence in vital areas. Resistance has been the second element in Iran’s foreign policy, influenced by its historical experience. Resistance is a defensive policy, not an ambitious or offensive one. It has both historical and cultural backgrounds in Iran’s and Shiite history and geographical basis.

Culturally, Iran’s national and political culture has received more influence from mysticism as a peaceful worldview. The influence of mysticism on the works of almost all important writers, which have had deep impact on Iran’s culture, is visible. Shahnameh as the most important text for all nationalist and pan-Iranist groups is a clear example. It mixes nationalism and heroism with mysticism and rationality. Another reason for defensiveness of nationalistic tendencies is that Iran has always been a big country, and foreign domination or national disintegration has been the main concern. Shiite culture as minority culture among Sonny majority in Muslim word is defensive. In addition the influence of mysticism on Shiite history and political culture in Iran is also well known. Although Shiite have had a long history in Iran, but during the Safavid period it was announced as the official religion. The term Safavi means Sufis that is based on mysticism. The Safavid dynasty expanded Shiite as a defensive identity policy against the expansionist policies of the Ottoman Empire. This is why rarely we find expansionist ideas even among Shiites.

Furthermore, Iran - both as a multiethnic society and as a majority Shiite and Arian in a multiethnic and multi-religion context including Arabs, Turks and Sonnies, Christians and Jews - knows its own limitations in following any ambitious and expansionist policy. This is why historically Iran has tried to have good relations with all its neighbors, especially the minorities. Supporting different Shiite, Sonny and even Christian groups in the region, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Lebanon, stems from such an understanding. The existence of different minorities in Iran has also created a bridge between Iran and other countries in the region. This is why Iran has been able to play as an axis of stability. The official borders are not the real borders and any external instability has internal consequences for Iran. Immigration of millions of people from Afghanistan, Iraq and Azerbaijan during internal and external wars in these countries is a clear example.

Nabi Sonboli holds an M.A.in international relations. He is a Research Fellow at the International and Legal Studies section of the Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS) in Tehran and is currently representing the institute in Berlin working on scientific cooperation.
    

Hoe Iran kan bijdragen aan de pacificatie van het Midden-Oosten en Centraal Azië

    
De komende dagen laat Geopolitiek in perspectief Nabi Sonboli aan het woord, die als analist verbonden is aan het Iraanse Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS) in Teheran en momenteel het Instituut vertegenwoordigt in Berlijn.

Wij kennen de Iraanse politicoloog van de verhitte debatten rond het Iraanse nucleaire programma op de neoconservatieve Duitse "online denktank" Atlantic Community (AC), waar hij opviel door de diplomatieke manier waarop hij enkele heethoofden van repliek diende en een verrassend ander beeld van Iran schetste dan de gangbare propaganda in het Westen. In zijn bijdragen op AC wijst Sonboli op het gedrag van de wereldmachten in de onmiddellijke omgeving van Iran. Met “15+1 buren (de VS is onze grootste buur) en omringd door allerlei internationale problemen" in een regio waar Iran een hoofdrol speelt, meent hij dat het een illusie is om te denken dat het Westen zijn problemen kan oplossen zonder samenwerking met Iran. Men moet van het Midden Oosten en Centraal Azië geen regio maken waar de grootmachten hun rivaliteit botvieren, aldus Sonboli op AC. Zie ook het artikel “How an Iranian analyst stands up to his Western prospective peers”.

De komende dagen werkt Sonboli zijn ideeën in drie artikelen verder uit. Vanuit historisch perspectief wijst hij op de bezetting van Iran door Rusland in de 19e en 20e eeuw en door de Sovjet-Unie tijdens de tweede wereldoorlog, op de val van het Ottomaans Rijk in de 20e eeuw, de invasies van alle landen in de regio door Frankrijk, het Verenigd Koninkrijk en de VS, en op de daarmee gepaard gaande interventies in de binnenlandse politiek van Iran. En in de recentere geschiedenis op de omverwerping door de VS en het Verenigd Koninkrijk van de democratisch verkozen regering Mosadeq, de steun van het Westen voor de dictatuur van de Shah, de steun aan de Iraakse aanvalsoorlog tegen Iran, de invasie en bezetting van Irak en Afghanistan door de VS en zijn bondgenoten, en op drie decennia economische, militaire en technologische sancties tegen Iran.

Samenvattend een geschiedenis vol negatieve ervaringen die de perceptie van dreiging van buitenaf voeden en vanzelfsprekend een rol spelen in het buitenlands beleid van Iran. Sonboli komt tot de conclusie dat door de fundamentele veranderingen in de regio de “oude software” tussen Iran en het Westen niet meer werkt. Hij pleit voor het herijken van de relaties, wat noopt tot de ontwikkeling van een gemeenschappelijk en effectief programma.

Aan de drie artikelen van Nabi Sonboli laten wij vandaag de video van Peter Lavelle’s CrossTalk van 24 februari op het Russische satellietkanaal RT onder de titel “Will the US have a say in the Middle East scenario?” voorafgaan, waarbij Harold Rhode en Johan Galtung de degens met elkaar kruisen en Peter Lavelle probeert het debat in goede banen te leiden. De discussie is exemplarisch voor het gedachtegoed van voor- en tegenstanders in Amerika van sturend optreden bij het hertekenen van het Midden-Oosten. Let op het dominante optreden van Rhode, die gerekend wordt tot de groep Amerikaanse neoconservatieven waarvan Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby en Richard Perle de bekendste zijn. Het is ook interessant de reacties op de uitzending te lezen. De mooiste is waarschijnlijk “An empty can makes the most noise”, holle vaten klinken het hardst…