Nuclear Issues

"This isolation has left Tehran no option but to turn to Moscow. And, as relations between the US and Russia have deteriorated, the Middle Eastern state has the scope to become an evermore decisive and divisive factor."

The United States' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to come to an end, even after the death of Osama Bin Laden. These wars which were initiated and continued based on the sacred and ideological aim of the complete destruction of world terrorism (Al Qaeda) will simultaneously provide the grounds for local and opposing forces to justify their resistance in the form of a sacred ideological war against foreign occupiers. In the case of a bilateral ideological war, with no possible winner, therefore the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have mostly local and regional roots, will not come to end in the near future.

"Following the parliamentary elections of Iraq in March 2010 and the long-time deadlock which had stalled formation of the coalition government for nearly 8 months and the West's disappointing efforts to talk with the Taliban, it is now crystal-clear that the United States cannot tackle these crises single-handedly and needs Iran's cooperation as the main regional actor in settling the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan, either during the presence and even after the withdrawal of American troops from both countries. The importance of this issue becomes manifest as one realizes that curbing terrorist activities in this region is directly connected to the establishment of security and stability in the region after the withdrawal of foreign troops. In such circumstances, Iran's role for the establishment and preservation of stability becomes crucial."

In an interview with Mosallas (Triangle) Weekly, Dr. Kayhan Barzegar pointed out that at present the United States is not in the position of starting a new war in the region and while Iran is set on pursuing its independent uranium enrichment policy, time is against Washington with respect to Iran's nuclear program. Iran is also interested in direct talks and removing the current sanctions. Because of mutual strategic need, especially on solving Iran's nuclear crisis, the two sides will have to interact. This does not necessarily mean establishing close ties of friendship. The nature of issues which both sides are involved in is such that Iran and the United States will remain ideological and strategic rivals in the future.

Vipin Narang, a research fellow with International Security Program and Project on Managing the Atom, discusses nuclear security and terrorism.

"During the last decades, the hardest and most controversial processes of détente between rival countries like the U.S.-Russia and U.S.-China in the 1960s and 1970s occurred after a hard and intense time following the acceptance of 'comparable roles' in talks. Iran's nuclear program can provide a momentous opportunity for Iran-U.S. détente."

Walt: “…..by maintaining a (new) balance you don’t get conflict breaking out and you tilt in favour whichever side seems to be falling behind. At the same time, you do try to discourage conflict whenever possible. You certainly don’t try to control the region yourselves and if the balance breaks down as it did in 1991 and you have to intervene you go in, you get out as quickly as possible. But you don’t try to organize these societies. You don’t try to tell them how to live. You don’t try to tell them how their governments should be organized and you don’t try to transform them at the point of a rifle barrel. This is not disengagement, but it is also not trying to control the region or dictate its political evolution.”

“…we are not going to have a stable long-term situation in the Persian Gulf until the United States and other countries in the region—including Iran—do come to some understanding about the various issues that concern them.  Achieving that goal will require genuine diplomacy…The United States will also have to recognize that Iran’s size, potential power, large population, and its geo-strategic location inevitably make it a major player in the security environment in the Persian Gulf, and ignoring that fact is unrealistic…”

This interview elaborates on the applicability of Nye’s theory of “smart power” in the context of the Middle East and particularly Iran. The discussion further pushes the boundaries on how the current U.S policymakers should take into account soft and smart power towards Iran.

Nye: “… if the Americans, in efforts to try to stop the Iranian’s nuclear weapons program, were to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran, they might gain a few years of slowing down the nuclear weapons program but they would lose the whole generation of younger Iranians who would respond in a nationalistic way. So I think that would be a very large cost for a very limited benefit.”

"Instead of indirect action and communication, and shows of force, Washington should address the Iranians directly, face to face, and advance a win-win game. Iran's concerns in the region are more strategic and pragmatic. The time has come for the Bush administration to accept that installing a Shiite government in Iraq requires Iran's engagement — and that that government's success, as a part of a new American political order, will require that the U.S. address Iran’s concerns simultaneously."