Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program have again hit a wall, but Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appears unconcerned. Indeed, Khamenei seems convinced that neither the US nor Israel will attack its nuclear facilities — at least not before the US presidential election in November.
Ironically, while Khamenei is no fan of democracy, he relies on the fact that his principal enemies are bound by democratic constraints. Khamenei controls Iran’s nuclear program and its foreign policy, but the US and Israel must work to reach consensus not only within their respective political systems, but also with each other.
Iran’s leaders, who closely follow Israeli political debates, believe that Israel would not launch an assault on their nuclear facilities without the US’ full cooperation, because unilateral action would jeopardize Israel’s relations with its most important strategic ally. Given that an Israeli offensive would need to be coordinated with the US, while a US assault would not require Israeli military support, Iran would consider both to be US attacks.
However, Iranian leaders remain skeptical of either scenario, despite the US’ official position that “all options are on the table” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability. So far, they simply do not feel enough pressure to consider a compromise. In fact, Iran’s leaders continue to deride Israel from afar, calling the country an “insult to humanity,” or a “tumor” in the region that must be eradicated.
Meanwhile, Iranian citizens — including clergy in the holy city of Qom, near the Fordow nuclear facility — are deeply concerned about the consequences of an attack. Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, a former attorney general and a religious authority, has asked Tehran to refrain from provoking Israel.
Indeed, critics of the Iranian government believe that its incendiary rhetoric might lead to a devastating war. However, from the perspective of Iran’s leadership, the taunting has tactical value to the extent that it reinforces the view among the Israeli public that Iran is a dangerous enemy, willing to retaliate fiercely.
Anti-Israel rhetoric reflects Iranian leaders’ confidence that Israel will not attack — a view that is bolstered by the situation in Syria. They are convinced that even if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime falls, Iran will be able to destabilize the country in such a way that it would pose a major security threat to Israel. According to this view, it is Israel that has an interest in refraining from further antagonizing Iran, not vice versa.
Recent editorials in Kayhan — the hardline Iranian newspaper that serves as a mouthpiece for the Supreme Leader — indicate that Khamenei is looking forward to the US presidential election. Regardless of the outcome, he foresees no threat of military action, at least through next year. A victory by US President Barack Obama would reinforce the US’ unwillingness to attack Iran and renewed efforts to rein in Israel. If Republican US presidential candidate Mitt Romney is elected, he will need months to form his national security team and assemble his Cabinet, leaving him unable to attack Iran immediately.
That said, since the Islamic Republic’s emergence in 1979, Iranian leaders have generally preferred Republican presidents to Democrats, because despite their harsh rhetoric, Republicans have been more willing to engage with Iran in practice. Given that Iran has so far survived severe international sanctions, its leaders believe that they could get an offer from the US after the election — particularly if Romney wins — that recognizes their right to enrich uranium.
It is far from certain that Iran will be able to withstand current sanctions related pressures indefinitely, but its leaders’ confidence that they can remains a crucial element of their strategy, and the West cannot afford to ignore their perceptions. The US, whether led by Obama or Romney, must understand that Iran will not negotiate seriously on its nuclear program until it perceives a clear, convincing and unified consensus in the US and Israel on an approach that addresses both Iran’s ambitions and Israel’s concerns.
Achieving such a consensus in the context of a US presidential election will be no small feat. Nor is it easy to create consensus in Israel, especially as its political parties prepare for elections next year. However, only with significantly greater cohesion within the US and Israel will Iran’s leaders even consider accepting a compromise on their nuclear program.
Mehdi Khalaji is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing