Military Review

USA-IRI: Where do the winds of change blow?

USA-IRI: Where do the winds of change blow?Elena Kasumova, Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science at the Academy of State Administration under the President of Azerbaijan:

- Now they say a lot about the fact that the USA is experiencing a “honeymoon” in relations with Iran. Who would argue: the handsome, discreet Hassan Rouhani looks much more attractive than his predecessor, very similar to the person who can be found in the trading ranks of any eastern bazaar. But the point is probably not in the personalities of Iranian leaders, but in the fact that both the USA and Iran have reached the limits of their capabilities, including geopolitical ones. I think that the Iranian establishment has always understood that they will not be allowed to get their own nuclear weapon and in his nuclear research he dreamed of staying at the point when his possession would become hypothetically possible in the foreseeable future. But now Tehran, exhausted under sanctions, has either convinced itself that it has already approached this line, or has realized that it is becoming extremely dangerous to continue playing with fire.

The United States has driven itself into a no less difficult situation. The potential of threats has already been exhausted, the policy of sanctions has proved to be not catastrophic for Iran. In any case, the opposition did not take to the streets protesting against the “regime of mullahs”. And America is not ready for another full-scale war, as President Obama himself declared. Therefore, entering the political scene of Hassan Rouhani was an excellent reason to reduce the intensity of the American-Iranian contradictions.

This is because President Obama was the initiator of telephone conversations with his Iranian counterpart, and John Kerry managed to retire with the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif at the Six. I suspect that this was a half-hour monologue of the US Secretary of State.

And then, flirting with Iran to President Obama is simply necessary to correct his own image. After the obviously hasty and ill-conceived Syrian demarche, he had to appear before the world community in a certain peacekeeping role. You can’t just swing a baton, which even President Theodore Roosevelt offered to always keep to himself, but at the same time "speak quietly."

I don’t expect any real results from the mutual American-Iranian overtures. The Iranians will conduct their diplomacy, demonstrating, according to Rahbar Khamenei, “heroic gentleness” and delaying the time to solve their political tasks, and the Americans, without lifting the sanctions, will also pull it, waiting for the hardest Middle Eastern puzzle to take shape. clear picture for them.

Costa Magdalenos, political scientist, lawyer, expert of the US-Azerbaijan Foundation for Assistance to Progress:

- Now in the US, some veterans of the American policy nostalgically recall the times when the Iranian Shah was the most loyal American ally, and specialists from the Israeli atomic centers in Dimona and Sorek laid the foundations of the atomic reactor in Bushehr and developed the design of the research reactor in Isfahan. But all this in the past is obviously irrevocable. We are still only on the distant approaches to the productive American-Iranian dialogue that President Obama is ready to begin. I believe in the sincerity of his intentions.

President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have just discussed a strategy for negotiating a nuclear program with Iran. Mr. Netanyahu brought, in fact, Tehran’s surrender plan to his “nuclear dossier”, but Barack Obama did not even mention him in his closing statement, confining himself to a statement about the “highest standards of control over the implementation” of any agreements with Tehran. Of course, there were notes of metal in the president’s voice, but he didn’t drive the cat into a corner, realizing how high the bar of anti-American sentiment had been in Iran for the post-revolutionary years.

Of course, the United States cannot now choose a military option to resolve the Iranian “nuclear dossier.” As one of the clever political scientists noted: “The American people's aversion to external military intervention is so great that voters welcome almost any initiative that reduces American responsibility for external problems.” But in American flirting with Iran, there are other components besides neutralizing Tehran’s nuclear threat.

All are unanimous in the fact that in the Middle East a real sectarian war has unfolded between Sunnis and Shiites. Already there is information that the Islamic militia of Syria came close to the creation of the "Army of Muhammad" in 250 thousands of militants. It seems that these forces have opportunities for numerical growth and prospects for cross-border operations. They are able to remove any Middle Eastern regime from the political map, which is not in the national interests of the United States. A strong and friendly Iran can become a counterweight to Sunni domination, which will help solve the problems of the Middle East and North Africa without the participation of third forces - Russia or China.

Rizvan Huseynov, political analyst, journalist:

- The attention of the world community is focused on possible positive changes in the US-Iranian relations. Hopes for a warming relationship have strengthened in the light of a recent telephone conversation between the US and Iranian presidents. And then the Iranian president’s intention to try to restore air communication between Tehran and Washington emphasized Iran’s interest in improving relations with the United States. However, a day after the mutual overtures to the American and Iranian presidents, at Obama’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, harsh warnings were issued against Iran in case of attempts to create nuclear weapons. In response, Iran immediately accused the United States of undermining the trust and impermanence of the political line. The head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif immediately wrote about this in his microblog on Twitter: “President Obama must be consistent in order to build mutual trust. Sharp turns undermine confidence and weaken the credibility of the Americans. "

Today it is still difficult to judge how far the mutual exchange of courtesies between the US and Iran will go, but, apparently, the failure of the American plan to invade Syria with the aim of overthrowing the pro-Iranian regime of Bashar al-Assad is not the last reason. After all, the fall of the Syrian regime would allow the United States not only to weaken Russia's influence in the Middle East and the Mediterranean, but also to press Iran against the wall, an important ally of which is the Syrian President Assad. However, delaying the resolution of the Syrian issue in favor of the United States forced Washington to look for ways to ease tensions with Iran. In fact, at this stage, this means so far that the tactical victory over the West is led by forces led by China and Russia, who do not want fundamental changes in Syria and especially in Iran.

At the upcoming stage of the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, the States are in dire need of help from Russia, and therefore make concessions on the issue of Syria and Iran. It will be possible to talk about how long the United States will put up with this situation, and how seriously Washington is interested in improving relations with Iran, after the complete evacuation of coalition forces from Afghanistan, especially the main contingent of US troops, whose withdrawal is scheduled for the end of 2014.

Alexey Sinitsyn, chief expert of the US-Azerbaijan Fund promote progress:

- We agree that Iran, which is at the height of confrontation with the Americans, and Iran, which is in the process of negotiations with the United States, are two different situations in the entire Greater Middle East. The second is preferable, as it repeatedly reduces the level of risks not only for Israel, but also for Azerbaijan and other countries of the Caspian basin.

In general, American-Iranian contacts can bring serious political dividends to the United States in the region. The very fact of their existence seriously weakens the "axis of Islamic resistance" to the Americans, to which Iran now wants to join its once worst enemies - the now disgraced "Muslim Brotherhood." However, the “axis” is already bending - there is information that Tehran “as a sign of goodwill” withdraws the Hezbollah fighters from Syria. So far this is an informational “duck”, but it has every chance of becoming a reality.

Another question is whether Americans will be able to make the most profitable use of the fluctuations of Iran’s foreign policy. Too many mistakes, at first glance, have been made by the Barack Obama administration lately. This made it possible for numerous political scientists, paraphrasing a well-known proverb, to ask the ingenious question of “whose tail wags the dog?” who has a major impact on US policy, which is pointless to deny. They call the shadow "world governments", the Israelis, the head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar and even Vladimir Putin ... Or maybe the inconsistency of the current American administration is due to some other logic that the observers do not understand?

The New York Times recently published a “map of the new world born on the ruins of the Arab Spring. Commentator Robin Wright told the readers how Syria, Iraq, Libya would disintegrate, give birth to Kurdistan and even “balkanize” Saudi Arabia. Continuing the thought of Mr. Wright, we note that Iran will not remain aloof from these processes of "political half-life." You can shrug it off - but this is the notorious “reformatting” of the Greater Middle East according to the patterns of President Bush Jr., and not Barack Obama. Then a seditious thought creeps in: if the national interests of the United States are replaced by the interests of transnational companies, then the American foreign policy strategy ceases to depend on the good intentions of any American administration. Is the “reformatting” scenario obligatory for the states of the whole “Eurasian arc of instability”? Is not a fact. Moreover, it is far from a fact that the post-Soviet countries, for example, Azerbaijan will be involved in it. But here everything depends on how strong the internal and balanced foreign policy will be by these states.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nevsky_ZU
    Nevsky_ZU 4 October 2013 15: 16
    Now in the US, some veterans of the American policy nostalgically recall the times when the Iranian shah was the most loyal American ally, and specialists from the Israeli atomic centers in Dimona and Sorek laid the foundations of the atomic reactor in Bushehr and developed the design of the research reactor in Isfahan.

    Still, it’s not for nothing that the Russian Federation strengthens and strengthens the Caspian flotilla ... well, these winds of change , any wind has the ability to change direction, even the most stable and seasonal.
    1. user
      user 4 October 2013 18: 17
      Quite right, if we start where, the Caspian flotilla will not be very far
  2. Stiletto
    Stiletto 4 October 2013 15: 33
    From the article I ... understood, the States again want against the wind ?!
  3. alone
    alone 4 October 2013 15: 35
    the region is slowly but surely turning into a powder keg. and everyone is trying to throw firewood there. Someone is a dozen. But Iran is really going through hard times. Economic sanctions are not allowing the country to develop normally. That’s why we have come to such a rapprochement. Maybe can and agree. it's still better than bombing and devastation
  4. a52333
    a52333 4 October 2013 15: 44
    Israel is furious. This "warming" is not in their favor.
    1. user
      user 4 October 2013 18: 19
      Israel has its first puncture in recent years (well, if nothing changes dramatically), they are writing with boiling water, they have already lost the habit of this.
      1. mikkado31
        mikkado31 4 October 2013 19: 25
        Israel least of all wants to start the war first and alone. If Iran suffers one nuclear strike (theoretically) because of its large territory, then Israel does not have such luxury. And no one will guarantee that the half-crazy Ayatollah will not come to power tomorrow in Iran. And the nuclear baton in the hands of a religious fanatic is extremely dangerous. Therefore, Israel urgently needs to prevent the emergence of nuclear weapons from Islamic fanatics, because Israel understands that they are the first and main target for these bearded men.
  5. Altona
    Altona 4 October 2013 17: 00
    Fortune-telling again on Caspian sand ... Anyway, if only ... Everyone needs a respite, both the USA and Iran ... Not all the time, we wave our wrist with a brush ...
  6. Grbear
    Grbear 4 October 2013 18: 28
    Elena Kasumova, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science
    - Probably studied at a Russian school. Smart and beautiful (albeit blonde). That's what she said in February 2012 and everything came true.
    1. alone
      alone 4 October 2013 22: 15
      she is from an international family. Father is Azerbaijani, mother is Russian. We have many such families.
  7. Prapor-527
    Prapor-527 4 October 2013 18: 48
    ... Tehran "as a sign of goodwill" recalls Hezbollah fighters from Syria ... In response, the United States should withdraw Al Qaeda fighters.
  8. kirieeleyson
    kirieeleyson 4 October 2013 20: 27
    Minus article. The issues discussed by Iran and the USA in no way relate to Azerbaijan. For some reason, all the opinions in the article are connected with the statement of exactly Azerbaijan leaders of foundations, political experts and so on. And in general, what kind of a fund is there for promoting progress) If they are already discussing, then why are there no arguments from Russian experts, experts from the countries of immediate neighbors of Iran, SAR, for example? What are 250 extremists, what is written for nonsense? I consider the article non-objective nirazu, therefore - minuschische healthy.
    1. kirieeleyson
      kirieeleyson 4 October 2013 21: 22
      Yes, at least get angry) bully
    2. alone
      alone 4 October 2013 22: 18
      Quote: kirieeleyson
      Minus article. The issues discussed by Iran and the USA in no way relate to Azerbaijan.

      Well, you are clearly in a hurry. If you argue with your logic, the issues discussed by Iran and the United States do not concern Russia at all))). And tens of millions of Azerbaijanis live in Iran + Azerbaijan borders on Iran after all. So what happens next door is just the same concerns.
      1. kirieeleyson
        kirieeleyson 5 October 2013 18: 47
        I considered this article as a collective way of thinking about the US and Iran, judging by the topic of the headline. Assad in his interviews gave a lot of important and useful comments on this topic, Iranian experts themselves also fairly objectively evaluate extremist activity in their region. Israel quite clearly outlined the threats to the region .. but I read it in other articles, there is only the statement of Azerbaijani experts. I have nothing against Azerbaijan itself, but to be honest, everything that is written above is without soap bubbles like 250 extremists () our comrade from Azerbaijan wrote to us here earlier.
        And I consider writing frank propaganda and the imposition of opinions on these resources at least stupid, since so far they have never relied on facts in their opinions, all some bypass words, such as "we think this is so, because democracy and everything the world community should treat it the way we say it. "
        1. kirieeleyson
          kirieeleyson 5 October 2013 18: 50
          Quote: kirieeleyson
          opinions s

          It meant "america", that is, the USA, the United States, Americans, P.I.N.D.O.S.Y., that is, "real fighting pi ... races."
  9. individual
    individual 4 October 2013 21: 51
    Perhaps everything seems so, but do not forget about the mutual hostility of the Iran-Israel confrontation.
    Behind verbal husks, the tactical steps of great strategic action are hidden. Moreover, on both sides, when no one believes anyone.
    The history of the issue of trust is expensive.
    You don't have to go far for examples. See the latest history. From world wars, Pearl Harbor to Iraq with "ampoules" or Syria with "chemical weapons."
    Here and there "the winds of change are blowing".
    1. svp67
      svp67 4 October 2013 21: 53
      Quote: individ
      Perhaps everything seems so, but do not forget about the mutual hostility of the Iran-Israel confrontation.

      Yes Yes. There is just a good example of Egypt, when they moved from mutual hostility to more or less calm relations ...