With Israel fully engaged in an ongoing conflict to diminish both
the military and political standing of Hamas, there is another, arguably more
demanding, Middle East challenge that sits in waiting for President-Elect
Barack Obama: the conflict between the United States and Iran. Throughout
the presidential campaign, Obama optimistically discussed his hope and vision
for the establishment of a dialogue with Iran. Never were
the underpinnings for such a dialogue clearly defined. Though Obama demonstrated no
hesitancy in critiquing the Bush administration as having a failed policy on Iran, he never did explain how his own strategy will bridge the
gaping disparities in worldview and national objectives that come between Iran and the United States.
Consider the following
realities. Iran has stated definitively that it desires the destruction
of the State of Israel, a key American ally.
Iran has pursued dominance of the Persian/Arabian Gulf, contrary
to the wishes of neighboring Gulf
States. Iran is also the principle state sponsor of some of the
world’s most dangerous terrorist organizations.
And as a signatory to the International Atomic Energy Commission, Iran promises not to develop nuclear weapons yet uses its
membership to gain access to the technology that will ensure nuclear weapons
development. What makes this all
possible is a combination of factors: gall on the part of the Islamic Iranian
Regime; greed from technology providers acting in the interests of governments
and private companies; and finally the utter cowardliness of the vast majority
of nation states that would prefer to look the other away rather than confront
Iran. All of Iran’s activities invite terrible danger. And though Iran’s support to terrorism threatens dangerous military
reprisal, it is the country’s nuclear ambitions that truly risk igniting a
nuclear arms race in the Middle
East and open up the
possibility of a true catastrophe.
President Obama will find
that Iran in 2009 is a more recalcitrant and difficult
negotiating partner. In recent days, Iran’s ultimate ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has
hardened Iranian positions throughout the country through his support of
numerous former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Basij Commanders. Eight such men are currently members of the Iranian
Cabinet and a half a dozen others serve as provincial Governors. To appreciate
the ramifications of this development, one must take a closer look at the IRGC.
Created at the time of the Iranian
Islamic Revolution to serve as a counter-balance to the Iranian Armed Forces, the
IRGC swears an allegiance to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rather
than to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (himself a former IRGC
Officer). The basis of IRGC ideology is a
strict adherence to the defense of the Islamic nature of the Iranian regime and
rejection of U.S. policies that aim to limit Iranian regional
influence. The hardliners of the IRGC
have, like former KGB and GRU Officers in Russia, exponentially expanded their control over the
instruments of power and wealth within their country. The IRGC controls security for Iran’s nuclear program. It manages construction contracts and an array
of state industries. It has even taken
control of the Bonyad Mostafazin (Organization for the Oppressed), which was
charged with managing all the wealth seized from the former Shah of Iran and
his associates.
Despite a downturn in the
world economy and steep reduction in the price of oil—which drives the Iranian
economy—Iran’s true believers will be difficult to draw to the negotiating
table and then almost impossible to deal with if and when they arrive. Their overriding concern will remain the survival of the Islamic nature of the regime, not the establishment of a
median income that compares to the West.
Iran views Israel’s attack on Gaza as yet another American-inspired assault on Islam and
will likely only harden its commitment to the creation and maintenance of a
nuclear arsenal as the ultimate guarantor of security. The challenge for President Obama will be to
move from fanciful campaign rhetoric to a substantive plan for the advancement
of a US-Iranian dialogue—which will ultimately have to include Iranian
hardliners who know only violence and ambition.
