Have a comment? A story idea? Let us know.

The case for Iran

The common sentiment in the United States over the last eight years has been to see Iran as some sort of terrorism mastermind.

By Reid Bagwell

Published April 5, 2009

+ click photographs to enlarge

Illustration by Daryl Seitchik

The common sentiment in the United States over the last eight years has been to see Iran as some sort of terrorism mastermind. In that narrative, Iranian agents have sown discord in Iraq by funding the Badr Brigade and Mahdi Army and have strengthened terrorist groups in Lebanon and Gaza. Iran, the Bush administration argued, was at the heart of every major Middle East problem. The country’s recent decision to brush off American diplomatic overtures as meaningless without accompanying changes in policy only adds credence to this belief.

Obama, however, is right to press on diplomatically. Any country entering into diplomacy with a long term enemy will be suspicious until the negotiations have produced actual results. Iran continues to maintain that it is willing to talk to the U.S. and hopes that the U.S. is being genuine in its desire to reach out. In addition, when we look at Iran’s actions and interests, we see a country that could be a useful and willing partner for the United States in the Middle East. Iran’s interests overlap America’s on many fronts.

In the past, Iran has opposed US actions. That opposition, however, must be seen in context. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, it placed the army of a nation that had called Iran part of an “axis of evil” on Iran’s border. Iran thought it might well be next if the war in Iraq succeeded. To be fair, many Americans wanted Iran to be next if the war succeeded, so Iran’s fear was hardly unwarranted. In this context, it is not surprising that Iran opposed the US venture in Iraq.

As American sentiment turned away from wars and nation building, Iran’s actions in Iraq became far more helpful. Iran has always been a large supporter of the Islamic Dawa Party, to which Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, belongs. Once the Maliki government proved itself capable of protecting Shiites and ending the ethnic cleansing, radical Shiite groups like the Badr Brigade ceased to work openly against it. The Mahdi Army, always too populist and anti-authority for Iran’s tastes, has fallen extensively out of favor. If anything, Iran now backs Iraq’s government. A stable Shiite led Iraq serves Iran’s interests far better than chaos that could spill over.

In Afghanistan, Iran has always been highly supportive of the U.S. mission. To Iran, the Sunni radical Taliban government, which saw Shiites as apostates worthy of death, was a terrible threat. The new government has strong economic ties with Iran (Iranian currency is preferred in Herat province) and shares Iran’s interests in eliminating the drug trade plaguing both countries. Iran has strong vested interest in a stable Afghanistan under a non-Taliban government, much the same as Iran needs a stable Iraq under a Shiite/Kurdish government, the result that U.S. style democracy will continue to yield.

The most obvious sticking point between Iran and the United States is Israel. Iran continues to fund anti-Israeli groups and it would take a healthy offer by the U.S. to make Iran desist. Still, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria all once promised never to recognize Israel. Now the first two do and Syria is seen as a possible negotiating partner. There is no reason to presume that Iran is singularly implacable and cannot be made to accept Israel, when countries actually in the shadow of the Israel Defense Forces and with histories of war against Israel have done so.

Iran’s interests are not a perfect match with the United States’, but there is more than enough overlap to make Iran a valuable negotiating partner. Iran has a lot to offer America, most importantly due to its ability to project stability into Iraq’s Southern provinces by reining in militias that rely on it for funds. Iran and the United States are tied together by a mutual fear of Sunni extremists like al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While the many points of contention guarantee that Iran isn’t going to be a U.S. ally any time soon, both sides would benefit from talks, and Iran holds enough of the keys in the region that peace and success without Iranian cooperation is hard to imagine. Continuing to try to overcome Iranian distrust and make Iran a part of the solution in the Middle East will be well worth the effort.

Tags: Opinion, Reid Bagwell, Daryl Seitchik, Foreign Policy, Iran, US