Let the games begin!

Talks on the disputed Iranian nuclear program are to take place on Saturday. These talks will be a decisive point where things can really go in any direction based on the stances that are presented at the talks. Most experts seem to think these talks could be the basis for future negotiations, basically laying the groundwork for the subsequent negotiations. There is no history of goodwill or trust to draw on as strength in the process so negotiating from a position of mutual respect is crucial if either side hopes to lessen the tensions in the region. The crucial question mark in all of this is determining the endgame for Iranian Supreme leader Khamenei. As the leader he has the final say on all matters in Iranian affairs, although there has been speculation as to whether he would have the ability to fully enforce his wishes if leaders of the IRG's wishes are not taken into consideration on nuclear matters. Things are not transparent in Iranian politics and the US doesn't have a complete understanding of the inner workings of the Iranian circles of power.

Slow and steady

There has been little movement in the past few weeks. Negotiations have been set between Iran and the P5+1 to begin on April 13th. The US has made it clear there is an opportunity for a peaceful resolution, but as Hilary Clinton has said, the "window of opportunity... will not remain open forever." The Iranian position is that talks with "mutual respect" will cover a range of topics. This obtuseness on the part of Iran and the converse acuteness of the topics open for discussion by the P5+1 may result in little progress. Without a well defined agenda of topics that are on the table to be discussed and agreed to by both sides, it may prove difficult to find common ground and resolution. I would not expect any developments of note from this negotiation, with the main focus being the setting of an agenda for future negotiations.

Missed Opportunities... and Second Chances?

Could a "Grand Bargain" such as what was put on the table in 2003 by the Iranian reformers and never responded to possibly come to fruition? Preserving the Islamic Republic seems paramount to forwarding the theocracies interests. My analysis is that the "right intention" of Obama sits well within the Iranian regime. Let's not forget that although the prolonged insurgency and reconstruction in Iraq was a difficult process, one which the Iranians know the Americans loathe to repeat, regime change was not. The knowledge of this fact is sure to be ever present in the power circles of Tehran. With Obama having recently sent a secret letter to Khamenei, I believe it is clear to Iranian leaders where Obama stands and at what point he will take military action. When negotiating with the Iranians, coming to the table as an equal with a mutual respect, such as what Obama seemingly portrays, may just be the intangible that changes the equation with all aforementioned factors at play. Only time will tell if this could be a second chance. Be assured that this week we have seen gestures from both Obama, and Khamenei. It could be nothing, or it could be the humble beginnings of something momentous. 

Signs of change?

There was an election in Iran last week whereby Grand Ayatollah Khamenei solidified his power base and tamped down any factionalization of the Iranian political system. The domination of the election by hardliners will actually unify the message of Iran to the US and make for a likely more stable process in negotiations between Iran and the west. The six major world powers have agreed to hold talks with Iran. This may signal a shift in the conflict, as Iran has also agreed to inspections of a suspected secret nuclear weapons site. A statement made by Supreme Leader Khamenei, when he said, "The purpose of the uproar they [the West] cause is to stop us. They know that we are not after nuclear weapons. They already know this. I do not have any doubts that in the countries that are opposed to us, the organizations in charge of decision-making are fully aware that we are not after nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not at all beneficial to us. Moreover, from an ideological and [velayat-e] faqihperspective, we consider developing nuclear weapons as unlawful. We consider using such weapons as a big sin. We also believe that keeping such weapons is futile and dangerous, and we will never go after them. They know this, but they stress the issue in order to stop our movement.", lends credence that Iran is, and intends to be, a rational actor. Even with a virtual bomb the Iranians would most likely continue to act as a rational actor in their own self interest. It seems that these types of overtures have given the Obama administration a renewed strength to challenge Israel on a military option and to push for diplomacy that is may be now taking shape. Although Israel has not made a decision whether to attack or not, they have made it clear they will do what is in the perceived Israeli interest. I suggest the US learns this lesson and chooses to do the same, and does not blindly let Israel lead us down a path to war of aggression. If they feel that is what is necessary for their stability then so be it but let it be without US assistance if they don't want to follow our lead on the issue.

The drum beats on...

Iran refused access to requested nuclear sites by IAEA inspectors on their recent visit. After much talk about renewing negotiations while on site the inspectors were denied access to. Inspectors have once again come to Tehran and according to the Iranian govt they are cooperating fully, but the inspectors have again been denied access to any suspected nuclear sites. Access Denied

On another front, the spy wars between Iran and Israel have increased in lethality as of late as Iran has decided to engage in retaliation for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. There has been an ongoing campaign of assassination of scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program over the last few years with the most recent occurring a couple of weeks ago in Tehran. Subsequently, attacks on Israeli diplomats abroad were carried out in New Delhi, Tblisi, and Bangkok with varying degrees of success. This draws attention to the fact that it looks as if Iran has decided that they will no longer allow themselves to be the passive victim in this campaign but will look to a strategy of using proportional responses to aggression.

What is also of interest, is that the US and British are becoming increasingly vocal in opposition to a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran. Iran is now also taking a page out of the Bush Doctrine now claiming that they have a right of pre-emption. With so many divergent interests, and lack of dialogue between Iran and the west, the prospects of avoiding war seem very slim.

Back and forth...

This week the Iranian president has said that Iran is ready resume negotiations over its disputed nuclear program. The Iranians also allowed a team of UN nuclear inspectors access to its nuke sites and has offered to extend their visit to Iran as to allow more time to inspect. While these developments would seemingly signal a shift in stance, the Iranians also announced development of new weaponry. Specifically they announced that they have developed laser guided artillery which currently only a handful of countries have. Things seem to be happening rather quickly and it is hard to decipher if there is any way to avert war without one side being willing to bend, which currently seems very unlikely. One of the main things to be aware of is that if Iran is attacked it will not attempt to go head to head with the US it has adopted a policy of asymmetric warfare in the event of an attack. I think any scenario of military conflict is likely to result in many unexpected and drastic unforeseen consequences across the whole of the middle east, and possibly on a global scale. All parties should tread carefully for this will be no Iraq or Afghanistan. Iran on some level has been preparing itself for war with the US for over 30 years. If we attack, they will respond and I have a feeling we wont like the results of what happens.

Iran

There is a long history of negative relations between the US and Iran. To understand the current state of US/Iranian relations you have to look back in history to a US backed coup of the democratically elected Iranian govt in 1953.

Fast forward almost 60 years...

Iran has been enriching uranium against the wishes of western governments, primarily the US and Israel. Iran claims its program is for peaceful civilian purposes and has a right to develop this resource. Iranian President Ahmadinejad  in the past has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" and Israel has taken the threats against it seriously, they claim that an Iranian nuclear program is not civilian in nature but for weapons applications. The IAEA has given credibility to these claims in their recently released report. (IAEA report details)

Iran for its part denies these accusations and continue their nuclear activities. The US has now passed new sanctions that penalize third party countries for oil trading with Iran, these stipulations take effect in June. The EU has also passed new oil ban against Iran. (EU/Iran Oil Ban) Iran has responded in by claiming that sanctions will have no effect on it or its research and that if Tehran is not able to export its oil it will shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which 1/5 of the worlds oil passes through daily. The US has in a secret letter from President Obama to Grand Ayatollah Khamenei let Iran know that closing of the strait would be a "red line" which would incur a US military response to keep the strait open. (Obama Letter)

There is much under the surface of what is seen by public eyes. There has been an ongoing power struggle inside the Iranian government itself, as Khamenei has consolidated power in moves to usurp President Ahmadinejad. I will cover this in another complete post. These thought processes have played out in an internal struggle to negotiate with the west which the Ahmadinejad faction supports or to continue on the path to have a nuclear capability no matter the cost to the regime.

What I find interesting is that we use the rational actor model in dealing with Iran. Does a theocratic regime with a religious leader at the head coincide with this methodology? Is the most important thing maintaining power or is there something more? This is a question that needs to be addressed.