SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Burying the Hatchet with Iran
The US and Iran are closer than ever to letting go of their rivalry.
Nov 07, 2014
Don't tell anyone, but the United States and Iran are getting closer -- perhaps closer than ever -- to letting go of 35 years of enmity.
No, Washington and Tehran aren't going to be BFFs or anything.
But they do share a common interest in rolling back the so-called Islamic State, whose well-armed militants have declared an extremist Sunni caliphate stretching across Syria and Iraq.
The United States is anxious to restore the Iraqi government's authority in oil-rich Iraq, while Iran is eager to defeat a murderously anti-Shiite militia on its western flank.
Both governments have sent arms and advisers to their mutual allies in Baghdad. And though neither Washington nor Tehran wants to advertise it, in a few places the U.S. and Iranian militaries are apparently engaging in some operational coordination against the Islamic State.
Meanwhile, the diplomats negotiating the future of the Iranian nuclear research program remain cautiously optimistic about reaching a deal.
Though a final nuclear agreement has yet to materialize, both Washington and Tehran seem to feel it is better to keep talking than to stop.
"The world is clearly better off now than it would have been if the leaders on both sides had ignored this opening," top U.S. negotiator Wendy Sherman concluded after the most recent round of talks, which the Iranian foreign minister praised for focusing on "solutions."
The deeper reasons for this cautious detente are political as well as strategic.
In Tehran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is hitching his electoral fortunes to his ability to temper tensions with the West and ratchet down U.S.-led sanctions. With oil prices falling, the economic stakes are going up. In Washington, meanwhile, President Barack Obama could use a win of any kind.
And the volatility that followed both the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the wave of upheaval generally known as the "Arab Spring" points to a weakness in Washington's grand strategy in the Middle East. Namely, the U.S.-backed Arab regimes that are supposed to keep the oil flowing and prevent another multi-front Arab-Israeli war aren't as stable as they'd like Washington to believe.
Iran, by contrast, has managed several relatively peaceful (if limited) successions of power in the last three decades. Realists in the White House must be tempted to think that the Middle Eastern oil patch would be safer with Iran inside the U.S. alliance system.
Yet die-hards on both sides would like to see the U.S.-Iran cold war persist.
In Iran, Rouhani's arch-conservative foes seize upon every hint that he's burying the hatchet with the Great Satan. Their political relevance hinges upon Iran's isolation from the world, so they want to see Rouhani fail.
On Capitol Hill, lobbyists for Israel and the Arab Gulf states are determined to block any U.S. opening to Iran. Congress continues to threaten the precarious nuclear negotiations with talk of additional sanctions, and there are plenty of Iran hawks in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies as well.
A nuclear accord would mark only the first step toward a full rapprochement between Washington and Tehran. And even that wouldn't necessarily mean a more peaceful or democratic Middle East.
It would, however, banish the specter of a U.S. war with Iran. With Americans bogged down in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and beyond, that would be no small thing.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This column was distributed by OtherWords.
Chris Toensing
Chris Toensing is editor of Middle East Report, published by the Middle East Research and Information Project. www.merip.org
Don't tell anyone, but the United States and Iran are getting closer -- perhaps closer than ever -- to letting go of 35 years of enmity.
No, Washington and Tehran aren't going to be BFFs or anything.
But they do share a common interest in rolling back the so-called Islamic State, whose well-armed militants have declared an extremist Sunni caliphate stretching across Syria and Iraq.
The United States is anxious to restore the Iraqi government's authority in oil-rich Iraq, while Iran is eager to defeat a murderously anti-Shiite militia on its western flank.
Both governments have sent arms and advisers to their mutual allies in Baghdad. And though neither Washington nor Tehran wants to advertise it, in a few places the U.S. and Iranian militaries are apparently engaging in some operational coordination against the Islamic State.
Meanwhile, the diplomats negotiating the future of the Iranian nuclear research program remain cautiously optimistic about reaching a deal.
Though a final nuclear agreement has yet to materialize, both Washington and Tehran seem to feel it is better to keep talking than to stop.
"The world is clearly better off now than it would have been if the leaders on both sides had ignored this opening," top U.S. negotiator Wendy Sherman concluded after the most recent round of talks, which the Iranian foreign minister praised for focusing on "solutions."
The deeper reasons for this cautious detente are political as well as strategic.
In Tehran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is hitching his electoral fortunes to his ability to temper tensions with the West and ratchet down U.S.-led sanctions. With oil prices falling, the economic stakes are going up. In Washington, meanwhile, President Barack Obama could use a win of any kind.
And the volatility that followed both the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the wave of upheaval generally known as the "Arab Spring" points to a weakness in Washington's grand strategy in the Middle East. Namely, the U.S.-backed Arab regimes that are supposed to keep the oil flowing and prevent another multi-front Arab-Israeli war aren't as stable as they'd like Washington to believe.
Iran, by contrast, has managed several relatively peaceful (if limited) successions of power in the last three decades. Realists in the White House must be tempted to think that the Middle Eastern oil patch would be safer with Iran inside the U.S. alliance system.
Yet die-hards on both sides would like to see the U.S.-Iran cold war persist.
In Iran, Rouhani's arch-conservative foes seize upon every hint that he's burying the hatchet with the Great Satan. Their political relevance hinges upon Iran's isolation from the world, so they want to see Rouhani fail.
On Capitol Hill, lobbyists for Israel and the Arab Gulf states are determined to block any U.S. opening to Iran. Congress continues to threaten the precarious nuclear negotiations with talk of additional sanctions, and there are plenty of Iran hawks in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies as well.
A nuclear accord would mark only the first step toward a full rapprochement between Washington and Tehran. And even that wouldn't necessarily mean a more peaceful or democratic Middle East.
It would, however, banish the specter of a U.S. war with Iran. With Americans bogged down in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and beyond, that would be no small thing.
Chris Toensing
Chris Toensing is editor of Middle East Report, published by the Middle East Research and Information Project. www.merip.org
Don't tell anyone, but the United States and Iran are getting closer -- perhaps closer than ever -- to letting go of 35 years of enmity.
No, Washington and Tehran aren't going to be BFFs or anything.
But they do share a common interest in rolling back the so-called Islamic State, whose well-armed militants have declared an extremist Sunni caliphate stretching across Syria and Iraq.
The United States is anxious to restore the Iraqi government's authority in oil-rich Iraq, while Iran is eager to defeat a murderously anti-Shiite militia on its western flank.
Both governments have sent arms and advisers to their mutual allies in Baghdad. And though neither Washington nor Tehran wants to advertise it, in a few places the U.S. and Iranian militaries are apparently engaging in some operational coordination against the Islamic State.
Meanwhile, the diplomats negotiating the future of the Iranian nuclear research program remain cautiously optimistic about reaching a deal.
Though a final nuclear agreement has yet to materialize, both Washington and Tehran seem to feel it is better to keep talking than to stop.
"The world is clearly better off now than it would have been if the leaders on both sides had ignored this opening," top U.S. negotiator Wendy Sherman concluded after the most recent round of talks, which the Iranian foreign minister praised for focusing on "solutions."
The deeper reasons for this cautious detente are political as well as strategic.
In Tehran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is hitching his electoral fortunes to his ability to temper tensions with the West and ratchet down U.S.-led sanctions. With oil prices falling, the economic stakes are going up. In Washington, meanwhile, President Barack Obama could use a win of any kind.
And the volatility that followed both the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the wave of upheaval generally known as the "Arab Spring" points to a weakness in Washington's grand strategy in the Middle East. Namely, the U.S.-backed Arab regimes that are supposed to keep the oil flowing and prevent another multi-front Arab-Israeli war aren't as stable as they'd like Washington to believe.
Iran, by contrast, has managed several relatively peaceful (if limited) successions of power in the last three decades. Realists in the White House must be tempted to think that the Middle Eastern oil patch would be safer with Iran inside the U.S. alliance system.
Yet die-hards on both sides would like to see the U.S.-Iran cold war persist.
In Iran, Rouhani's arch-conservative foes seize upon every hint that he's burying the hatchet with the Great Satan. Their political relevance hinges upon Iran's isolation from the world, so they want to see Rouhani fail.
On Capitol Hill, lobbyists for Israel and the Arab Gulf states are determined to block any U.S. opening to Iran. Congress continues to threaten the precarious nuclear negotiations with talk of additional sanctions, and there are plenty of Iran hawks in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies as well.
A nuclear accord would mark only the first step toward a full rapprochement between Washington and Tehran. And even that wouldn't necessarily mean a more peaceful or democratic Middle East.
It would, however, banish the specter of a U.S. war with Iran. With Americans bogged down in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and beyond, that would be no small thing.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.