The top 5 Iran variables facing the Obama administration

Looking at the news coming out of Iran, it’s hard to know where things stand. Will U.S.-Iranian relations improve in the coming months, or will they sour? Here are the key variables (in no particular order) that will likely determine the outcome of the equation:

1. President Obama. Obama’s election has elicited an immense outpouring of goodwill on the part of the U.S.’s European allies, and has even gotten Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to crack open his shell. Obama has repeatedly signaled his willingness to renew U.S.-Iranian dialogue, from his inaugural speech (“unclench your fist“) to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s observation that “as we look at the opportunities available to us, we are going to have a very broad survey of what we think we can do.” At the same time, Obama has also made clear that he’s not afraid of applying pressure if necessary.
2. European commitment. With what seems like a friendlier White House, Europeans appear to be (slightly) more willing to press Iran again on its weapons development program. This is exactly the subject that U.S. officials are going to discuss with European leaders, starting tomorrow. It’s still unclear whether Europe will go along with Obama. Here’s my educated guess: they’ll stick with him as long as there is a reasonable chance of success. But should things stumble slightly, I think they’ll spook. Why? Well, here’s what the NYT said, according to European diplomats: “France, Britain and Germany might be willing to consider sanctions if the Obama administration makes an effort to improve the atmosphere with Iran first.” Decoded, it sounds like those nations are willing to let Obama do the dirty work, and if relations improve, then no sanctions will be necessary and Europe will be off the hook. And if relations fail to improve, then Europe can simply say Obama didn’t try hard enough and that he should work more. So far, I’m skeptical that Europe is truly invested in this.
   

   Source: http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/light_up_big.jpg

3. Iranian weapons technology. Despite last year’s National Intelligence Estimate that proved the Bush administration wrong on Iran, all indications are that Tehran will eventually figure out how to build a nuclear weapon if the West does nothing. Iran launched its first space satellite today, according to various sources. The missile technology that lofted the satellite was, according to French officials, “very similar” to ballistic missile technology and could lead to the production of just such a weapons-delivery system. As Iranian technology improves, pressure will increase upon Western nations (and especially on Obama) to find a solution. The closer Iran gets to an MRBM or ICBM, the less pretty that solution will turn out to be.
4. Iranian politics. Iran will be holding its next set of presidential elections this June. Rumors are circulating that Mohammad Khatami, the “moderate former Iranian president,” may announce his candidacy. “So far,” Passport quips, “[Khatami] hasn’t announced squat.” Whatever the outcome of that situation, this year’s elections should prove vitally important to the way the U.S. approaches the Iranian problem overall. Obama will have to interpret all of Ahmedinejad’s reelection contortions, for one. For another, if Khatami or another individual gets voted into office, that would drastically change the terms of the discussion. Obama might have more influence with someone like Khatami. But then again, if Ahmedinejad gets reelected (which I think is likely), we’re back to square one. With the stake a little higher.
5. Russia and China. Both have significant interests in Iran, and both have opposed sanctions against Tehran in the past. Without their support for Western efforts, it’ll be tough trying to get anything done, whether that means showing them the carrot or the stick.

What other factors do you think will shape the outcome of the drama over Iran?

[UPDATE]: The United Arab Emirates has just agreed to accept the U.S.’s help in creating a nuclear energy program that cannot be converted for weapons-development purposes, reports the IHT. If this succeeds, it could set a precedent and provide a possible solution to Iran. Iran won’t like hearing it, but if its intention is to truly create a peaceful nuclear electricity infrastructure, then it has no good reason to reject this option. Rebuffing the UAE path is only likely to raise Western suspicions about ulterior Iranian motives even more.

Bringing balance to American foreign policy

Even before taking office, Hillary Clinton has begun strengthening the U.S. State Department, says the IHT. In addition to her intentions to increase the role of special envoys in American diplomacy, Clinton also hopes to expand her organization’s financial resources.

All good moves.

To date, the balance between force and diplomacy has been heavily skewed in favor of the former. Since 2003, the U.S.’s defense budget has surged by nearly 70 percent, according to the OMB. Over the same period, the budget for the State Department rose just 33 percent. The discrepancy becomes even clearer when we start looking at raw numbers. In FY2009, State expects to spend about $38 billion, whereas Defense will receive upwards of $515 billion.

To be fair, the military’s operating costs will always probably be higher thanks to expensive weapons development programs and the like. But such a large disparity in funding (nearly $480 billion!) is mindblowing. At the very least, it’s plausible that State could benefit from additional resources. Going even further, it might be worth arguing that this imbalance between political and military priorities should be corrected.

Imbalance has created disorder and inefficiency. A smart-power approach would restore the balance and see State and Defense working in concert and as equals. Neither organization is perfect in itself, which is why they need each other. It’s telling that the nation’s top security administrators are in agreement on that point:

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private, said Clinton was being supported in her push for more resources by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Obama’s incoming national security adviser, General James Jones Jr.

For years, some Pentagon officials have complained that jobs like the economic reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq have been added to the military’s burden when they could have been handled by a robust Foreign Service.

Clinton’s effort to expand the State Department’s power promises not only to lift a burden off the military’s shoulders, but also to give a much-needed injection of soft power balance to a sluggish U.S. foreign policy.