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.

More thoughts on Georgia-Russia

From reader Pavel.S:

I don’t agree with Mr.Cheney as well as you, but could you tell what really western leaders should do with Russia? Or maybe you think, Russia has a right for its sphere of influence and all post-soviet countries should reconcile itself that they are in this sphere?

The answers to these questions, I think, are worth fleshing out into a longer post. Pavel, I’ll try and answer your second question first. I think it’s inevitable that in any regional system, one country (or a handful of them) will end up setting the terms of the political conversation. In Europe, it’s France, Germany and the U.K. In Asia, it might be China and Japan. And in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, it’s Russia.

But while stronger countries can and will have some leverage over weaker states, the line should must be drawn at violations of political sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as any other form of coercion. In so far as responding to the Russian invasion, I think the Vice President and others were right to criticize the Kremlin, but Cheney in particular did so in such a way as to seem inflammatory. That’s hardly constructive in this situation.

So what should Western leaders do instead? I read a piece in Time or Newsweek (regrettably, I don’t remember which and can’t seem to find it again online) that I think hit the nail on the head. Far from isolating it with tough talk, Western leaders need to take an un-politicized approach to dealing with Russia. Work to include it in G8 talks. Help it transition from being a security threat to a security provider by encouraging it to join NATO. Increase direct foreign investment in order to better link our economies. Along the way, consistently (but respectfully) remind President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin that both sides have much to gain by reintegrating Russia into the international system. Once they and other prominent Russian leaders realize how beneficial being invested in (and receiving investment from) international institutions can be, their behavior will begin to come into line with other developed nations.

As for an immediate course of action vis-a-vis Russia on the Georgian issue, I think it would be better to refrain from supporting one side or the other and simply lay the blame down on both. Pledging all this support for Georgia simply because it boasts a government that looks mildly similar to America’s serves only to polarize the various factions involved—a risky move, at best. While I wouldn’t withdraw U.S. military support in the interests of rebuilding the Georgian army to deter another Russian attack, I would make it clear to Mr. Saakashvili that any future combat action he initiates will be done on his own, and the consequences are his to bear. Failing to foresee that was his mistake the first time around.