Since the release of the Iraq Study Group report last December, the majority of politicians and pundits have supported the commission’s recommendation that the United States engage Iran and Syria in negotiations in order to bring stability to Iraq.
Iran’s recent kidnapping of 15 British soldiers illustrates that negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and others will only distract from the real issues we face in Iraq.
Certain actions demonstrate that the Iranian regime operates by a different calculus than most states in the international system.
Since they came to power, the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have consistently opted to maintain an anti-American stance, even when doing so hurts the strategic interests of their country.
In 1979, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini supported a group of radical students that took over the U.S. Embassy and held 52 American diplomatic personnel hostage for 444 days, transforming Iran into a rogue state in the eyes of the international community.
In 1989, as Iran struggled to rebuild after a decade of war and revolution, President George H. Bush offered to begin a more constructive relationship with Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini responded by issuing a statement urging Muslims to kill writer Salman Rushdie. This eliminated the possibility of Western aid in the country’s reconstruction.
Now, Iran has taken British sailors hostage, reminding the world why the U.S. is concerned about Iran and proving the legitimacy of recent U.N. sanctions against the country.
The glue that held the Iranian revolution together and brought the current regime to power was anti-Americanism. For most of Iran’s leaders, the image of America as the “Great Satan” still weighs heavier than any strategic interests we currently share in Iraq or elsewhere.
Even if Iran’s top policy makers wanted to cooperate with the U.S. to ensure stability in the region, the repercussions for colluding with the “Great Satan” would be severe.
Iran’s current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was considered a moderate by outside experts before he achieved his position in 1989, has proven to be more politically adept than former President Mohammad Khatami.
By continuing the hard-line policies of his predecessor, Ayatollah Khamenei has become the darling of Iran’s conservative religious establishment despite his weak Islamic credentials.
For reasons of political expediency and ideological fervor, Iran’s leaders have publicly indicated no desire to cooperate with the U.S. Nonetheless, at a lower and more covert level, both nations talk to each other on a daily basis and occasionally cooperate.
For example, as Ayatollah Khamenei publicly denounced the U.S. war in Afghanistan as “imperialist,” American transport planes bound for Afghanistan were taking off from airfields in eastern Iran. In addition, Iranian diplomats were working to persuade Afghani warlords to join the U.S. coalition against Iran’s mortal enemy, the Taliban.
Only this type of relationship is possible with an intensely ideologically driven regime, desperately afraid of appearing pro-American to its people.
A broad strategic and public partnership with Iran will never happen. With no foreseeable benefit, public negotiations would only legitimize the regime, undermining America’s current efforts to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.
I hope that the unfortunate capturing of the British sailors will expose the quick-fix option of “open discussion” for the fraud that it is.
Miller is a graduate student in public policy.