#UNGA

I realize it has been a long time since I have published a post and that the chatter surrounding this year's United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has died down along with its accompanying traffic in New York. That said, something truly remarkable happened this year coinciding with the annual General Assembly: the United States and Iran now strongly dislike each other, rather than outright hating each other.

I thought this was in the works years ago when the more liberal Khatami was President of Iran, but my hopes for a thaw between Iran and the United States were dashed when the more bombastic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. During the latter's regime, emboldened by American flailing in neighboring Iraq, Iran stepped up the bellicose rhetoric. It also stepped up efforts to create nuclear weapons.  Besides the hostage crisis which accompanied the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, I don't think we have ever been at a lower point in our relations with them.

Hope arose, however, with the election of the more liberal Hassan Rouhani, who is described as having more liberal leanings while maintaining good relations with the ruling religious elite. So, how do the flashpoint in Syria, the UNGA, and the election of a more reform-minded cleric to the Iranian presidency coincide to suggest the start of reconciliation between Iran and the United States?

Obama

The outcome of the flashpoint over Syria has made President Obama seemingly exasperated with the Middle East. I don't mean this in a bad way. In his speech to the UNGA, Obama made very clear the United States' strategic ambitions vis-a-vis the Middle East. If you wanted a caption for the speech, I don't think you could go wrong with "I'll Do What I Want". Again, I don't mean this to be a condemnation of anything the President conveyed. In fact, I find it quite refreshing.

The speech asked general questions about the current state of the world: how do we respond to Syria and how do we respond to threats against human decency? He then lays out where the United States stands on these issues.

What I find so refreshing is the unambiguous way he lays out the overarching theme of his foreign policy, impressive for a President who can be verbose on his best day and downright rhetorically confounding on his worst. I also like that he is not afraid to call out the "contradiction" that burdens us in the Middle East: "[T]he United States is chastised for meddling in the region, and accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy; at the same time, the United States is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region's problems, and for showing indifference toward suffering Muslims." I think anybody who has been following our forays into the Middle East for the past 20 years let out a loud, validated "THANK YOU!"

Quite correctly, he said this "damned if we do, damned if we don't" dynamic has dampened the American people's will to get involved in such a tinderbox of a region.

He then very unambiguously says he will work diplomatically whenever possible, but "when it's necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct" action. This is a president who liberally - no pun intended - uses remote-control warplanes, so he can definitely walk the walk. This last line and the line "[T]he United States will at times work with governments that do not meet the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests," reflect a much-needed "I'll Do What I Want" swagger that I think has been missing from this President's foreign policy. He didn't make apologies for the inevitable fact that we're going to offend some people due to the very complex realities of foreign policy. He also wasn't afraid to call anyone out: Iran, Russia, Arabs, Republicans.

Rouhani

When I printed out Rouhani's speech to the UNGA, I immediately noticed how much lighter it was than Obama's. I was thus surprised that the Iranian president could say so much in half the number of pages as Obama.

I was also surprised because I heard this guy was such a "reformer" - I'm writing after The Phone Call - yet he packed the first four pages reciting the same charges of American militarism that have been coming from Tehran since the Revolution. He eludes to the Cold War and US-Soviet bipolarity:

"At this sensitive juncture in the history of global relations, the age of the zero-sum games is over, even though a few actors still tend to rely on archaic and deeply ineffective ways and means to preserve their old superiority and domination. Militarism and the recourse to violent and military means to subjugate others are failed examples of the perpetuation of old ways in new circumstances."

Ouch. The branding that he's doing here is very transparent: the US represents the paranoid status quo. He gets to the meat of his vitriol by saying "[p]ropagandistic and unfounded faith-phobic, Islamo-phobic, Shia-phobic, and Iran-phobic discourses do indeed represent serious threats against world peace and human security." Now who's paranoid? While I am sure the history of human aggression can be traced to a lack of Iran-philia, I'm not concerned with what he says as much as I am concerned with how much this sounds like Ahmadinejad. It's bombastic and inconsistent with reality. I didn't really understand why anyone thinks this guy is a reformer.

From here, he continues his tirade against the Western warmongers and their "'superior us' and 'inferior others'" mentality. But, then on page five, it hit me. He lays out two items that Iranian hardliners would call a sop and objective observers might call "green shoots". The first item concerns Iran's nuclear enrichment program, where he unambiguously declares "[n]uclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions." Furthermore, "[Iran] is prepared to engage immediately in time-bound and result-oriented talks to build mutual confidence and removal of mutual uncertainties with full transparency."

Wow. Well, you can't get more clear than that. This is a major step forward and a major concession, neither of which the ultra-nationalist Ahmadinejad would ever be able to utter. Rouhani quickly gets back to making jabs at US-Western militarism and sanctions, but it's all probably to save face. Give the domestic audience some good red meat and convey some realistic foreign policy. It's like a foreign policy feedback sandwich for domestic hardliners.

Am I optimistic? Not yet. But, the fact that leaders of these two countries, who have been downright hostile to each other for 34 years, actually spoke one-on-one is something we haven't seen since the Revolution. I think that's pretty remarkable.

I also think that an eventual normalization of relations between the US and Iran would be hugely beneficial for both. Iran has much more to gain as the end of sanctions and a US market for their energy exports would be a boon. For the US, you find yourself with a major energy producer who is no longer an enemy. Plus, your real power to counter Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East is boosted significantly. But, even if Rouhani delivers - big "if" - we're a long way from normalization, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

So, let's take stock. We have an American president who is no longer shackled by worries of offending anybody and has said he is open to working with anyone who doesn't operate contrary to our core interests. We have a situation in Syria that has been tempered by a diplomatic solution. We have a reform-minded Iranian president who is willing to sit down without pre-conditions. What a confluence of events. But, don't hold your breath.