Although the state of the economy has understandably preoccupied this administration, President Obama sent a signal Friday indicating he will still pursue his foreign policy priorities even in the face of prevailing domestic concerns. His video message represents a significant change in American policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Regardless of whether they approve of the new direction, Americans at least recognize it is indeed a break from the government's previous stance on the regime. Iran, however, is less sure. Its doubts are well-founded. For almost 30 years, the U.S. posture toward Iran has been hostile. Most recently, under our last president, Iran was included as part of the "axis of evil." At least some of Iran's suspicion probably stems from shock. After decades of what it has seen as abuse, Obama's outreach is difficult to comprehend and trust.
The past won't be forgotten anytime soon, but Obama has defined a path forward where both sides have a chance to move on. We must not judge this event by what has unfolded in the days following or what will happen in weeks and months ahead. This is just the start. So the immediate reply from Iran should not cause pessimism. For one thing, it is doubtful the tepid response came as a surprise to the administration. If the U.S. should be surprised about anything in the Iranian message, it should be the hint of receptiveness. Khamenei explicitly said "should you change, our behavior will change, too." While Iran may not respond to this first overture because it contains no concrete signs of change, it has clearly indicated a willingness to respond in the future. That possibility alone is cause for hope.
In fact, America has demanded of Iran and others what it is now demanding: assurance. As Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, said in his response, words aren't enough (no matter how eloquent Obama may be). Obama must demonstrate with actions the change of which he spoke. The U.S. must prove itself. For some, that the world's sole superpower would have anything to prove and to a nation that has acted outside the system in a roguish manner is unpalatable, almost unthinkable. But this is where our unilateralism and our exclusionary policies have brought us.
If we are to be the great nation we think ourselves to be, our international relations must be founded on a sense of mutual obligation. We may indeed be the biggest and the best, but that is only worth something if everyone else thinks so too. When we levy demands upon other nations, we must be willing to respond in kind. As the biggest, we must also shoulder the biggest responsibilities. As the best, we must acknowledge that others have something to offer.
Some have been quick to despair at what they perceive are demands the U.S. cannot possibly fulfill. From ceasing its "unconditional support" of Israel to ending its accusations that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, the demands are daunting. But others, like releasing Iranian assets and lifting sanctions are reasonable. To be frank, even the more overwhelming demands have merit. Our policy toward Iran has not been fair. I am not sympathetic to nuclear aspirations, but I feel it is valid to question why we get to determine who can and cannot possess nuclear weapons. Then to add insult to injury, we allow our ally, Israel, to illegally possess them. We have not spoken a word of public protest, preferring to feign ignorance. Instead, we seem to have reserved the harshest rhetoric for Iran. We don't follow the rules we created. The double standard, produced from a combination of the belief that we know best and the superior power to enforce our beliefs, has rightly caused anger.
This is not meant as justification for or a defense of Iranian actions. It is only meant to demonstrate an understanding of their perspective. If anything, we have to acknowledge we have given them reason to distrust us. Our current policy has not produced results, so continuing it makes little sense unless the status quo seems acceptable. Perhaps, the U.S. should make the first move. Rather than waiting for Iran to do something that would earn them the return of their assets frozen since 1979, the U.S. should unfreeze them without conditions. Iran would be able to stomach this kind of unilateralism.
The problem people might have with this is results won't be immediately visible. Like the video message, the move would be one component to a long-term, multipart plan. The objective is simply engagement. While we hope Iran will moderate its policies and actions, we must first establish a diplomatic foundation from which to encourage them to do so. Simply put, we are building a relationship. We should start by finding common ground, projects on which we can agree and cooperate. There are some great differences, and they won't go away anytime soon. If we want to have a chance of resolving them in the future, we must start small.
A change in foreign policy was overdue. However, Obama must tread carefully and not change too much too quickly. Of course, the boundary between what is enough change to be effective and what is too much is unknowable. His new policy should not be interpreted as a victory for hardliners in Iran. By approaching Iran now to talk with its leaders, Obama may discourage reformers within in the country. That being said, the Iranian leadership has proven its viability. As long as the leaders remain entrenched, to refuse to deal with them is to deny reality. If we want to see a changed reality, we must first acknowledge the current reality is unacceptable.
