Page 4 of 4 Iran and the US: An
unbreachable divide By Mahan
Abedin
cornerstone of Iran's unique system
of Islamic government. While Ahmadinejad and his
supporters have suffered a setback in the recent
elections for the Assembly of Experts (a body
tasked with electing and - in the event of poor
performance - dismissing the supreme leader), this
is unlikely to affect their long-term planning on
this issue.
On the external front,
Ahmadinejad and his neo-Islamist allies want to
align Iran with the growing Islamic movement in
the region
and
beyond. From their perspective, Iran has an
abiding stake in the future of peaceful Islamic
movements as opposed to the perpetuation of
autocratic Arab regimes.
Moreover, they
believe the Islamic Republic has the heritage,
ideological infrastructure and resources to play a
leadership role in this Islamization process. This
puts them at odds with conservative leaders like
Rafsanjani and the liberal reformists who wish to
maintain Iran's detente with the autocratic and
failing regimes of the region. Ahmadinejad's
outspoken anti-Israeli rhetoric is designed
simultaneously to embarrass and isolate
conventional wisdom in the Islamic Republic and
motivate Islamist forces the world over.
This neo-Islamist discourse in Iran is
perhaps the last nail in the coffin of Iranian-US
rapprochement. Indeed, the two sides have never
been so divided in the past 27 years. This is more
so because even the most astute American observers
consistently fail to understand what is really
happening in Iran. Henry Kissinger got it all
wrong in the summer when he wrote: "A modern,
strong, peaceful Iran could become a pillar of
stability and progress in the region. This cannot
happen unless Iran's leaders decide whether they
are representing a cause or a nation." [2]
Leaving aside the intricate question of
what kind of political system can best marshal
Iran's resources in the international arena, the
Islamic Republic has never seen a fundamental
dilemma between nation and ideology. Iranian
Islamists have universally accepted the
nation-state framework and, unlike Arab Islamists,
they have rarely (if ever) talked of idealistic
and impossibly elusive concepts such as a
"caliphate".
Instead, Iranian leaders see
Islamic movements that are modeled, or at the very
least influenced, by the Islamic Revolution as the
key to the "modern, strong and peaceful" region
that Kissinger talks about. Ahmadinejad wants to
align the Islamic Republic ever closer to the
Islamic opposition in the Middle East and beyond,
even if that sparks confrontation with Arab
regimes. This will inevitably deepen the divide
with the US.
A hopeless situation Given this state of affairs, it is very
difficult to see under what circumstances the
current US administration would even consider
implementing the recommendations of the Iraq Study
Group that relate to dialogue with Iran. The
animosity between Iran and the US is without
parallel in the modern world and is also arguably
the most dangerous friction point in international
relations.
While there are enough wisdom
and self-restraint on both sides to prevent this
Cold War from escalating into a military conflict
(at least for the foreseeable future), there is
nothing that gives hope to resolving the impasse.
It is an intractable historical, ideological and
geopolitical conflict that is deeply woven into
the psyches of the protagonists. It may take
another generation before the deep freeze begins
to thaw.
