The Heavy Shadow of the East on the Negotiation Table with the West
The Heavy Shadow of the East on the Negotiation Table with the West
The nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States are inherently a complex and multifaceted process influenced by numerous domestic, regional, and international factors.
Among these, a key and determining issue is the United States’ perception and interpretation of Iran’s growing relations with Eastern powers, especially Russia, China, and North Korea.
These relations, which can bring strategic benefits to Iran in some aspects, seem to have become a serious obstacle to reviving the nuclear agreement and reducing bilateral tensions between Iran and the United States, rather than facilitating them.
To gain a deeper understanding of this issue, it is necessary to delve more deeply into the mindset of American political elites and the practical implications of these relations on the nuclear negotiation process.
Roots of American Suspicion: Failed Integration Experience and the North Korean Ghost
American political elites have not had a particularly pleasant experience interacting with Russia and China over the past three decades.
In the post-Soviet Union era, the prevailing approach in Washington was to try to integrate Russia and China into the liberal democratic international system led by the United States.
The belief was that by opening up these countries’ markets and involving them in international institutions, they could be transformed into responsible actors aligned with Western interests.
However, this approach led to opposite results. After a period of weakness and instability, Russia gradually revived its power and emerged as a serious critic of the existing order, seeking to restore its regional influence.
China, with its remarkable economic growth, not only integrated into the international economic system but also gradually became a powerful economic and technological competitor and an increasing geopolitical challenger.
This bitter experience, especially during Donald Trump’s presidency, which was accompanied by a more aggressive approach towards these two powers, fueled deep pessimism among American policymakers.
They now believe that any interaction and concession to these countries will merely strengthen them and consequently weaken the United States’ position in the international system.
In addition to this experience, North Korea’s nuclear dossier also weighs heavily as an old wound on America’s foreign policy memory.
Repeated efforts and prolonged negotiations by the United States and its allies failed to prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons.
This failure has reinforced the perception among American elites that negotiating with countries determined to acquire nuclear weapons and supported by rival powers is unlikely to yield the desired outcome.
Iran in the New Axis of Evil: Scenario Building and Ground Realities
In such an environment, some circles in America have attempted to exploit the existing challenges with these countries in the Iranian nuclear dossier by depicting a hypothetical axis comprising Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea.
They argue that Iran’s strengthening relations with these countries are indicative of Tehran’s strategic shift and its alignment with America’s adversaries.
Although this portrayal is largely based on suspicion and oversimplification of complex realities, it has managed to influence the perception of some American elites towards Iran.
Unfortunately, within Iran, some approaches have inadvertently fueled this scenario building.
The excessive enthusiasm for joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS and interpreting it as a definitive pivot towards the East has conveyed the message to the American side that Iran no longer has much interest in engaging with the West and is seeking to create an alternative international order centered around Russia and China.
While membership in these organizations can provide diverse economic and political opportunities for Iran and should not be interpreted as severing ties with the West, the way it is presented and interpreted domestically has helped reinforce this incorrect perception in the opposing side’s mind.
Perceptual Consequences: From Doubt in Intentions to Regime Change Approach
Iran’s position in this hypothetical axis has had deep perceptual consequences in the minds of American political elites, directly affecting the nuclear negotiation process.
- Doubt in Iran’s goodwill: Strengthening Iran’s relations with countries that the U.S. considers its main threats has created serious doubt in Iran’s goodwill in nuclear negotiations.
- The American side perceives these relations as a bargaining tool to extract more concessions from the West, not a genuine shift in Iran’s foreign policy.
- Reduced Motivation for Agreement: With the perception that Iran is seeking a strategic alliance with rival powers, America’s motivation to offer attractive and flexible proposals in nuclear negotiations diminishes.
- They fear that any concession to Iran will ultimately strengthen the axis of America’s adversaries.
- Strengthening Maximalist Approaches: In such an environment, maximalist approaches, whose ultimate goal is regime change in Iran, gain more supporters.
- This group believes that negotiating with Iran is not only futile but also legitimizes a dangerous actor and strengthens America’s enemies.
- Therefore, they propose maximum pressure and waiting for the internal collapse of the Iranian regime as the main solution.
- Reduced Diplomatic Maneuvering Space: This negative mindset also limits the diplomatic maneuvering space for the U.S. government.
- Any leniency or concession to Iran will face severe criticism from hardline groups and opponents of the agreement.
The Way Forward: Balance, Transparency, and Realism
To navigate this complex situation, Iran needs a multifaceted strategy that actively addresses misunderstandings and changes the American side’s perception while maintaining and developing relations with Eastern countries. This strategy should include the following elements:
- Emphasizing Independence in Foreign Policy: Iran should clearly emphasize its foreign policy independence and not interpret membership in international organizations as choosing one bloc over another.
- Iran’s national interests dictate establishing balanced relations with all global powers based on mutual respect.
- Transparency in Nuclear Goals: Iran should provide strong guarantees and complete transparency regarding the peaceful nature of its nuclear program to remove any pretext for doubt in its intentions from the opposing side.
- Full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and acceptance of necessary oversight in this area is crucial.
- Pursuing Active Diplomacy: Iran should actively pursue diplomatic channels with the American side and demonstrate its readiness for constructive engagement based on mutual respect.
- Offering realistic and flexible proposals can gradually melt the ice of mistrust.
- Managing the Consequences of Relations with the East: Iran should carefully manage the consequences of its relations with Russia, China, and North Korea on nuclear negotiations with the U.S.
- While these relations can provide economic and political benefits for Iran, they should not be interpreted as if Iran is independent of any interaction with the West.
- Effective Communication with American Public Opinion: Iran should strive to directly convey its message to American public opinion through various channels and present a more realistic image of its goals and intentions.
- Countering negative propaganda and explaining the mutual benefits of a nuclear agreement can help change perceptions.
Ultimately, solving the complex puzzle of the impact of Iran’s relations with the East on nuclear negotiations with the U.S. requires a deep understanding of global power dynamics, the subtleties of foreign policy, and the art of diplomacy.
Iran must skillfully create a delicate balance between safeguarding its national interests in developing relations with various countries and the necessity of resolving the nuclear issue through diplomacy.
Otherwise, the heavy shadow of suspicion and pessimism arising from these relations will continue to weigh on the negotiation table, posing increasing challenges to achieving a sustainable and comprehensive agreement.