'Great Satan' Turns on Charm at Iran

David Blair, Daily Telegraph March 25, 2009

If Iran's leaders had the power to choose between a belligerent America threatening "regime change" and a conciliatory US President hailing their "great and celebrated culture", they would probably prefer to bask in firebreathing threats.

When the "Great Satan" looks suitably wicked – and throws around epithets like "axis of evil" – Iran's leaders can sit back and relax. They can afford to stage "Death to America" rallies and be as intransigent as possible.

Their difficulties only arise when the "Great Satan" stubbornly refuses to be remotely satanic. President Barack Obama's conciliatory and nuanced approach towards Iran confronts its leaders with their greatest foreign policy dilemma since the end of the war with Iraq almost 21 years ago.

Mr Obama's message on the occasion of Iran's New Year was a carefully crafted attempt to unsettle its leadership. Iran's "accomplishments" in art and culture had "made the world a better and more beautiful place", said Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a Muslim who carries the name of the founder of the Shia faith.

With his words carried in Farsi subtitles, Mr Obama added that Iran's many achievements had won the "respect of America and the world". This was a calculated appeal to the country's 70 million people, roughly two thirds of whom are under 30.

Any visitor to Tehran is struck by how young Iranians have embraced Western – and specifically American – popular culture. This does not simply extend to fashion, films, music and the regime's famously futile attempts to ban satellite dishes. What struck me on my last visit was how the bookshops outside Tehran University sell dictionaries of American idiom and helpful guides on how to adopt an American accent.

Mr Obama's words are designed to score a series of diplomatic goals. By appealing to Iran's Westernised youth, he is seeking to widen the divide between the regime and its people. In the past, almost every senior Iranian politician – including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – has declared himself in favour of the principle of talking to America. Some have done so out of conviction, others because they know this is what the public wants.

Mr Obama's second aim is to exploit the rifts inside Iran's regime. Mr Ahmadinejad had a perfect foil in the shape of George W Bush, allowing him to unite the government behind his visceral anti-Americanism. The new US President, however, is a more difficult customer. There are pragmatic figures inside Iran's regime who want to explore the possibility of easing tensions with Washington. Mr Obama's intervention is designed to help them while isolating Mr Ahmadinejad.

America's next aim is to maximise the Iranian leader's political woes. With an election approaching in June, Mr Ahmadinejad's career hangs in the balance. Quietly, Western governments are trying to ease him from the scene. They will probably refrain from imposing any more sanctions on Iran until the election is over, thus depriving Mr Ahmadinejad of a chance to parade his outrage.

Mr Obama's words are designed to help the president's opponents in the election by raising the possibility of a genuine rapprochement with America.

Finally, Mr Obama is deliberately landing Iran's most powerful man with the greatest dilemma of all. In the end, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, will decide whether to accept the olive branch and improve relations with America, an outcome that could only be achieved if Iran compromised on its nuclear programme.

While Mr Ahmadinejad stays in the thick of political combat, the Supreme Leader tries to hover above the fray and present himself as a neutral arbiter between Iran's factions. In practice, Mr Khamenei usually sides with the hardliners and, so far, his support for Mr Ahmadinejad has been consistent.

Hence the Supreme Leader gave a spiky public response to Mr Obama, denouncing Washington before a crowd chanting the Islamic Republic's favourite slogan, "Death to America". But there was one phrase in Mr Khamenei's speech which saved it from being a total rejection. Amid all the vitriol, the Supreme Leader said: "If America changes its behaviour, we will change ours."

Even Mr Khamenei could not completely slam the door on a rapprochement. For all his bluster, he knows Iran's true weakness. Decades of economic failure have created mass unemployment and drug addiction among the country's youth. Iran produces almost nothing save oil – and the price has fallen by two thirds since last summer.

Mr Khamenei's overriding aim is to preserve his regime and guarantee the Islamic Republic's survival. He must decide whether easing ties with America would makes this more or less likely.

Meanwhile, Mr Obama faces no such dilemma. If his approach succeeds, he will achieve one of history's greatest diplomatic coups. If he fails, America has carefully ruled nothing out. Mr Obama may yet have to decide whether to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities by military means. If he ever reaches that juncture, he will be able to argue that America tried every alternative.

Comments: 8

Mike Singleton on March 25, 2009 at 07:15 AM So the writer gets his facts wrong then? Care to enlighten us then Mike? Because I'd like to know if he has, and if you don't explain things then we'll all just have to assume that you're wasting our time and making things up.

America is telling itself that our problems with Iran began with the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in 1979. Not so. The Kim Roosevelt, via the orders of The Dulles brothers, Secretary of State and Chief of CIA toppled the Mossadeghh Government and installed the tryrant Sha Pahlevi. The Iranians consider that the Embassy takeover after the ousting of the Sha was tit for tat now lets talk business. When the Arab world was dancing in the streets after 911 the Iranians were offering their help to the US in Afghanistan. They also had problems with the Taliban on their borders. The US has not talked to the Iranians in more than 20 years other than hint that military action could be taken. You are right, Obama has put himself in a great diplomatic position. He is, however, being assailed by the Right and Neo Cons. The Iranians should take him at face value and talk.

1. If the yanks want to bring Caspian oil out through Iran, then the Iranians have an interest in doing a deal. 2. If the yanks make it clear that reasonable concessions will have to be made to ensure that happens, then they will learn how important such pipelines are perceived to be in Iran today. 3. If Iranians like America, then there are business opportunities in issuing them with visas - educational ones, tourism ones for a start. 4. If Americans like Iran and Iranians, then there will presumably be things that Americans would like to buy from Iran. Frankly however the US will not be able to expect Israel to keep nuclear weapons without others wishing to develop a capability. It's just not practical politics. It's equally not practical politics to expect Israel to be abandoned by the US. So I'm not quite sure what the final deal will be. But as I'm not Hillary Clinton, then that really doesn't matter, does it?!

For domestic political purposes, Ahmadinejad needs the US to be an enemy. Therefore Iran cannot be trusted until the leadership is changed.

Two weeks ago Obama extended for another year the American economic sanctions against Iran. The Persians were hardly charmed by that gesture of, ahem, goodwill. Thus they are morally and politically justified in dismissing Obama's video presentation and his smooth rhetoric as pure theatre.

David Blair, where you go wrong from the outset is your presumption that the Iranian leadership regard all Americans as part of the 'Great Satan' as you put it. They don't. Most Iranians and their leaders feel nothing but pity for the poor long-suffering average Joe Blow American who are now as cheesed off with the likes of Bush and the 'lets bomb Iran' brigade as the Iranians are. The �Great Satan� isn't ordinary Americans; the �Great Satan� is the successive belligerent American governments that have been determined to seek regime change in Iran. I'm sure Iran would welcome 'regime change' in the US if it meant that Iran didn't have to live in fear of threats from the Israeli and the US governments. To presume that Iran regards the whole of the US together with all of its peoples as the �Great Satan� serves as much to perpetuate the myth of Iran being part of the �Axis of Evil� as you accuse Iran of perpetuating the myth that Iran regards the US as the �Great Satan� in order to maintain the propaganda of hatred from both sides. The label the �Great Satan� is as fear-mongering as the label the �Axis of Evil�. Keeping up with the name calling achieves nothing. Most people around the planet now know that all of it is mere belligerent propaganda and rhetoric. The peoples of Iran and the US are fed up with it. It�s time to move on.

Once again, the writer got it all wrong. This article is faulty with some of its facts and also wrong with some of its interpretations of the situation. The writer should get some education about Iran and the area. Mike

obama= neville chamberlain 1938. iran has no more territorial ambitions in their area, except as a starter to destroy israel. and the the whole of any country that does not become islamic, that is the bottom line of islamic world conquest. if we allow it, and i think it is already too late in europe to stop it happening.

'Great Satan' Turns on Charm at Iran

Related Articles