Paper: Change or More of the Same for Iran?

 

Shaul Bakhash (moderator)

Clarence J. Robin Professor of History, George Mason University

 

           Rouhani faces formidable obstacles in his cautious, measured attempt to reorient Iran’s foreign policy, to reintroduce sensible management of the economy, and to restore to Iranians some measure of political freedom. Critics on the right are already sniping at his attempt to reach an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program with the P5+1countries. The judiciary and the security services deliberately seek to undercut his political liberalization measures and have blocked the release of a larger number of political prisoners. Any attempt to curtail the role of parastatal organizations in the economy, to reduce subsidies, and to attract foreign investment to Iran will be firmly resisted. It remains to be seen whether this time, a mildly reformist president will manage to carry his agenda to completion, or whether the pattern of the past will be repeated and a reformist president’s initial successes will be undercut or reversed by a conservative reaction.

 

Bernard Hourcade
Global Fellow, Wilson Center; and Senior Research Fellow Emeritus, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France

 

            The role of political factions changed after Rouhani developed political consensus among different factions. The cabinet is de facto a coalition of several factions supporting the new government and the policy of dialogue under the leadership of the Supreme Leader. Within the current context of this complex national unity government, further complicated by issues of sanctions and the potential nuclear deal, the minority of Islamist hardliners (mainly the Resistance Front/Paydari) have become the new real opposition.

 

            These Islamic “Tea Parties” are very active but comprise no more than one-third of the current Majles. They are supported by some preeminent policymakers, clerics, and members of the Pasdaran and Basij, and they have strong networks, efficient newspapers, and media connections. Their criticism of the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, specifically on human rights and Syria, remains within the framework of legitimate opposition in any republic. They are a traditional “democratic” opposition and currently do not have the clear support of the Supreme Leader, who trusts President Rouhani.

 

            The core—or the weak center—of the current parliament is made up of “independents.” They are local MPs but also policymakers who do not want to support any radical faction (reformist or radical Islamist). In the political context of 2012, choosing this political path was a way to oppose the Islamist hardliners (Resistance Front/Paydari) and even the United Front of Conservatives (Motahed) majority, a group close to the Supreme Leader. Most of them strongly support the new policies of “moderation” and dialogue.” Both groups are open to globalization but also linked to the Islamic cultural values—and political networks—of the Islamic regime. They are good representative of the new middle bourgeoisie.

 

            The main question at stake in the next parliamentary elections will be the emergence—or not—of a political group able to sustain the current imposed consensus supporting the international opening of Iran. A positive strong majority supporting the new policy is necessary for the new economic and political emergence of Iran and to give the international community confidence to lift economic sanctions following political agreement on the nuclear issue.

 

 

Bijan Khajehpour
Managing Partner, Atieh International

 

            Iran is at an important juncture in its economic development. The positive outlook of sanctions relief and a number of reasonable economic and monetary policies have the potential to return the country to a positive economic outlook. However, one should not expect a fast-paced economic recovery, not only because the current economic crisis is very deep, but also because the social and political consequences of fast-paced economic growth would not be manageable in a political constellation like Iran’s. In other words, economic recovery should be managed in a way that does not lead to a new wave of populism that can feed itself from disappointed social classes. 

 

            All indications show that the new government understands how to draft and implement sustainable policies; however, the success of these policies will also depend on continued sanctions relief and a gradual normalization of Iran’s relations with Western powers.

 

 

Roberto Toscano
Former Public Policy Scholar, Wilson Center; President, Intercultura Foundation; Former Italian Ambassador to India, 2008-2010; Former Italian Ambassador to Iran, 2003-2008

 

            Among Iranian citizens, there is a very high margin of convergence on the goal of attaining the status of “normal country”—meaning a country that is not isolated, is not considered a pariah and a threat, is modern economically, and is respected politically. At the same time, there is also the awareness that such a goal cannot be attained without normalizing relations with the United States. In Iran, there are many reasons for grievance against Washington (from the 1953 coup against Mohammad Mossadeq to the present sanctions), yet what strikes any visitor to Iran, and especially American visitors, is that there is no widespread anti-Americanism, but, rather, a generalized attitude of positive interest and even friendliness.

            The nuclear issue, which was the main stumbling block to the normalization of relations with the United States and with the world, is turning out to be a fundamental step toward that goal. The main obstacle is now the most promising occasion.

 

            The president of Iran is actually more of a prime minister (in a presidential type of system) than a president, since the real head of state and government is the Supreme Leader. If it is true that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is allowing and supporting Rouhani’s actions, there are also signals that he did not sign a blank check but reserves the right not only to oversee but also to curtail and even stop, if needed, the whole process. There is nothing new in this: Khamenei both allowed and limited, and in some cases stopped, very different political formulas that he thought were necessary at a given stage in Iran’s politics—from Rafsanjani’s normalization of the state and economy to Khatami’s reformism to Ahmadinejad’s populism.

 

            Khamenei is allowing movement but remains ready to hit the brakes. In the meantime, he is sending out warning signals not to go too far and also not to abandon some fundamental “identity markers” for the Islamic Republic. Such markers include opposing the release of Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi and artificially reviving the Holocaust issue (highly damaging for Iran and highly unpopular within Iranian public opinion) in order to mark the limits of normalization with the United States and also to shift to a more moderate line on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

 

Robin Wright
Wilson Center-USIP Distinguished Scholar

 

            Iran has made a strategic recalculation of its foreign policy because the nuclear deal is in many ways about a lot more than just the nuclear deal. It’s really about securing the Islamic Republic’s future.

 

            First, the strategic recalculation reflects changes in the regional balance as well as the U.S. role in the Middle East and South Asia. The Iranians now believe a Salafi circle is surrounding them, which has changed their thinking in very fundamental ways. They no longer see the United States as the threat or the challenge to their interest. They now see the United States as, in some ways, a country with which they have common national security concerns.

 

            The second reason that Iran is in the midst of a strategic recalculation relates to its economy. Tehran’s mismanagement, corruption, and the growing economic gap motivate Iran even more than economic sanctions do.

 

            The third reason that Iran will continue to reach out to the foreign community—and to a lesser degree to the United States—is because Iran believes it is strategically lonely. Iranians think they are a minority ethnically on every single border.

 

            The fourth reason for this opening to the outside world is demography. The majority of Iranians have now been born since the revolution; the majority of voters have been born since the revolution.

 

            The fifth factor is that their goals are fairly realistic. Iran now thinks in terms of breaking sanctions, not ending them.

 

            Finally, the biggest question is whether the Supreme Leader, who has ultimate power in Iran’s bifurcated political system, is really on board. He has so far allowed the process to continue. The negotiating team gives him very detailed descriptions of discussions with the world’s six major powers. There are reportedly some issues he cares about, while on others he is not as deeply involved.

 

            The bottom line is that there is a genuine prospect for a nuclear deal, but probably with real limits. Iran’s goal is not to improve relations with the United States. Its goal is to better its place in the world, improve the economy, and create an enduring following. Iran’s next agenda, after a nuclear deal, may be bettering relations in the Arab world. Tehran is deeply worried about the growing Shi’ite-Sunni divide, which is arguably deeper than at any point since the original schism in the 7^th century, in part because it ripples globally. In the past, tensions have been local or regional, but now the divide spreads right across the Islamic world. And the Iranians want to prevent what they think will isolate them even further than they are now.

 

Click here for the full text.