Q&A
Suzanne Maloney, Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour
{
"authors": [
"Karim Sadjadpour"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
Guidelines for Approaching Iran
need for engagement with Iran is often cited as a major step in easing Middle East tensions and a matter of necessity to contend with Iran’s nuclear ambitions—yet remains a very difficult approach to implement.
Published on Jun 19, 2007
Source: Carnegie Endowment
While the historic May 29 talks between the United States and Iran in Baghdad hinted at the possibility of renewed dialogue, the search for an effective foreign policy toward Iran has proven elusive for both U.S. and European administrations. The need for engagement with Iran is often cited as a major step in easing Middle East tensions and a matter of necessity to contend with Iran’s nuclear ambitions—yet remains a very difficult approach to implement.
In this Carnegie Policy Outlook, Guidelines for Approaching Iran, Carnegie Endowment Associate Karim Sadjadpour points to current realities in Iran and existing difficulties that should guide any attempts to engage Iran and influence its policies.
Key conclusions:
• Given that Iran is integral to several issues of critical importance to U.S. and EU foreign policy—namely Iraq, nonproliferation, energy security, terrorism, and Arab-Israeli peace—avoiding dialogue with Iran is not an option and confronting it militarily would only worsen what the West seeks to improve.
• Iran’s reintegration into the global economy and improved ties with the United States will provide more fertile ground for political reform and marginalizing hardliners—a fact well understood by the small but powerful clique of hardliners in Tehran who are determined to undermine attempts at reconciliation.
• The cooperation of the EU, Russia, China, and India is key to resolving the current tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran is adept at identifying rifts in the international community, and diplomatic efforts will unravel if each country approaches Iran with a different redline.
• Despite current U.S. concerns about Iranian influence in Iraq, Iran arguably has more common interests with the United States in that country than any of Iraq’s other neighbors. Shared interests should lead both countries to look to Iraq as a forum to build confidence.
• Abrupt domestic change in Iran is unlikely in the near term and would not necessarily lead to an improvement of the status quo. The only groups that are both armed and organized at the moment are not liberal democrats but the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Bassij militia.
• Threatening military force against Iran weakens the position of moderates and strengthens hardliners. Washington must disabuse Iran’s leadership that it is intent on the removal of the Islamic regime.
• Any type of U.S. engagement with Iran should address concerns about human rights in that country, including the recent detention of four U.S.-Iranian dual nationals.
• The Iranian government ultimately must make a strategic decision to change its own policies. What the West can do is attempt to facilitate Iranian decision making by formulating an approach that is more united and more nuanced, one that makes it clearer to Tehran that “goodwill will begets goodwill,” and reaffirms that a defiant approach will gain little and cost more.
Click on the link above for the full text of this Carnegie publication.
This is a web-only publication.
About the Author
Karim Sadjadpour is an associate in the Middle East and Nonproliferation programs at the Carnegie Endowment.
About the Author
Karim Sadjadpour
Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East.
- Iran Wanted to Survive the War. Now What?
- What’s Keeping the Iranian Regime in Power—for NowQ&A
Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour, Robin Wright
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- A Grand Strategy for Europe’s Clean Industrial FuturePaper
Europe’s industrial supply chains leave it vulnerable to global shocks. The EU needs a pragmatic green industrial strategy that balances durable partnerships and bolsters homegrown clean tech without sacrificing low-carbon ambition.
Milo McBride, Pauline Gerard
- Europe Needs a Strategy for its Turn to New Defense TechCommentary
Defense tech innovations will be at the heart of Europe’s new security strategy. But so far, Brussels has been making moves without a broader plan, undermining readiness and credibility.
Raluca Csernatoni
- Taking the Pulse: Is European Diplomacy on Iran Outdated?Commentary
When the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding was announced, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy declared their readiness to help demine the Strait of Hormuz and lift nuclear sanctions on Tehran. But does Europe need new tools to recover a diplomatic role?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- France and Germany Need Their Own Situation RoomCommentary
The Franco-German relationship is on the rocks again. But unlike previous moments of tension, the epochal changes on the world stage require that both step up investment in their bilateral ties.
Rym Momtaz
- From Trade Dependence to Geopolitical Leverage: The EU in an Era of Weaponized InterdependencePaper
As geopolitical rivalry weaponizes global supply chains, the EU’s true vulnerability lies in emerging-risk imports. For these goods, suppliers are growing more concentrated, substitution more difficult, and political risk is looming.
Sinan Ülgen
