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
- The Speech Ursula von der Leyen Can’t DeliverCommentary
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is about to give her annual address on the state of the EU. Here’s what she won’t—but should—say.
Rym Momtaz
- Europe Fails to Learn the Lessons from CeutaCommentary
The aftermath of the Ceuta crisis shows Europe has drawn the wrong lessons. Rather than doubling down on failed migration policies, the EU needs to address the underlying roots of such episodes.
Richard Youngs
- Taking the Pulse: Is Canada Leading a Third Way?Commentary
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has twice inspired praise for standing up to U.S. President Donald Trump: at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos and on Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Is Carney showing a third way better than the EU has in dealing with the Trump administration?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Europe’s Self-Confidence ProblemCommentary
The EU’s responses to two recent incidents expose the gulf between European perceptions and capabilities. Unless the union can bridge that gap, it will never become a real geostrategic power.
Rym Momtaz
- Europe’s Overseas Countries and Territories as Geopolitical AssetsArticle
European states control several Overseas Countries and Territories around the world that carry strategic, economic, and environmental weight. As great powers challenge the rules-based order, defending them is a geopolitical imperative for Europe.
Marc Pierini
