Q&A
Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour, Robin Wright
{
"authors": [
"Karim Sadjadpour"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Iran",
"Gulf"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Overtures To Iran Bear Some Fruit
A year of attempts by U.S. officials to engage with Iran has not yet yielded any change in Iran’s nuclear position, but it has succeeded in demonstrating to both the Iranian people and the international community that the problem lies in Tehran, not in Washington.
Published on Dec 17, 2009
Source: NPR's Morning Edition
Welcome back to the program.
Mr. KARIM SADJADPOUR (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace): Thank you, Steve. Great to be here.
INSKEEP: Good morning. President Obama tried a different approach, famously extending his hand this year. What has the U.S. gained?
Mr. SADJADPOUR: You know, on the nuclear issues, Steve, we ostensibly haven't gained much, because Iran hasn't changed its nuclear position at all. But I would argue the overtures that the Obama administration have made have really borne fruit, in the sense that we've made it clear to both the Iranian people and to our friends in the international community, whether the Europeans or the Russians or Chinese, that the problem lies in Tehran not Washington.
I think many people during the Bush administration pointed to United States and said, well, you really haven't made an effort at engaging Iran. You haven't really made an effort at reaching out, and I think under the Obama administration everyone recognizes that the United States has reached out. It's the Iranians who have refused to reciprocate, and I think we have a much more robust international coalition now than we did before. And I would just add in the context of domestic Iranian politics, whereas the Bush administration's more hardline approach united Iran's disparate factions against a common threat. I think the Obama administration's overtures have accentuated these deep internal divides within Iran, both amongst political elites and between the population and the regime.
INSKEEP: Although when we hear that Iran launched another missile this week, it suggests that the people who are really in charge are still very firmly in charge and determined on their course.
Mr. SADJADPOUR: Well, that's very true in the sense that you have a hardline cartel running the country post June 12th, post election. And many of these hardliners believe that enmity towards the United States was a fundamental pillar of the 1979 revolution and essential to the identity of the Islamic Republic. I would argue, however, that the Iranian government is probably less stable than it's ever been in its three decade history, and we have never seen the types of opposition protests that we continue to see now, even six months after the election.
INSKEEP: Well, what's changing if anything with those protests, as time goes on?
Mr. SADJADPOUR: It's an important question, Steve. Because certainly the scale of the protest has decreased since we've seen last June. Because the Iranian government is very good at repression, and they are able to prevent large masses of people from congregating in one area. But what we have seen is that the protests have continued in smaller number, in the thousands, but the intensity of the protests has increased, in a sense that four months ago if you look at the slogans people were chanting, they were very much related to the elections. They would say, I want my vote back. Now they are saying much more strident slogans like to death to Khamenei, and they are calling for an Iranian republic instead of an Islamic republic. So I think the demands have grown stronger with time.
INSKEEP: And Karim, when you say that this government seems less stable now than at any time since the revolution 30 years ago, are you suggesting that there is some possibility these protests could lead to Iran's regime being toppled?
Mr. SADJADPOUR: Steve, I think we are still not there yet and I think the opposition themselves recognize that this is not going to be an overnight process, but I would simply argue that the regime has far fewer supporters than it's ever had, and part of that is, part of that reason is because they have purged the system of any moderate or pragmatic elements. And I think we could, you know, it could be on simmer for quite a long time but we could reach this tipping point which could change things quite abruptly.
INSKEEP: And very briefly, Karim, you're talking with us from Washington, of course. You get a chance I'm sure to speak with U.S. officials. Is it your sense that American officials feel that they have figured out or are figuring out how to deal with Iran?
Mr. SADJADPOUR: I don't think so. I think that there is still a great deal of frustration, and the Obama administration would have preferred not to pursue this path of sanctions and punitive measures because they believe they need Iran's help to help stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq. But I think they no longer have the luxury of patience and they're now going to move forward with a more hardline approach.
INSKEEP: Karim Sadjadpour, thanks very much.
Mr. SADJADPOUR: Anytime, Steve.
INSKEEP: He's the Iran analyst for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C.
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.
- What’s Keeping the Iranian Regime in Power—for Now
- How Washington and Tehran Are Assessing Their Next StepsQ&A
Aaron David Miller, David Petraeus, Karim Sadjadpour
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
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for EuropeCommentary
The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.
Marc Pierini
- The EU Needs a Third Way in IranCommentary
European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.
Richard Youngs
- Resetting Cyber Relations with the United StatesArticle
For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.
Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter
- Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not LessCommentary
Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.
Dimitar Bechev
