Commentary
Dmitri Trenin
{
"authors": [
"Dmitri Trenin"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [
"Eurasia in Transition"
],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Iran",
"Syria"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy",
"Nuclear Energy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
Working for His Nobel
Obama needs to follow up on the Syrian disarmament plan and be ready to augment it by a serious effort at a political settlement in Syria within the Geneva framework. If there is to be a solution on Syria, Iran should be part of it. Engaging the Iranians on Syria would be a confidence building measure which would also help in the nuclear talks.
Published on Sep 30, 2013
The opening week of the UN General Assembly annual meeting in New York was dominated by two issues: the chemical weapons in Syria and Iran’s nuclear program. On both issues, there have been early breakthroughs. The UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution to guide the process of Syria’s chemical disarmament, while the presidents of the United States and Iran had their first phone conversation since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979. These initial signs of cooperation between rivals and adversaries may constitute a rare positive change in the political dynamic in the Middle East, or they may be a false dawn.
Even if one is an optimist, one has to accept that implementing the chemical weapons agreement under conditions of a raging civil war will be extremely difficult. One would have to make sure that Assad is not cheating; that the rebels do not stage assault on chemical weapons storage facilities; that the international force secures all relevant facilities and makes any further use of chemical weapons physically impossible; that the weapons are then removed for elimination; and that they are finally safely disposed of. It is certainly hard to be an optimist on this score, but all other options are worse.
The U.S.-Iranian rapprochement which had eluded Washington and Tehran for so long is now official. The first baby steps have been made to break the ice. However, even under the best of circumstances, the ice will take a long time to melt, and clearing it altogether is an absolutely daunting task. Yet, both Barack Obama and Hassan Rowhani—with the Supreme Leader Khamenei behind him—appear to realize that now they have the best chance ever to reach accommodation between their countries. Others see this too, and are getting nervous. Skeptics in Israel are concerned that Obama may give Iran too much. On Saturday, a news anchor on the main analytical program of Russian television expressed the Kremlin’s unease at seeing the Five-plus-One talks on Iran overshadowed by the direct negotiating link between Tehran and Washington. These concerns and worries indicate that the shift in the U.S.-Iranian relations is deemed possible.
President Obama, who only a few weeks ago looked trapped and cornered in the Middle East, now has a great opportunity to clinch a brilliant diplomatic victory from the teeth of a seemingly certain defeat. It will not happen automatically, though. Obama needs to follow up on the Syrian disarmament plan and be ready to augment it by a serious effort at a political settlement in Syria within the Geneva framework. If there is to be a solution on Syria, Iran should be part of it. Engaging the Iranians on Syria would be a confidence building measure which would also help in the nuclear talks. Obama has his work cut out for him, but he can actually earn his Nobel.
About the Author
Dmitri Trenin
Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center
Trenin was director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2008 to early 2022.
- Mapping Russia’s New Approach to the Post-Soviet Space
- What a Week of Talks Between Russia and the West RevealedCommentary
Dmitri Trenin
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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- Hezbollah’s Wartime StrategyCommentary
The party’s objectives involve tying together the Lebanese and Iranian fronts, while surviving militarily and politically at home.
Mohamad Fawaz
- Iran Rewrites Its War StrategyCommentary
In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.
Michael Young
- What Does the Strait of Hormuz’s Closure Mean?Commentary
In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
Nur Arafeh
- Tehran’s Easy TargetsCommentary
In an interview, Andrew Leber discusses the impact the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran is having on Arab Gulf states.
Michael Young
- The Gulf Conflict and the South CaucasusCommentary
In an interview, Sergei Melkonian discusses Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s careful balancing act among the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Armenak Tokmajyan
