Academic Year 2009-2010

Reflections on U.S.-Iran Relations
Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 5:30PM
Cabot Intercultural Center, 702, The Fletcher School
Speaker: Mohsen M. Milani, Professor and Chair of the Department of Government and International Affairs, University of South Florida

Summary

Mohsen M. Milani spoke at the Fletcher School on U.S.-Iran Relations. Professor Vali Nasr introduced Milani and described his expertise on I ranian politics, foreign policy, and the formation of the Islamic republic, as well as his latest essay entitled “Tehran’s Take: Understanding Iran’s U.S. Policy” published in the July/August 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs.

Milani explained that his reflections on the U.S.-Iran relationship are a result of careful, cautious thinking about the dynamics between the two countries and their recent history of hostility and animosity. He observed that Iran has never had a thirty-year period lacking diplomatic relations with a great power other than the break in its previously strong relationship with the United States. This rupture is the longest and most troublesome of Iran’s dealings with foreign powers.

Three key issues resulted in the termination of the strategic relationship between the U.S. and Iran, which ended when the Shah was overthrown in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. These include structural problems in their relationship, the ideological struggle taking place within Iran and between Iran and the West, and the vivid recollections of many Iranians and Americans who recall egregious acts committed by both parties. These acts most notably include the 1953 U.S.-engineered coup against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq, and the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979. Milani describes the structural problems as a fight over a distribution of power on a global scale, as the U.S. has tried to preserve the status quo and Iran has tried to challenge it. The ideological struggle between Islam and democracy is manifested in this relationship as well, although the propensity of political analysts to look only at Islam and ideology without examining other issues means the manner in which the Islamic Republic is studied in the West is frequently incomplete.

Milani believes that both Iran and the U.S. are involved in fierce competition in the Middle East and beyond, making containment of Iran and low-level competition with it two major elements defining the U.S.-Iran relationship. He stresses that the recent talks in Geneva between U.S. and Iranian officials represents an important breakthrough: "I consider this to be a pivotal moment in U.S.-Iranian relationship," Milani said, and went on to explain his opinion that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni probably made a strategic decision prior to the Iranian election of June 2009 to negotiate with the U.S. for the first time ever. At the time of this decision, Iran was suffering from widespread unrest as a result of a significant portion of the Iranian population believing incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s electoral victory was fraudulent. Milani felt that this episode was the greatest crisis of legitimacy since the inception of the Islamic Republic 30 years before due to deep divisions in the clerical and ruling establishments of Iran that had never before been revealed. However, at the same time Iran’s position in Iraq is stronger than it has ever been, thanks in large part to the U.S. war effort there. Likewise, Iran remains a major player in Afghanistan and Lebanon.

From the American perspective, Milani believes that the financial crisis will limit the options of the U.S. in dealing with Iran. Additionally, the U.S. is not in the most favorable position in Iraq or Afghanistan and "might need Iran’s help to get out." However, both countries have made the decision to negotiate with each other, and Milani feels that President Obama has done more to change the American relationship with Iran in the past nine months than former President Bush did during his eight years in office.

Milani also discussed what he sees as possibilities for the future of U.S.-Iran relations. A strong anti-Islamic Republic constituency in the U.S. mars opportunities for improved relations, while in Iran a powerful anti-American constituency is also present. Hard-line proposals including crippling sanctions, forced regime change, and a full invasion of Iran will not work, according to Milani. Effective sanctions would be difficult to enact without support from China and Russia which are heavily involved in the oil and gas sector in Iran, and would cause the "massive reservoir of goodwill to the U.S. in Iran" to evaporate. Regime change, which Milani feels is no longer being seriously discussed, would be logistically difficult and would not necessarily resolve the nuclear issue which dominates U.S.-Iran relations. Additionally, while it is possible that there may have been some electoral fraud it would be a huge mistake for people to think that Ahmadinejad does not have popular support. Currently, a "surgical strike" targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities is the most popular tactic in certain parts of the U.S. decision-making apparatus. However, Milani points out that such a strike would miss any secret installations, and would open up the possibility of an Iranian retaliation. Milani sees the best option going forward as one of working engagement between the U.S. and Iran. Establishing such a relationship would take a long time, and would depend on the U.S. and the West understanding Iran’s security needs without focusing only on the nuclear issue.

Back to Lecture Series >