Can there ever be a compromise?

A troubling question


Can there ever be a compromise?
by Shahir ShahidSaless

The relations between Iran and the US continue to deteriorate, inching closer to the danger zone. The conflict between these two states is multi-faceted. Competition over power and interests, clash of cultures, the factor of Israel, profound mistrust, perceptions and misperceptions, and last but not least, misanalysis of the situation by American experts are responsible for the current perilous state of affairs.

What is rare about this relationship is that the two states have been locked in a state of non-communication (or inconsistent and failing communications) for over thirty years. In other words, the two governments simply cannot or do not talk with each other. This condition was not seen even during the Cold-War between the US and its adversaries. The US not only had diplomatic, but also economic relations, with the communist bloc.

Surprisingly, experts pay no attention to this odd situation although it is obvious that in the absence of meaningful and enduring talks between Iran and the US, expecting “a negotiated solution,” as advocated by the US government, is not logical. And when there is no negotiation and no negotiated solution, only one thing can resolve the disputes—war.

Many maintain that Iran’s hostile stance toward Israel makes the formation of negotiations impossible. While Iran’s uncompromising position towards Israel may appear as an obstacle in the path of normalization of the relations between Iran and the US, this is not truly a barrier for opening direct dialogue and conducting negotiations. We know this because during the watches of all presidents, reconciliatory proposals by one or both countries have been made. This is a manifestation of the fact that the “will” for restoring and normalizing relations does exist on both sides, and that there is no factor of such weight and importance to stop the decision makers on both sides of thinking about reconciliation.

Two examples of such efforts are Iran’s 2003 offer for a grand bargain, which was rejected by the Bush administration, and the most recent of such proposals was president Obama’s call for a “new beginning” in March 2009, ostensibly a sharp departure from Israel’s position, which was refused by Iran’s Supreme Leader. Numerous attempts of this kind are documented in US-Iran relations since the Islamic revolution.

So the history of relations between Iran and the US during the last 34 years dictates that despite reconciliatory offers from both sides, there have only been ineffectual attempts by both states to communicate in a meaningful way. Normalization of relations may be far-fetched, not to mention that they could not even reduce or contain tensions. Two key factors have largely contributed to the formation and perpetuation of the state of non-communication between Iran and the US. One is profound, mutual mistrust and the other, unequal power.

Although the element of mistrust was present in US-China relations (as it also was in the relations between Soviets and Americans), when Nixon paid his historical visit to China and shook Mao’s hands in 1972, China knew that the US was no longer a threat to it. The balance of power and the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine was in effect. According to the MAD doctrine, neither side, once armed, has any rational incentive to initiate a conflict because it could effectively result in the complete annihilation of both, the attacker and the defender.

However, in Iran’s case, the regime constantly fears harm by the US, despite pretending conciliation. This fear, is rooted in a high level of mistrust, may be justified both historically and by some current events. Based on the New York Times revelations, we now know that while president Obama was stretching his hands to Iran in his 2009 televised message, he concurrently ordered the expedition of Stuxnet cyberattacks on Iran. Mistrust is also intensified by conspiracy theories which are inseparable part of the Iranian politics. According to Ahmad Ashraf, an Iranian sociologist, Iranians from all walks of life and all ideological orientations have relied on this “culture of conspiracy” as a basic mode of understanding politics.

Iran is not in a position to either stop or retaliate against American moves. Unequal powers, combined with extreme mistrust, have led Iran’s leadership to conclude that negotiations with the US would be humiliating since the US has the upper hand, and is dangerous because Americans are not trustworthy. Against the US toughening sanctions, Iran’s only weapon is to escalate and expand its nuclear program. This policy is adopted in the framework of the doctrine of “threat against threat,” chosen as Iran’s strategic approach last year. Ironically, this policy continually gives purpose to greater pressure and tougher sanctions by the US and its allies.

For better or worse, Iran will not bow to pressures. First, the Iranian leadership has constantly and heavily linked the nuclear program to the notion of “national pride.” Backing down on the nuclear issue would levy high political costs against the Iranian leadership. Second, Iran believes that making any concession would be the beginning of more pressure and demands for further concessions until the Islamic system collapses. According to Herbert Kelman, an international conflict expert, decision-makers of the weaker side of conflict “worry that…once they make certain concessions, they will find themselves on a slippery slope”.

The rationale behind sanctions is that the Iranian leadership is rational, and therefore, will react favorably to them. In support of this thesis, Mr. Obama maintains that the Iranian leaders are “self-interested,” and that “the decisions they’ve made over the past three decades, [indicate] that they care about the regime’s survival.” However, this proposition is only half of the truth. It is true that territory and governance is important for the states, but their “identity” is no less important and constantly impacts their decisions. In fact, states’ identity is the source of their preferences and interests. In the case of the Iranian leaders, they are rational but that rationality is heavily bounded by ideology.

Many compare the nuclear case to Iran’s acceptance of the UN Security Council Resolution 598 which demanded a ceasefire between Iran and Iraq. They reason that once the survival of Iran’s regime hit the danger zone, Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s revolution leader, drank the “cup of poison” and retreated from his position of toppling Saddam. This comparison is flawed. When Ayatollah Khomeini accepted the ceasefire, Iran did not lose one centimeter of its territory. More importantly, the new revolutionary government had succeeded in silencing numerous opposition groups, and monopolizing power during the eight-year war. The retreat was about permitting Saddam to survive. It was not about retreating before a strategic enemy and a great power. The Iranian leadership firmly believes that once the sanctions bear fruit, Americans will use the same tactic over new issues such as “human rights” and “terrorism” until the regime is toppled.

Negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 will either remain ineffectual, or any agreement will be shaky and unstable at best, for as long as the “real problem” (i.e., between the US and Iran) exists. Peace on the nuclear issue alone, while other cases of conflict remain unresolved, would be unstable. To conclude, the troubling question is this: “If the US does not change its policy of toughening and imposing paralyzing sanctions, and if Iran does not acquiesce to pressures while the two governments are locked in a state of non-communication, what scenarios are imaginable other than war?”


Recently by Shahir ShahidSalessCommentsDate
US Election Winner May Face a Dangerous Iran
Oct 21, 2012
Out of Control
Oct 08, 2012
Betting all-in
Sep 27, 2012
more from Shahir ShahidSaless

Death sentence

by fullback on

The Islamist Occupiers of Iran will never compromise their FATE. These Occupiers know of the crimes they have commited from the get go . They will Suck Iran dry ,till the last second. Occupiers rule by FEAR ,Intimidation, Death as these Islamist occupiers have done for the past 30+ years . The Sanctions  must be accompanied by direct military strike agaist the Occupiers Military command centers. 


How about Iranian people?

by elmcoint on

How about Persian pride as people in LA use the term most commonly? How about Iranian people? All of you just talk about regime rather people of Iran. The majority of Iranian people see nuclear issue as a national pride; You don't have it-you don't exist. please all of you be more aligned with Iranian people rather writing who is wrong or right. This is the world of politics and deceptions. You don't just invade a country because they are against you, you invade a country because there is more money to be made. If USA and Israel see  by invading Iran they will make more money and power, trust me they will do that. The nuclear issue is just the name of the game and they use it until reaching their goals. The fluctuation of Dollar does effect the Iranian government, it effects directly the Iranian people, and USA knows that. They are after total crash of the country, it does not matter you, me, or so many other people. The situation is about the balance of power between East and West. Please don't be fooled with term of nuclear issue. This is a joke to believe in. IT IS ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL. Be on top of it and create total awareness for all American public not to be fooled by the American propagandas.


is this parsi using a pseudonym????

by shushtari on

of course, the akhoonds' 'distrust' is due the US previous meddling in our affairs---- of course, the akhoonds really love iran and mossadegh- and khomeini was very offended that CIA and his bosses at MI6 toppled moosadegh and brought back the shah.

the akhoonds' love for iran has been felt for 34 years.....

they took over the embassy and cut off relations because they don't trust the US, of course! how could we be so stupid??

now back to reality- the akhoonds policy from day one has been murder, chaos, and deception- they have killed thou sands of american soldiers over the past 30 years and have continously lied and bs'ed about everything from iran's failing economy to the great freedom enjoyed by the people of iran!


now why would anyone, other than a bache akhoon, want to 'negotiate'  with such animals??

why didn't you guys ,or your parents for that matter,  negotiate with the shah or bakhtiar- who were a ZILLION times more iranian and CIVILIZED than your dear akhoonds???



Between rock and a hard place!

by Arj on

In order to compromise or even negotiate, IRI would have to open up to the U.S. and the version of democracy it has planned for the ME region and the periphery. Due to its restrictive nature and intrinsic obstructiveness, the Islamic regime can not open up in its current from, for any opening is tantamount to losing considerable ground to public dissent and/or its own internal competition!

On the other hand, IRI is not a big enough power to withstand external pressure from great foreign powers on it's own, and since without either a popular support base or the support of other foreign powers (as witnessed during the last year of Shah's rule) no regime can survive in a long run (i.e. IRI has completely lost popular support, and China and Russia see strategic interests elsewhere in the U.S. consemer market and European energy dependency, repectively), a collision course seems to be the likely destination of the U.S.-IRI relations sometime in the near future -- that is unless a drastic change occurs in either one's stance!      

maziar 58


by maziar 58 on

May 1st is an International Labor day in over 180 countries...........

America can change the date But not the fact.



Regime change means cut the hands of Chinesse from our oil

by Shirzadegan on

Our oil is getting ripped off by China and then by India.  Regime change means to cut the hands of these 2 internaional theives from our natural resources.  


Macy's USA, Inc.'s Labor Day's BS!

by Demo on

Read all about it below! The fake labor day like the 'fake lefty' on this site! That is what corporate US is all about!


Regime change through US/Israel strike is the way to go!


And you better believe it! And re-establishment of SAVAK to spread humane rights and democracy is the way of future.


Shlomo is for regime change!


our undeniable Right!

by Roozbeh_Gilani on

Never mind the vocabulary and terminology. Overthrowing the filthy, corrupt, thieving, murdering  islamist regime, trial of it's entire leadership and execution of the verdict, and putting the aghazadehs who have not managed to escape to "evil west" on time, to some good honest manual labour to use up some of the fat accumulated on their butts due to endless hours sitting behind the computer screens, is our undeniable right which no one, specialy US and Israelis!,  can take away from!

So the paacheh kharan rejime can relax a bit and go easy on sucking up to and parroting "leftish" slogans...

"Personal business must yield to collective interest."


The neo-cons' "Regime Change!"

by Demo on

The "Regime Change" in neo-pawns' vocabulary simply means to receive the whole dollar bill in "change" out of every dollar that their imposed puppet regime makes out of selling oil and other natural resources to US and other western countries! And that is a whole mountain of 'change,' you naggers, you!


Sorry for the mistake

by Samniakan on

I apologize for the mistake. The article is not written by me. The author is Shahir Shahidsaless. The piece was originally posted on AIC website.


"Regime change" is a neo-liberal phrase that in actuality means

by Zendanian on

and has meant : Not a whole lot will change.

Perhaps the head of the states will go, but other than that almost every other single thing will remian the same.

Thanks to "Regime change" we have two Islamic Republics (not one, but two) on either sides of Iran. Islamic Republic of Iraq, and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

The questions becomes: why in the world Iranian neo-liberal advocates of "regime change" think it will be any different in Iran?

That is a question they NEVER have a response for.

Because they know in Iran it will have the exact same results.


Regime change

by Fred on

There is a way to avoid the war the warmongering Messianic Islamist Rapists are imposing on all.


Imposition of backbreaking airtight sanctions which includes air /naval quarantine is a must.  At the same time, logistical help from the sane world to the Iranian people to overthrow the weakened Messianic Islamist Rapists.