With respect to Iran, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has an op-ed in today's
Washington Post. The op-ed can be found at:
President of Iran Hassan Rouhani: Time to engage - The Washington Post
My quick thoughts:
The rhetoric is encouraging, but one needs concrete policy information and actions to determine whether the softer rhetoric is indicative of an Iranian shift or whether it is merely fresh packaging on a policy that remains little changed. One also has to bear in mind that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei's authority supersedes that of the President. Khamenei has not had a record of flexibility.
In the op-ed, President Rouhani repeatedly refers to "constructive engagement." He talks about a world where "global politics is no longer a zero-sum game." The big question concerns whether he is indicating new Iranian flexibility or whether he is largely imploring the international community to be more flexible in its dealings with Iran. A diplomatic breakthrough will require trade-offs from both sides, not simply the international community's abandoning its needs with respect to Iran.
The rhetoric and appeals to "mutual respect" and "win-win outcomes" seems encouraging. Certainly, if the opportunity arises, President Obama should meet with his Iranian counterpart at the UN General Assembly.
Having said that, there are elements in the op-ed that suggest more a change in style than substance. For example, Rouhani declares that it is "counterintuitive to pursue one's interests without considering the interests of others." He could just as easily be charging that the U.S. and international community have been ignoring Iran's interests. Perhaps most decisive, he ties Iran's nuclear program to Iran's identity. He writes:
The centrality of identity extends to the case of our peaceful nuclear energy program. To us, mastering the atomic fuel cycle and generating nuclear power is as much about diversifying our energy resources as it is about who Iranians are as a nation, our demand for dignity and respect and our consequent place in the world. Without comprehending the role of identity, many issues we all face will remain unresolved.
Is the Iranian President willing to accept international safeguards to assure that his country's nuclear program is "peaceful?" Is he willing to limit his notions of "mastering the atomic fuel cycle" to the more limited areas consistent with a civilian nuclear program rather than inclusive of know-how or technology necessary to create highly-enriched uranium that could be weaponized? If not, and that remains to be seen and should be probed by international diplomats in the near-term, then he is actually making a decisive stand against compromise on Iran's nuclear activities despite the kinder rhetorical packaging he has offered.
Actions and concrete policy details will determine whether Iran is shifting course. Until then, the best one can suggest is that the possible opening needs to be explored to see if it is real. One cannot, at this time, conclude that Iran has shifted its policy course.