Hoping for Change
A note by Morteza Kazemian
At last we came to Obama’s presidency. And we can say besides American citizens, the world is awaiting a season of "change". Despite some undue optimisms, there is more than little evidence for this expectation. The most important is the African-American president himself that has gained meaningful support both inside and outside the United States.
Those awaiting change in U.S. policies aren’t also few in Iran, especially when many believe there will be an end to economic problems with a shift in the hostile relations of Tehran and Washington.
The obstacles are many, but hopes aren’t few. In his inauguration, the 44th President of United States said his country will extend a hand to those who are willing to unclench their fist. Putting his hand on the same Bible Abraham Lincoln had used, the 47-year-old Obama said: "America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity".
Warmonger neo-cons have left the White House; however, change in U.S. policies is not that easy, as tens of thousands of American soldiers still serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wordings will not also become gentler as easy as it was thought. The new U.S. President addressed "those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent" in his speech and said that they "the wrong side of history". Compared with other presidents -and just like Bush- Obama positions himself higher when giving a speech.
Nevertheless, let us choose "hope" like Obama has chosen it over fear. We can surely say that the whole world hopes for a change, one with less violence, and towards a more secure and peaceful life.
A change in White House will be only a part of this new season. Others should also appreciate the new opportunity for a likely change in global relations. As Angela Merkel said a few weeks ago, one country can’t solve the problems of the world, but we need a collective effort.
Expectedly, change in Iran’s strategy towards relations with United States will not be smooth, nevertheless looking possible. There is evidence for this such as Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush, his letter of congratulation to Obama and all the implicit signals sent for the new U.S. president, and most important of all, Iranian Supreme Leader’s statement: "definitely the day when relations with the United States becomes advantageous for the [Iranian] nation, I will be the first to approve it […] we’ve never said that the relations have been cut forever".
Washington will meanwhile continue its efforts to realign Iran’s behavior in most significant points of difference, particularly Iran’s nuclear program, Palestine-Israel conflict, Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah. This time-consuming process which is supposedly being redirected towards "incentives", and not a "punitive" course, calls for a decision by both sides to "change" the status quo, something that that ends in satisfaction of both sides’ interests and brings global peace.
From this perspective, it is assumed that Obama’s decision-makers in foreign policy have taken Iran’s presidential elections in 2009 into consideration. Khatami’s nomination for the election which is due five months will be a determinant factor in formulating strategies both in the United States and Iran.
Considering conservatives’ current domination over Iran’s power structure, Washington can start a change in relations before the likely changes in Iran’s executive, or it can wait for election results of 2009.
It is evident that Iranian presidents aren’t the final arbiters in Iran’s political system and foreign policy, especially an exceptional case like relations with the United States is managed by the Supreme Leader of Iran. However, president’s popular support, his strategies and personal characteristics and the civil society’s conditions have undeniable impacts on shaping foreign policy.
The conservative groups in Iran do not want reformists to play a role in the process of changing relations with United States. They (especially pragmatist and authoritarian figures) will do their utmost to set out changes before then end of Ahmadinejad’s term, to secure their position in power and to maintain their political and economic benefits which are a courtesy of his administration. Despite the benefits and motives of the authoritarian groups in Iran, it is the White House that has to start planning and actualizing the new course of interactions with Tehran.
With Khatami’s likely nomination for 2009 elections, key power-holders in Iran should think whether a figure like Khatami (as a well-known international figure with his unique rhetoric and personal qualities who probably has Iranians’ support) or the conservatives are better to move on such a process.
As said before, White House should take this into due consideration. Until further developments (Khatami’s nomination, decision of central power holders in Iran, and actualization of Obama’s plans for Iran) we can do nothing but wait. We wait with hopes for a change since in unison with Obama "we have chosen hope".
Those awaiting change in U.S. policies aren’t also few in Iran, especially when many believe there will be an end to economic problems with a shift in the hostile relations of Tehran and Washington.
The obstacles are many, but hopes aren’t few. In his inauguration, the 44th President of United States said his country will extend a hand to those who are willing to unclench their fist. Putting his hand on the same Bible Abraham Lincoln had used, the 47-year-old Obama said: "America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity".
Warmonger neo-cons have left the White House; however, change in U.S. policies is not that easy, as tens of thousands of American soldiers still serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wordings will not also become gentler as easy as it was thought. The new U.S. President addressed "those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent" in his speech and said that they "the wrong side of history". Compared with other presidents -and just like Bush- Obama positions himself higher when giving a speech.
Nevertheless, let us choose "hope" like Obama has chosen it over fear. We can surely say that the whole world hopes for a change, one with less violence, and towards a more secure and peaceful life.
A change in White House will be only a part of this new season. Others should also appreciate the new opportunity for a likely change in global relations. As Angela Merkel said a few weeks ago, one country can’t solve the problems of the world, but we need a collective effort.
Expectedly, change in Iran’s strategy towards relations with United States will not be smooth, nevertheless looking possible. There is evidence for this such as Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush, his letter of congratulation to Obama and all the implicit signals sent for the new U.S. president, and most important of all, Iranian Supreme Leader’s statement: "definitely the day when relations with the United States becomes advantageous for the [Iranian] nation, I will be the first to approve it […] we’ve never said that the relations have been cut forever".
Washington will meanwhile continue its efforts to realign Iran’s behavior in most significant points of difference, particularly Iran’s nuclear program, Palestine-Israel conflict, Iran’s support of Hamas and Hezbollah. This time-consuming process which is supposedly being redirected towards "incentives", and not a "punitive" course, calls for a decision by both sides to "change" the status quo, something that that ends in satisfaction of both sides’ interests and brings global peace.
From this perspective, it is assumed that Obama’s decision-makers in foreign policy have taken Iran’s presidential elections in 2009 into consideration. Khatami’s nomination for the election which is due five months will be a determinant factor in formulating strategies both in the United States and Iran.
Considering conservatives’ current domination over Iran’s power structure, Washington can start a change in relations before the likely changes in Iran’s executive, or it can wait for election results of 2009.
It is evident that Iranian presidents aren’t the final arbiters in Iran’s political system and foreign policy, especially an exceptional case like relations with the United States is managed by the Supreme Leader of Iran. However, president’s popular support, his strategies and personal characteristics and the civil society’s conditions have undeniable impacts on shaping foreign policy.
The conservative groups in Iran do not want reformists to play a role in the process of changing relations with United States. They (especially pragmatist and authoritarian figures) will do their utmost to set out changes before then end of Ahmadinejad’s term, to secure their position in power and to maintain their political and economic benefits which are a courtesy of his administration. Despite the benefits and motives of the authoritarian groups in Iran, it is the White House that has to start planning and actualizing the new course of interactions with Tehran.
With Khatami’s likely nomination for 2009 elections, key power-holders in Iran should think whether a figure like Khatami (as a well-known international figure with his unique rhetoric and personal qualities who probably has Iranians’ support) or the conservatives are better to move on such a process.
As said before, White House should take this into due consideration. Until further developments (Khatami’s nomination, decision of central power holders in Iran, and actualization of Obama’s plans for Iran) we can do nothing but wait. We wait with hopes for a change since in unison with Obama "we have chosen hope".