The fundamental question of whether or not the Green Movement’s opposition leaders were successful in their attempts to change the political landscape in Iran first lies in understanding the premise behind the organization and secondly recognizing the actual goals of the leadership. Consequently, this article analyzes these questions as a framework for developing a comparative analysis between revolutions and civil rights movements as a means to understand both the intent and outcomes of the Green Movement. From this analysis, lessons learned are put forth as a means to establish a series of recommendations for future Western political engagements with Iran. In doing so, the hope is that a political dialogue will emerge between Western governments that both alleviate the current tensions while also addressing security concerns in the region.
In this piece, Nathan González Mendelejis provides an overview of the combative relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. He argues that structural changes in the Middle East are forcing and will continue to force the two nations to improve their relationship. He describes routes that Iran can take to moderate its stance toward the United States and also provides a number of prescriptions for the consideration of US policymakers.
The US-Iran relations are structurally conflictual since the Islamic Revolution in 19791. The animosity is imbedded in the US-hostage crisis, freezing of Iranian assets and differing views on the security architecture of the Middle East. Despite overtures to normalize the bilateral relations from both sides, many issues impede these positive developments. Although there is convergence of interests on many areas, a few events from the past decade like regional peace process, terrorism, and most importantly, Iranian nuclear controversy continue to impact and cast shadows on the bilateral relations. The domestic politics in both countries and the US regional allies, especially, Israel and Saudi Arabia are other major challenges to their unfettered relations. However, lately the geopolitical position of Iran in the changing regional security environment, the phenomenon of ‘Islamic State’ and the agreed framework for a comprehensive nuclear deal raise the likelihood for a detente between Iran and the United States.
The Islamic Republic of Iran hegemon strategy is a clear and present danger to the Middle East; the strategy exacerbates ethnic and sectarian tensions and poses a danger of nuclear proliferation in the region. This analysis traces the roots of the Islamic Republic of Iran strategy as driven by Shiite religious imperatives and Iranian national interests. Two recent events, the resultant chaos from the Arab Spring and the new U.S. policy of disengagement from the Middle East changed the Middle East geostrategic environment; the residual consequences of the Arab Spring produced new threats to Iranian security and the United States progressive disengagement altered the regional strategic calculus. Iran adapted to the evolving environment to achieve major strategic advantages. Iran achieved increased political influence in countries flanking Saudi Arabia, gained additional leverage in the nuclear negotiations with the U.S., and deployed Iranian military forces outside Iran in a de facto sectarian war. The primary conclusion is Iran has effectively used the U.S. disengagement policy and localized vulnerabilities, which emerged in the Arab Spring chaos, to seize increased Iranian political and military freedom of action in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.