RKGLOBALANALYSIS

TheVirtueofaDiplomaticTangoandtheProspectsofthe USIranNuclearAgreement
September26, 2013

Any plan conceived in moderation must fail when the circumstances are set in extremes.
Klemens von Metternich May 15, 1773 - June 11, 1859

The classical age of diplomacy (from 14th to 19th Century) rested upon the idea that one must always be cautious of the true and hidden intention of the other in order to pursue a true diplomatic venture. It was within this context, the wars were waged to carry out the true intentions in a violent way. Little has changed since then. In fact, the modern diplomacy has remained intact. What is changed is the tools of communication. The Emperor's messenger has been replaced by the op-ed pages of the New York Times and the Royal City announcer is replaced by the likes of Twitter. The recent outburst of a diplomatic activity between Tehran and Washington has many excited. Even before the General Assembly session in New York, the diplomatic corridor in Washington and in the media was celebrating the exchange of positive vibes between the two entities who have not had a direct contact in decades. One of the strongest elements of this "optimism" is the arrival of the new Iranian President on the world stage. While Rouhani is an engaging and conciliatory figure, a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff would require a formula that accommodates the key concerns of each side. That is a tall order and the road to any agreement on the nuclear file is filled with many twists and turns and not to mention, a potential conflict. There must be no doubt that the creation and implementation of the magic formula to strike a deal with Iran is a complex and difficult goal - to say the least. Lets start with the US foreign policy framework. The confused foreign policy narrative by the US towards the Middle East has diminished the American influence in the region partly because of the Iraqi situation and partly because Mr. Obamas own team has been deeply divided on when to intervene in the

RKGlobalAnalysisrkglobalanalysis@gmail.com

regional affairs. The most recent speech by the President at the UN confirmed the above few days ago. In short, Mr. Obama is embarking on the Nuclear diplomacy with Iran on softer grounds and that in the long run will not achieve the desired results. From the Iranian standpoint, Rouhani is a consummate insider of the Iranian establishment. With experience in all aspects of foreign policy and wide bureaucratic support from regime loyalists and centrists like Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, there is no question he represents the interests of the system-which he should. But the key point keeps skipping from so called "analysts" is that the real power in Iran lies with the Supreme leader, Ali Khamenei and it is no secret that he is not fond of the US. (Initially, Rouhani was supposed to "encounter" President Obama during his trip to the UN. I shared my doubts, both publicly and privately that this will not happen and I was not wrong). Tehran did not allow Rouhani to make that "encounter". What is really needed is answer to the following two critical questions related to the Iranian nuclear issue. Answer to these two critical questions will determine the future course of dealing with this matter. The first question is: Can the World and specially the Arab nations and Israel live with a nuclear Iran? If the answer is no, then what's to be done to stop Iran going nuclear? These and only these two question must be answered in order to reach an agreement. The rest is just filling the empty pages of the magazines and newspapers. It is critically essential for all the parties involved in this issue to grasp the importance of these two questions. Without answering these two critical questions, I am afraid that this issue will drag on and at some point, someone will lose the patience and then what happens, is anyone's guess. As said on these pages before, there are basically three options dealing with this issue. First, the world learns to live with a nuclear Iran as it has in the case with Pakistan. Second, if the international community agrees to live with the nuclear Iran, one thing must be made it clear to the present and future Iranian leadership: If there is a strike on Iran's neighbors or Israel, the response by the International community will be fast and furious. This option should not be packaged in a threat form. This option must be made in a direct and somber tone by the International community to the Iranian leadership. And, third: Iran will not provide weapons or the know-how to its proxy groups. These are extremely difficult options to pursue but options nonetheless. Moreover, these options are way better approach than another conflict or strike in the Middle-East which will be a major global catastrophe. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan.

RKGlobalAnalysisrkglobalanalysis@gmail.com

With clear and focused strategy along with the united international community, the Iranian nuclear issue can be managed. However, as 18th century British nobleman Henry Boyle once remarked: Journey between two opposing entities is the easiest part; the most difficult part of their respective journey is meeting halfway.

RKGlobalAnalysisrkglobalanalysis@gmail.com