The following is an unsigned editorial from the Aug. 12 issue of America, a national Catholic weekly magazine run by the Jesuits.
The United States maintains a number of important strategic relationships — Israel, China and Russia come immediately to mind — that have the potential to make a significant impact on the current geopolitical landscape. But perhaps the most important relationship the United States maintains, the one likeliest to have the greatest short- and long-term impact on global peace, is with Iran.
That is not to say that it is a positive relationship — yet. But even a “relationship” based on animus and suspicion can be important. A Venn diagram of the geopolitical world seen through American and Iranian eyes would show overlapping cultural, political and military interests in Syria, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and multilateral concerns such as nuclear proliferation, reducing tensions with the world’s Sunni Muslims and converging economic and trade interests and conflicts.
Iran and the United States have been at odds since the Islamic revolution deposed the CIA-backed shah, and the ensuing hostage crisis wrecked the Carter presidency and any chance for the normalization of relations for decades.
The United States and Iran have been at loggerheads over Israel and the plight of Palestinians, nuclear weapons development and military and industrial espionage. A historic low was reached during the Iraq-Iran war, when the United States began what would become its disastrous “enemy of my enemy is my friend” alliance with Saddam Hussein. Now the two powers once again find themselves on different sides in Syria. The United States is backing Syrian rebels, many of whom hold near genocidal ambitions for the Iranian-supported Alawites and not much more regard for Syria’s significant Christian minority, and Iran is supporting the tyrant Bashar Assad.
A detente between Iran and the United States would offer welcome global breathing space on a variety of tense standoffs, but a respectful engagement with Iran could mean significant progress on a gamut of issues that have troubled the region and beyond. With Iranian cooperation, the United States could see a breakthrough on peace in the Middle East and moderation among Iranian surrogates in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.
Iran could also contribute to reducing the violence in Iraq and tension at flashpoints like the Persian Gulf, where the U.S. Navy and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards play regular games of speed-boat chicken. Instead of using Syria as a proxy battleground, by working together the two powers could pressure both sides in this vicious civil war to a negotiating table. But before they can get Syria’s warring factions to talk, Iran and the United States need to figure out how to speak together themselves.
On better terms with Iran, the United States could serve a role as bridgemaker with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states now most hostile to Iran and perhaps even help diminish the historical and increasingly dangerous tensions between the Sunni and Shiite Muslim worlds. But perhaps the most important reason for a change of tack regarding Iran is the likely endpoint of the perilous course the two nations have already taken, a clash of arms that neither side can afford.
As it finally extracts itself from interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq that have cost the nation dearly in life, treasure and esteem, the last thing the United States needs is to be drawn into yet another conflict in the Middle East. Increasingly isolated, struggling under relentless U.S./U.N. sanctions and confronting a young and increasingly vocal population restless with the pace of social change and economic development, Iran likewise should be seeking opportunities for rapprochement with the United States, not a glorious clash of arms with the “Great Satan.”
The strident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is gone. In the recent presidential election, Iranians selected the pragmatist Hassan Rouhani, the nation’s most “liberal” conservative, who enjoyed the support of reformers and moderates in Iran. Recent evidence suggests that the Iranians have yet to commit themselves irrevocably to the production of nuclear weapons. The Iranian people are eager for change. Now, but perhaps for only a short time, a window of opportunity for improving relations with Iran is open.
Each March since he was elected, President Obama has issued a call to friendship directly to the people of Iran during the Iranian New Year holiday of Nowruz. This year, noting that Iran’s continuing isolation “isn’t good for the world,” he said. “Just as your forbearers enriched the arts and sciences throughout history, all nations would benefit from the talents and creativity of the Iranian people, especially your young people. Every day that you are cut off from us is a day we’re not working together, building together, innovating together — and building a future of peace and prosperity that is at the heart of this holiday.”
These are fine words. Now the president needs to reach out in a dramatic gesture that will allow the Iranians to join him in making them not only fine but true.
The views or positions presented in this or any guest editorial are those of the individual publication and do not necessarily represent the views of CatholicPhilly.com, Catholic News Service or the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Join the CatholicPhilly.com family
CatholicPhilly.com works to strengthen the connections between people, families and communities every day by delivering the news people need to know about the Catholic Church, especially in the Philadelphia region, and the world in which we live.
By your donation in any amount, you and hundreds of other people become part of our mission to inform, form in the Catholic faith and inspire the thousands of readers who visit every month.
Here is how you can help:
- A $100 gift allows us to present award-winning photos of Catholic life in our neighborhoods.
- A $50 gift enables us to cover a news event in a local parish, school or Catholic institution.
- A $20 gift lets us obtain solid faith formation resources that can deepen your spirituality and knowledge of the faith.
- A small, automated monthly donation means you can support us continually and easily.
Won't you consider making a gift today?
Please join in the church's vital mission of communications by offering a gift in whatever amount that you can ― a single gift of $40, $50, $100, or more, or a monthly donation. Your gift will strengthen the fabric of our entire Catholic community and sustain CatholicPhilly.com as your trusted news source. Thank you in advance!
Make your donation by credit card here:
Or make your donation by check:
222 N. 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
The reality is that Iran will never use a nuclear bomb against Israel (or any country to its West) because the nuclear fallout of such a bomb will blow East (the prevailing wind direction) and kill many, many Iranis. I suspect that the new President of Iran (who is a cleric) will want to remove the economic sanctions by showing the world that they don’t intend to build a nuclear bomb.
Incidentally, it is now becoming clear that Saddam thought he had nuclear weapons but, in fact, didn’t have them. His Generals and Admirals had to keep telling him he had the bomb or they would have been put to death.
This article is nonsense. Iran is ruled by clerics of a religion that has a sacred duty to subdue all non-Muslims. Don’t take my word for it, just read the Koran. “Iranians have yet to commit themselves irrevocably to building nuclear weapons”? What does that phrase mean? That they haven’t tightened the last bolt on their first bomb? The fact is, they are building nuclear weapons and show no signs of stopping despite years of crippling sanctions.
Any detente would simply be used by them to gain some breathing room and continue to advance their aims.
We should not try to occupy Iran like Afghanistan and Iraq where our attempts to create a Western style democracy have failed. But their nuclear capabilities need to be destroyed. It is a sad fact, because the consequences will be terrible, but not so terrible as letting them have nuclear weapons.
In regard to US – Iran cooperation in the Syrian War, both countries have different objectives which may not be resolvable. The US supports segments of the rebels (who are all Sunnis). Iran obviously supports the Shiites which includes Assad (who is a member of a Shiite sect called the Alawites). It should be noted that Iraq has a majority Shiite population which was controlled by a minority Sunni population under Saddam; it is now controlled by a democratically elected Shiite President and Prime Minister. On the other hand, Syria has a majority Sunni population which is controlled by a minority Shiite population under Assad; the root of the current conflict in Syria is the desire by the Sunni population (supported by outside influences) to have a Sunni dominated government. It is curious that both Saddam and Assad were/are members of the Bath Political Party which is generally non-religious; it is also a fact that the most conservative factions of Sunni Islam hated Saddam because he was not a religious Muslim (as a indication of his non-religious orientation, he did not wear a beard) and Assad because he is a Shiite (Alawite).
In my view, the most important aspect of the Muslim world is the historical conflict between Sunni and Shiite Islam. We can help ourselves and the West in general by understanding and capitalizing on this continuing conflict and using this conflict to our advantage.
In regard to the potential US role in resolving the age old conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, I would say that the continuing conflict is in the US interest because it ensures that the two largest branches of Islam will not resolve their differences and they will, therefore, not pose a greater threat to the US or the West.
There are several points that the US should concede on:
(1) if Pakistan has the bomb which it does, then Iran should be able to have have a bomb also;
(2) if Iran says it is not developing nuclear weapons, then we should believe them because the new President of Iran is a cleric; and,
(3) if Iran does not want to recognize Israel, then so what.