The Incoming Administration Urged to Take Seriously Regional Concerns Regarding Iran

Views from the Region

1/21/2021

As rumors mount regarding Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s health, the Trump administration continues to pursue actions that are likely to leave behind a complicated reality for the incoming administration. President-elect Joe Biden has already expressed his desire to re-engage with Iran in an attempt to go back to the Obama administration’s carrot and stick approach centered on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, US allies in the region have rejected the nuclear deal as deeply flawed. Regional observers have continued that line of attack on the JCPOA, urging the new administration to reconsider its approach to the Iranian nuclear program and take into consideration the concerns of its allies.

Reflecting on the role Ayatollah Khamenei plays as “the glue that holds the Islamic Republic together,”  Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist Majid Rafizadeh suggests in a recent Arab News op-ed that his death could lead to two diametrically opposed outcomes: “There have been many rumors and reports about Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s deteriorating health for several years. This raises an important question: What will happen when Khamenei, supreme leader for almost 32 years, dies?… Many in Iran believe that the paramount leader, who enjoys the final say on all Iran’s domestic and foreign policies, is the glue that holds the Islamic Republic together…. If Supreme Leader Khamenei dies, either the nation will rise up against the regime and threaten its hold on power or the IRGC will manage to hand-pick a sycophant who would act as its puppet, granting it free rein in political and economic affairs, increasing its leverage over Iran’s other institutions.”

But the Supreme Leader’s health is not the only destabilizing factor on the ground. If anything, even more dangerous and unpredictable is the recent flurry of military actions taken by Israel and the United States in Iraq and Syria. Najla Shahwan, a Palestinian author, researcher and freelance journalist, writing for the Daily Sabah notes, “In less than a week since the last wave of Israeli strikes on Syria targeted positions in the southern outskirts of Damascus and killed three pro-Iran fighters, Israeli warplanes last week carried out intense airstrikes in eastern Syria killing at least 57 fighters and wounding dozens. The overnight airstrikes were apparently targeting positions and arms depots of Iran-backed forces as the region is on high alert, according to a Syrian opposition war monitoring group…. The strikes… served to remind Syria that “there is a heavy price for the free hand you give to the Iranians in Syria” and to remind the incoming Biden administration that the challenge from Iran includes conventional military threats, not just the nuclear issue.”

Just this week, outgoing US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo publicly accused Iran of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, even going so far as to suggest that Iran has become Al Qaeda’s operational center. The revelation was quoted approvingly in an editorial in The National, which, while downplaying certain elements of the report, still admitted it raised important questions that needed to be tackled head on: “Few would compare Iran’s relationship with Al Qaeda to that previously enjoyed by the Taliban. Nor is it certain Iran has become the terrorist group’s definitive “home base.” These doubts have resulted in the current US administration’s detractors branding all claims of an Iran-Al Qaeda relationship entirely baseless. But they are not entirely baseless…. The timing of Mr. Pompeo’s announcement could indicate a short-term political motive as his time in office is coming to an end. But the facts stand and they must be faced. How they are dealt with must be a matter for the next US administration and the wider international community.”

Iranians, for their part, are also not likely to make the incoming US administration’s job any easier. In what can be interpreted as an attempt to raise the ante before the likely diplomatic negotiations, the Iranian government’s mouthpiece, Press TV, cited Iran’s nuclear chief “The country’s distrust of the United States is based on realities, and Washington first needs to rebuild the missing trust. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), said Iran does not trust the US, and the Americans do not trust Iran, either…. In his interview with the Leader’s website, Salehi further noted that Ayatollah Khamenei has called on the country’s officials to increase the nuclear power generation capacity to 30,000 megawatts…. The Iranian nuclear chief noted that the country is currently building the Bushehr II and Bushehr III nuclear power plants, whose construction will be completed in eight years.”

Turning their attention to what a Biden administration is likely to do, regional observers remain suspicious of the incoming administration. For example, Yedioth Ahronoth’s Alex Fishman argues that the Iranians have remained patient under immense pressure, anticipating a more malleable White House willing to leave Israel out in the cold: “The Iranians are far from fools. They will not hand outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump a casus bello with a direct act of aggression against the American military. The new administration under Joe Biden and the nuclear negotiations that will likely begin after January 20 are within their reach. They will no doubt include many of the same people who ran Obama’s negotiation efforts a decade ago, who are committed to the agreement reached during his term. So, they added obstacles such as increased uranium production, which can easily be dropped in exchange for more important achievements. Israel must be prepared for the day after Biden takes office and U.S.-Iran negotiations that may leave Jerusalem once again out of the loop.”

In an op-ed for the Arab News, Lebanese observer Dania Koleilat Khatib warns that Iran’s recent threats with regards to the nuclear watchdog inspectors should not be taken seriously, but rather as an attempt by Iran to tip the scales in its favor: “In the midst of the chaos that took Washington by surprise, when a mob invaded the Capitol, and while the US and the rest of the world were trying to grapple with what happened in America, Iran on Saturday gave President-elect Joe Biden an ultimatum: Lift the US sanctions on Tehran by Feb. 21 or we kick out nuclear watchdog inspectors…. Though Iran might feel it is putting pressure on the US, in fact this belligerent attitude makes it more difficult and embarrassing for Biden to go back to the deal. But how should Biden respond to such an ultimatum? To start with, he should not yield to Iran, while at the same time not saying no. He should leave the door open for negotiations and he should show goodwill toward the Iranian people.”

Criticism against the incoming Biden administration’s anticipated policy toward Iran has also come from Iranians living outside the country. For example, Hassan Keyane, an Iranian political analyst and former journalist, points out in a Jerusalem Post op-ed that, contrary to what some have argued, any concession made to the Iranian regime is unlikely to improve the economic conditions within the country: “Unless US President-elect Joe Biden’s team has some hitherto unspoken reason in returning to the Iran nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – accepting the argument that this would forestall the Islamic Republic’s nuclear military ambition or alleviate economic hardship of the Iranian people may be construed as a catastrophic case of self-deception…. The now-threadbare argument that appeasing the Iranian regime would strengthen the hands of its “moderate faction” is even more tenuous…. And finally, to justify the return to JCPOA on grounds of easing economic pressure on the ordinary Iranians indicates regrettable unfamiliarity with life in Iran.”

The message then, according to Jordan Times’ Osama Al Sharif, is clear. As the Biden administration returns to the negotiating table with the Iranians, it must avoid the mistakes of the Obama administration and begin to take into consideration the concerns and interests of regional allies: “Much has changed since 2015 and it would be wrong to assume that Biden would rejoin the nuclear agreement unconditionally…. Iran cannot expect to have the sanctions lifted and to be treated like a normal country when it is creating havoc in Iraq, meddling in the internal affairs of Lebanon and Syria and backing a terror group in Yemen. The nuclear deal is only part of a bigger problem that the region has with a belligerent Iran. Any new agreement must check Iran’s missile capabilities as well as retrain its proxies across the region. Biden must listen to America’s allies and send a stern message to Iranian leaders that it will not be rewarded for its disruptive policies.”