With Iran and Israel on the brink of war, the role of one outside actor is of utmost concern to both countries: America. Whether the US takes part in this war – and to what degree, and in what manner – will go a long way in determining its course and outcome.
At first glance, the situation looks ominous for Iran. Amid all the acrimony and polarisation in American politics, there are two issues that both of its mainstream national parties agree on: support for Israel and opposition to Iran. The latter is hardly surprising since the government in Tehran has declared anti-Americanism to be one of the core pillars of its ideology and has been involved in an on-and-off shadow war with the US for the past 45 years.
But there is bipartisanship on another policy, which might come as good news to Iran: the reluctance to get involved in a major war in the Middle East, especially after its disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its subsequent occupation of the country.
As Israel prepares to respond to Iran’s missile attacks from earlier this month, can Tehran hope for Washington to hold Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu back? Some within Iran’s diplomatic establishment are suggesting that their government should engage with the US to bring about such an outcome.
This week, an article in a reformist Tehran daily called Hammihan suggested such a path. Ahmad Dastmalchian, who previously served as Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon and Jordan, said that the US and Iran shared a “common viewpoint” in their collective desire to “stop Netanyahu from broadening the crisis”.
He wrote: “There is now a good opportunity for Tehran and Washington to engage with each other to stop things from getting out of hand. If a broad war breaks out in the region, it will severely endanger not just the interests of Iran but also those of the United States.” Acknowledging that Americans are currently focused on their presidential election, Mr Dastmalchian said talks could realistically resume after the vote.
Whether Israeli and American interests could be separated, or even set against each other, has always been a hot topic of debate in the US itself as well as in parts of the Middle East. Disagreeing with those who have often highlighted the role of the so-called “Israel Lobby” in Washington, Hezbollah’s assassinated leader Hassan Nasrallah once remarked that Israel was merely a pawn in America’s hands. But Mr Dastmalchian wrote that he disagrees with those who believe Israel is doing “the US’s bidding in the Middle East” and rejects the notion that America has any desire to get into a direct confrontation with Iran.
Pointing out that the US should first stop Israel’s “countless crimes in the Middle East”, Mr Dastmalchian wrote that once a ceasefire is achieved in Gaza and Lebanon, Tehran and Washington can “solve their issues in a negotiated process”, similar to the talks that brought about the 2015 nuclear deal.
The administration of US President Joe Biden has pledged to revive the agreement from which his predecessor and the Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump, withdrew Washington in 2018. But several rounds of indirect talks have failed to make that happen. Nevertheless, talks have continued, even during the presidency of Ebrahim Raisi, a known hardliner, who died in a helicopter crash earlier this year.
Raisi’s reformist successor, Masoud Pezeshkian, has appointed some of the diplomats who negotiated the deal, including current Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who was the country’s second-most senior diplomat in the 2013-2015 talks. In theory, then, Tehran has the right team to engage with the US.
Since last week, Mr Araghchi has been on a multi-country regional tour. Some of these countries have close ties to the US, with Oman – one of his destinations – said to have worked as an intermediary between Tehran and Washington. While Mr Araghchi said that these talks were “currently on pause”, he suggested later that his government continues to use “various ways” to exchange messages with Washington.
With less than a month to go before the US presidential election, the timelines for both potential Israeli attacks and indirect talks with Iran are complicated.
Mr Trump’s possible return to the White House has been a topic of discussion in Tehran. Such a concern may even have influenced Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to allow Dr Pezeshkian to run for president and bring back reformists from the political wilderness. At the same time, there are those in Iran’s foreign policy circles who believe that Mr Trump might be the preferred leader for Tehran to negotiate with.
Speaking to an Iranian magazine called Diplomasi-ye Irani, Vahid Karimi, a former Iranian diplomat now based in London, said that his country should “play its part” in defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party nominee, in the November election.
According to Mr Karimi, Democrats such as Mr Biden and former president Barack Obama will always come to Israel’s aid, which is why Iran could never trust them. In contrast, Mr Trump is a businessman with whom Tehran can hold talks, Mr Karimi said before adding that he believes the Republican will “cut military aid to Israel”. This is a puzzling remark, given Mr Trump’s pro-Israel track record during his previous term and his ties to Mr Netanyahu.
Regardless, what all serious decision-makers in Tehran agree on is that their country’s relationship with the US is of vital importance to its future. Next month, as is the case every year, Iran will mark the anniversary of the 1979 mob attack on the US embassy in Tehran, accompanied by rallies and “Death to USA” chants. But when these rallies are over and the chants have subsided, Iranians know that they will still need to talk to the “Great Satan”.
