Dan Lavigne Memorandum on Relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran post Nuclear Deal

Memorandum on Relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran post Nuclear Deal

To: President Donald J. Trump

CC: Michael R. Pence

From: Daniel J. Lavigne, Secretary of State

Date: April 22, 2018

Subject: The Situation in Iran

Context:

                       

            The relations between the United States and Iran have not always been on equal footing. As part of the Cold War’s greater geopolitical strategies, the United States overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh in a 1953 military coup through Operation Ajax. Mossadegh attempted to nationalize British Petroleum to reduce Western influence in the country. The American and British agents replaced Mossadegh with the Persian monarchy. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was crowned Shah or king of Iran in the aftermath of this coup. The monarchy ruled until the 1979 Revolution in which Ayatollah Khomeini gained influence creating a theocratic regime under Shia Islam. 

In July 2015 Iran and the P+1 of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany reached a deal to limit Iran’s development of nuclear capabilities. Components of the deal state that the, “...Iranians are not allowed any enrichment or enrichment research and development, or any nuclear stockpile of more than 300 kg of low-enriched uranium for 15 years. (At the time of the signing of the agreement, Iran’s stockpile was nearly 15,000 kg. Furthermore, Iran is not allowed to enrich uranium by more than a level of 3%–7% per annum for 10 years…” (Tarock, 2016, 1412). These measures are designed to reduce the amount of potentially harmful material in the country that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The passage of the deal lifted some sanctions on Iran, easing some economic struggles within the country.

Task:

It is advisable that the United States maintain the current nuclear deal reached in 2015 with Iran, the four countries of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany, as all parties involved have something to gain in the long term. In the short term, allies of the United States express concerns about the consideration of leaving the deal. French President Emmanuel Macron questions an alternative option. British Prime Minister Theresa May views this agreement as “vitally important”. German Chancellor Angela Merkel questioned the reliability of the United States and warned that Europe “really must take our fate into our own hands” (Tobey, 2017). Additionally, for this deal to be successful in the long run the United States must attempt to normalize its affairs through active engagement with Iran as a priority of regional security and economic interest. 

Solution:

            The solution to better relationships with Iran must be understood through peaceful engagement between the two countries. A solution is to extend the olive branch first, through soft power initiatives while still maintaining pressure on the obligations of the deal. Offering more student visas to Iranian students is step in a positive direction. The goal is that students will share their experiences upon their return to Iran to change the way their community views the United States. In return, Iran may decide to reduce its travel restrictions to Americans. Under the current system Americans may travel to Iran on a U.S. passport. Detail of the visit must be pre-arranged by reputable guides before arriving in the country (Johnston, 2015). Visitors are not allowed to travel freely as everything is managed by the state.

            Regarding the nuclear deal ongoing dialogue with Iran and periodically using the mechanisms designed within the framework of the agreement is necessary.  One such mechanism is invoking the power of nuclear inspections under the IAEA “...within 24 days, as long as a majority of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany agree” (Tarock, 2016, 1412). This will help demonstrate that the United States can use international frameworks, despite its dominating behavior in the middle east for nearly two decades. Additionally, it signals to Iran that the United States will not tolerate the development of nuclear weapons capabilities. This also may help stabilize the relationships of regional actors.

Evidence:

            Iran has a young population. According to the United States Institute for Peace, 60% of the country’s 80 inhabitants are under the age of 30 years of age and many are highly educated (Omid Memarian and Tara Nesvaderani). Looking specifically at women, “...64 percent [are] university graduates and the female literacy rate exceed 80 percent” (Monshipouri, Mahmood; assareh Ali., 2009, 35). Iran is also very tech savvy countries in this part of the world. There is estimated 30 million internet users in addition to hosting 60,000 100,000 active blogs (Omid Memarian and Tara Nesvaderani). This was seen in the Green Revolution of 2009 when the people took the streets with their smartphones and used several applications to organize against the Government. The rich human capital of Iranian young people offers the United States a unique opportunity. People in the United States get the opportunity to interact with Iranian students thus understanding their culture, while the people of Iran get a better opportunity to learn about American culture and values upon the return of these students. This will help reduce the “Death to America” rhetoric, propagated since the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Failed Solutions:

            Hard power compliance is not an option for the Iran nuclear deal. Using Afghanistan and Iraq as examples, the United States cannot afford another war in the Middle East, especially now given the escalation in Syria. Citing data from Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, Tarock noted the figure of $6 trillion spent on the first two conflicts mentioned. (Tarock, 2016, 1416-1417). This is not financially responsible or sustainable. Additionally, Iran has certain geographic features that make conflict difficult, much like Afghanistan. Three mountain ranges defend the country from invaders, most recently Iraq during the decade of the 1980’s. Iran also controls the transit of the world’s major oil channel, the Strait of Hormuz.

Summary:

            The United States for its long-term security interest must not withdraw from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal with the named party, the members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany. Soft power engagement using young students will help shift the cultural paradigm of the past forty year, each side not having trust for the other. The U.S. can engage with the youth, who understands the value of technology and calling for reforms against their government as demonstrated by the 2009 Green Revolution. Military action is not advisable as demonstrated through the entrenched warfare in Afghanistan in terms of financial cost. Iran’s geographic also wards off even the thought of invasion to force compliance of this agreement.

Works Cited:

Tarock, Adam. “The Iran nuclear deal: winning a little, losing a lot” Third World Quarterly, 2016 VOL. 37, NO. 8, 1408–1424. 1 March 2016.

Tobey, William. “What Would U.S. Withdrawal From the Iran Nuclear Deal Look Like? The United States must build an international consensus on Iran”. Foreign Policy. AUGUST 31, 2017. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/31/what-would-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-iran-nuclear-deal-look-like/

Johnson, Clint. “HOW TO TRAVEL TO IRAN AS AN AMERICAN” Trip Hacker. 2015. http://triphackr.com/how-to-travel-to-iran-as-an-american/

Monshipouri, Mahmood; assareh Ali. “The Islamic Republic and the “Green Movement”: Coming Full Circle”. Middle East Policy, Vol XVI, No.4. Winter 2009.

Omid Memarian; Tara Nesvaderani “The Youth”. The Iran Primer. United Institute for Peace.