Despite the rhetoric, Iran and the US are unlikely to become close allies

For years, the relationship between America and Iran has been characterised by mutual distrust and outright hostility. During Barack Obama’s presidency, the decade-long tension over Iran’s nuclear programme has escalated.

The US and its allies have imposed sanctions and even made veiled threats of using force, over fears that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. Iran has refused to compromise on its right to build nuclear capability.

Is that deadlock now beginning to thaw? In recent days, there has been a significant shift in rhetoric from both Obama, and from the new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani.

In an interview with NBC on Wednesday night – his first interview with western journalists since coming to power – Rouhani said that he was hopeful of a diplomatic breakthrough over Tehran’s nuclear weapons programme. He said: “The problem won’t be from our side. We have sufficient political latitude to solve this problem. Under no circumstances would we seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, nor will we ever.”

Of course, Iran has long insisted that its nuclear programme has only peaceful intentions, but given that Rouhani is broadly seen as a ‘moderate’, his comments are being imbued with greater significance than remarks by his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, might have been. The two leaders recently exchanged letters about the long stand-off, and may meet next week when Rouhani attends a United Nations meeting in New York. It is the first time Obama has address correspondence directly to the president, rather than to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

For his part, Obama has echoed Rouhani’s conciliatory language, telling the Spanish language TV network, Telemundo: “There is an opportunity here for diplomacy. I hope the Iranians take advantage of it. There are indications that Rouhani, the new president, is somebody who is looking to open dialogue with the west and with the US in a way that we haven’t seen in the past. And so we should test it.”

So what is behind this apparent shift in relations? First of all, the west views Rouhani as a moderate. He has close ties to Iran’s pro-reform Green Movement. A former nuclear negotiator (2003-5), he has pledged greater transparency on the nuclear programme, to prove that it is peaceful and stop the spread of “politically motivated misinformation”. A self-described moderate, he said during the election campaign that his ultimate goal was a relationship of “mutual respect” with America, starting with a “phased plan to deescalate hostility to a manageable state of tension and then engage in promotion of interactions and dialogue”. This week, he has released 11 high profile political prisoners.

Be that as it may, foreign policy does not change overnight – a fact which goes for both Iran and the US. Indeed, the second factor contributing to this rhetorical shift may be the situation in Syria. Iran is one of the Syrian regimes main allies and, along with Russia, is one of the only nations with real influence over President Bashar al-Assad. Numerous analysts have noted that the west’s efforts at seeking a diplomatic solution to the Syrian conflict have been hindered by refusing to include Iran in negotiations. In the NBC interview, Rouhani declined to comment on Iran’s role in the recent deal over Syrian chemical weapons, brokered by Russia. However, he did appear to congratulate Obama’s handling of the crisis, saying that it was not a sign of weakness to prioritise a diplomatic solution: “We consider war a weakness and any government that decides on peace we look on with respect,” he said.

Ultimately, it is highly unlikely that Iran and the US are going to become close allies any time soon. It remains questionable whether the two will be able to work together constructively – or at all – over Syria, but as Mark Landler points out in the New York Times, the immediate situation “gives Mr Obama a broader diplomatic context in which to engage Mr Rouhani”, rather than exclusively talking about the nuclear programme. Words, of course, are no guarantee of action – but the fact that words are even being exchanged at all is worth noting.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.