When President Obama, partner nations, and Iranian president Hassan Rouhani announced the completion of a nuclear deal, political reactions were typically divisive in the United States but strangely united in Iran. Such agreement is rare for what is usually a divided Iranian body politic. But the accomplishment for politicians and negotiators—in the United States, Europe, and Tehran—may have sparked false hope for the people of Iran.
Despite feigned indifference from the Obama administration about whether the deal would thaw international relations, many Iranians hoped the agreement would be a first step toward normalization with the West. Unfortunately, new developments show they were likely wrong.
Today’s Iranian political spectrum ranges from radical reformists on the far left to conservative hardliners on the far right. Pragmatists occupy the middle, flanked on their immediate left and right by pragmatic reformists and conservatives. Each political group is Islamic, but they have different visions for the future of Iran and for how the nuclear deal fits into that future.
Reformists want to see Iran become an Islamic version of Japan: a democratic country with close ties to the West and the United States, but proud of its strong traditions and heritage. They dream of an advanced economy diplomatically integrated with the rest of the world. Most Iranians–whether secular or Islamic–share this view. While secular Iranians lack true representation in the Islamic political system, most would identify with Islamic reformists if forced to choose (combining for an estimated 80 percent of the population).
Pragmatists prefer an Islamic version of China: a military and economy strong enough to operate independently of the West. They want whatever is most expedient for Iran’s prosperity, whether or not that means dealing with the West. Pragmatists prefer whatever mix of individual freedoms and state controls are necessary, but political liberalization isn’t on their agenda. An estimated 10-15 percent of Iranian people agree with the pragmatists’ approach.
Hardliners are fine with their current Islamic North Korea: an isolated nation apart from the influence of the West. They want a self-sufficient country with strong social controls ruled by a powerful regime resistant to “oppressor regimes” like America. Few Iranian people (roughly five percent) share this view.
The nuclear agreement initially appeased these competing factions, temporarily blurring the true victors of the approved deal.
As the economic sanctions took their toll, the Iranian public grew restless with the hardline stance against the West. They supported the negotiations wholeheartedly as a hope for economic relief, possible political liberty, and closer diplomatic and economic relations with the United States and the West.
Pragmatists were equally impatient for sanctions relief, and totally unmoved by the diplomatic opposition regime hardliners had against negotiations.
But conservative hardliners, who hold all unelected positions of power, were in danger of losing control of the population. Iran has a revolutionary culture—it and Russia are the only countries to have had two revolts in the twentieth century—and the precursors were there again: Unemployment had risen to 30-40 percent, inflation was rampant, and Iran’s large youth population grew increasingly discontent. They had limited time to address the sanctions and stabilize the economy before internal frustrations boiled over.
Thus, even though dealing with the West is as anathema to Iranian hardliners as dealing with Iran is to American conservatives, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei allowed popularly elected president Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist, to move forward with negotiations.
When the deal came through, everybody got a piece of what they wanted. Reformists rejoiced about its implications for an open society. Pragmatists got an end to sanctions and the possibility of economic growth through access to the global economy. And Ayatollah Khamenei and his hardliners got stability and retention of social control.
Yet out of this seeming “win-win-win” for all three groups, a singular victory emerged for the Supreme Leader and his hardliners. The Ayatollah recently banned any further negotiations with the United States and shot off a new long-range surface-to-air missile—in likely violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Such defiance showed that the isolation game remains the same: The ruling regime will not allow any real progress with the West—especially not the United States.
As the Ayatollah clenched his fist, he dashed the hopes millions of reformist Iranians that the nuclear agreement would renew relations between their country and the global community. Unfortunately, the United States’ narrow focus on nuclear issues allowed the regime to leave diplomatic issues like regional security, human rights, and political liberation dangling in the wind.
Tackling issues in silos will never achieve wide-ranging solutions for the people of Iran. It only allows the ruling hardliners to selectively engage in issues that suit their best interests. With the moment of international pressure gone, the Iranian people can only hope the next US administration will pursue broader normalization with Iran.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. We convene leading global voices and conduct independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion in blog posts are the sole responsibility of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council.
Former Netanyahu foreign policy advisor Jonathan Schachter and Brookings’ Tamara Cofman Wittes join Deep Dish to examine how Israel’s foreign policy has changed and the way the country’s relationships will shape the future.
The Council's Sam Kling explains why the rising number of COVID-19 cases nationwide provides an opportunity to re-examine assumptions about the virus’s relationship to city life.
Lawyer and author Alina Das joins Deep Dish to share the stories that give a face to decades of legislation criminalizing immigrants — and what we can do to begin to fix the system.
Investigative reporter Catherine Belton joins Deep Dish to examine the people that surround Russia’s enigmatic leader – and the financial ties to the West that makes the Kremlin’s dominance possible.
The Igarapé Institute’s Ilona Szabó and the Financial Times' Andres Schipani join Deep Dish to examine the implications of social, political, and economic turmoil in South America’s largest economy.
University of Wisconsin-Madison historian Brenda Gayle Plummer joins Deep Dish to examine what the United States must learn from systemic racism's influence on our past in order to fix our foreign policy.
Facing a lack of support and a disconnect between national migration policies and local integration strategies, a small but growing number of cities are increasingly engaging in diplomacy to reshape migration narratives at the global level.
In the coming months, local communication will merit special attention as a key tool to combat discrimination and turn the COVID-19 challenge into an opportunity for moving societies towards inclusion and social cohesion, rather than xenophobia.
Jamil Anderlini, the Financial Times’ Asia editor, and Kurt Tong, former US Consul General in Hong Kong, join Deep Dish to examine how Hong Kong might impact the US-China rivalry.
The University of Chicago's Robert Pape joins Deep Dish to help us understand the right—and wrong—ways to end the United States’ longest war.
Agriculture expert, Khalid Bomba, takes a minute to discuss the importance of agriculture to the economy of Ethiopia.
Georgetown University Political Scientist and Expert on Chinese Military and Security Policy, Oriana Skylar Mastro, takes a minute to discuss China's global influence and what this means for the US and its allies.
Global Cities and ACLS/Mellon Public Fellow at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Samuel Kling, takes a minute to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on big cities and how cities can benefit from high density in a pandemic.
Over the last month, we talked to journalists around the world in a series of special edition Deep Dish episodes focused on how countries around the world are responding to COVID-19.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Bonnie Glaser and Lieutenant Commander Matthew Dalton, US Navy, join Deep Dish to examine China’s strategy and potential US policy options to ensure freedom of navigation remains intact.