Latest news with #USIranRelations
Irish Times
09-08-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
A thoroughly engrossing account of the Iranian revolution and an essential read on post-Assad Syria
King of Kings: The Fall of the Shah, the Iranian Revolution and the Unmaking of the Modern Middle East Author : Scott Anderson ISBN-13 : 978-1529155266 Publisher : Hutchinson Heinemann Guideline Price : €25 Transformed by the People: Hayat Tahrir al-Sham's Road to Power in Syria Author : Patrick Haenni and Jerome Drevon ISBN-13 : 978-1805264101 Publisher : Hurst Guideline Price : £19.95 Scott Anderson's thoroughly engrossing account of the Iranian revolution, King of Kings, is a welcome refresher for many in the West, whose perception of US-Iranian relations is no doubt coloured by the hostage crisis and the subsequent mutual vilification by the two countries. Anderson provides ample nuance in his account of the prior relationship between Washington and Tehran, one that the Americans were not automatically giving up on after the advent of the mullahs. Popular resentment in Iran against the US for its role in the 1953 coup that overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh and for its steadfast support for the Shah fuelled the revolution from both the secular left and religious right. In reality, however, as Anderson points out, Washington was fairly hands-off after 1953, probably a bit too much for its, and Iran's, good. The most striking thing we learn from King of Kings was how negligent Washington was of Iran. The country was America's most important ally in the region, according to Anderson (I am presuming he is not counting Israel), and yet, right until the fall of the Shah, employed barely any Farsi-speakers at its Tehran embassy and was far too content to listen to, and relay, the good news it wanted to hear from Iran. READ MORE [ Two tribes: How Israel and Iran became enemies Opens in new window ] This was true of successive administrations but it became particularly acute under Jimmy Carter , when competing egos in his cabinet, the worst offender being Zbigniew Brzezinski, engendered an institutional sclerosis that resulted in the rare warnings from seasoned Iran hands, such as Farsi-speaking consular official Mike Metrinko, and head of the State Department's Iran desk Henry Precht, going unheard. [ Iran-US relations: What is behind the hostility between the two countries? Opens in new window ] When the revolution did come, being almost instantly usurped by the supremely vicious and obscure Ruhollah Khomeini, the White House was as taken aback as were American expatriates in Tehran, blissfully ignorant in their sociolinguistic bubbles and suburban homes. Admittedly, many Iranians, even Khomeini's more moderate revolutionary allies, were caught equally unawares by the grim ayatollah, whom few had heard of until a few months before the Shah's fall, forgotten as he was in his Iraqi exile since being expelled by the regime in 1964. But they didn't have the resources Washington had, and the US assumed that the Shah, as the successor of a monarchy that had survived 2,500 years, was eternal and unassailable. Washington also made the mistake of giving far too much credence to the Shah's own conviction that communism, and not Islamism, was the greatest threat to his rule. Anderson wryly notes that a 'red' Iran, unlikely as it was, would have in the long run been far less of a headache for the US. One of the great pleasures of King of Kings is the portrayal of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a man as fascinating as he was fatuous. He resembles stars of 1960s TV in being one of the world's most famous men in his day while now being largely forgotten. Praised by foreign nationals for his sharp intelligence (at least by royal standards), he was also a workaholic with a risible tendency for self-regard and an adamantine obliviousness to how Iranians regarded him (his younger wife Farah was a lot more sensitive to this). Pahlavi's eldest son and heir Reza has been touting himself in recent weeks as a potential transitional leader in the event of the US once again effecting regime change, no doubt reasoning that four decades spent in Paris and suburban Washington can't make him any more out of touch with Iranians than his father was in the Niavaran Palace. Which brings me to a major flaw in Anderson's book: his overly Washington-centric outlook. While fair in his assessment of the Shah and his regime, Anderson is rather too wistful about its passing. There is no doubt that the Islamic Republic is an infinitely worse entity than its imperial predecessor, but that was not a historical inevitability. And while Anderson is correct to say that the Shah's regime was considerably less bloody than that of Arab dictators in the region, why should that be a concern of the Iranian people, any more than citizens of liberal democracies should be content with their rights being rolled back simply because other countries have it far worse? The source of Iranian anger at the Shah, be it from the educated middle classes or the more religiously devout poor, was far from illusory. If the United States lost a good ally in the region, maybe it should have been a bit more attentive. That said, King of Kings is well worth a read. If the fall of the Shah in 1979 was unexpectedly rapid, the toppling of Bashar al-Assad in December last year by comparison took place in the blink of an eye, albeit after a protracted conflict that had stagnated for about six years. With Assad's Iranian, Russian or Lebanese allies either in disarray or occupied elsewhere, the Syrian army was overrun in the space of a week and the president fled to Moscow hours before Damascus fell to insurgents led by former al-Qaeda member Ahmad al-Shaara. Western governments, which had long since reconciled themselves to Assad as better the devil they know, moved quickly to meet the new Damascus government, even as Shaara and his group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, were still designated terrorists. [ US revokes foreign terrorist designation for Syria's Hayat Tahrir al-Sham Opens in new window ] Not since the days of the Mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan have jihadis (or in HTS's case, former jihadis) been so readily courted by western countries. Of course, foreign governments probably felt there was little else to work with if Syria were to remain stable after Assad's departure. There were also some among them, Germany and Austria in particular, who cynically saw the moment as an opportunity to finally send home the Syrians they had taken in as refugees. Even so, it is a fact that Shaara and HTS were a much less radical force than they once were, even a relatively respectable one, given the group had its origins in al-Qaeda in Iraq (Shaara spent most of the war there in Abu Ghraib and other prisons before returning to Syria to wage jihad against the Assad regime in 2011). Shaara's Al-Nusra Front split with al-Qaeda in 2016, and then in turn splintered to form HTS a year later. Since then, HTS has moved inexorably towards the centre of the Islamist spectrum. Patrick Haenni and Jerome Drevon's impressive study of the group, based on a wide range of detailed interviews, including with Shaara and other figures in HTS, charts this deradicalisation, which the authors contend was born of pragmatism to survive in the ever-fragmented insurgent landscape of mid-2010s Syria. No doubt cognisant of the popular revulsion in Syria at the excesses of the largely foreign Islamic State, HTS focused instead on coalition-building with more moderate groups and battles for hegemony against more radical ones. Overseeing the Salvation Government in Idlib from 2018 gave it experience of ruling, and conferred popular legitimacy on it. [ Children play among bones as Syria faces 'enormous challenge' of what to do about mass graves Opens in new window ] Though HTS has remained authoritarian, it is far more tolerant of dissent and criticism than its antecedents. It also eased sectarian tensions in Idlib, reaching out firstly to mainstream Muslims, particularly Sufis, whom Salafis generally view as suspiciously similar to Shiites, with further tentative openings-up to Christians and Druze. For this reason, Syrian commentators, secular ones included, were less panicky than foreign observers, although still cautious, about the rise to power of HTS and Shaara last December. Nonetheless, HTS, however mellowed and more tolerant they might be, are still an Islamist group and intend to implement sharia law in Syria. Haeeni and Drevon also doubt it will undergo any further liberalisation. But, given the collapse of civil society and the Balkanisation that Syria has undergone over the past decade, an illiberal if non-capricious government is probably the best anyone can expect for now. Haenni and Drevon are also no less circumspect than many other observers about how long this more moderate stance of HTS's will last. They acknowledge that detractors of the group view this moderation as a strategic deception, but they themselves feel that HTS being overtaken by radical popular sentiment is a more likely outcome. With Syria now awash with weapons and battle-hardened soldiers, there have already been questions over the interim government's ability to rein in sectarian violence by Sunni militias, such as massacres of Alawites in April and deadly attacks on the Druze, also in April and in July. The authors see HTS as now potentially swimming against the tide of popular opinion; where there was previously 'deradicalisation from the top', Syria's new rulers must grapple with 'reradicalisation from below'. This could entail another 'transformation by the people', in a far less benign direction than the one that prompted them to pitch towards the centre. Transformed by the People is by its nature a book that will have a particularly select readership but it is probably the best of its kind in English to date on the subject and is essential reading for anyone with an interest in Syria in the post-Assad era. Further reading Shah of Shahs by Ryszard Kapuściński (Penguin, 1982) The great Polish foreign correspondent published this account of the Shah's Iran three years after the revolution, but it is remarkably seminal in the way it has preserved the anachronistic absurdity of Pahlavi rule and the pervading atmosphere of dread in the imagination of readers. Islam in the World by Malise Ruthven (OUP, 2006) Updated in its third edition to take in 9/11 and the various tumults that have cascaded from it, Ruthven's study of the intersection of Islam and politics remains an essential read. The Age of Jihad: Islamic State and the Great War for the Middle East by Patrick Cockburn (Verso, 2017) Veteran Middle Eastern correspondent Cockburn's account of the 21st-century wars between the West and the Arab world, which culminated in the rise of the Islamic State, is a superb synthesis of reportage and analysis and reads like a cautionary tale that will no doubt be disregarded time and time again by western leaders.
The National
09-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Abbas Araghchi insists Iran's commitment to avoiding war is not sign of weakness
Iran 's commitment to avoiding a full-scale war should not be misinterpreted as weakness, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has warned, as Tehran was still open to dialogue with the US. In an opinion piece for the Financial Times, Mr Araghchi said Iran has "good reason" to doubt the merits of diplomacy after being 'wronged' in last month's war with Israel. His government was now 'doubly cautious' about the process, he added. The US and Iran had been 'on the cusp of a historic breakthrough' in nuclear negotiations before Israel launched its 'unprovoked' attack on Iranian nuclear sites, Mr Araghchi wrote, with the talks being 'sabotaged' by Washington's ally. Mr Araghchi's comments came after US President Donald Trump said Iran was actively seeking talks on a new nuclear deal, a claim Tehran denies. Although Iran has in recent days received messages indicating the US may be ready to return to negotiations, how can we trust further engagement? Abbas Araghchi, Iranian Foreign Minister The US-Iran talks fell through after five rounds of discussions that were reported to have produced positive results. On June 13, Israel struck nuclear, military and strategic sites across Iran, killing senior military commanders and nuclear scientists. The attacks, which caught Tehran off guard, took place before a scheduled sixth meeting and after a deadline the Trump administration had set for the talks to deliver results had lapsed. 'This was a profound betrayal of diplomacy,' wrote Mr Araghchi. 'As Iran-US dialogue was finally gaining momentum, the reckless bombardment sent an unambiguous message: Israel prefers conflict over resolution.' Iran responded swiftly to the attacks, firing hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones at Israeli cities. The war was their first direct military confrontation after decades of fighting through regional proxies. The conflict escalated when the US struck three nuclear plants in Iran, an attack Mr Trump described as a "spectacular military success". Mr Araghchi condemned the strikes as a 'fateful decision by the US to allow itself to be cajoled into undermining international law'. Mr Trump then announced an Iran-Israel ceasefire between Israel and Iran, bringing an end to 12 days of war. The following day Washington said it was re-entering talks with Iran"next week". 'Although Iran has in recent days received messages indicating that the US may be ready to return to negotiations, how can we trust further engagement?' wrote Mr Araghchi. He also accused the US of being 'ensnared' in Israel's wars and said Mr Trump's promise of 'America First' is being twisted into 'Israel First'. His comments reaffirm statements made by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian during an interview with US journalist Tucker Carlson. 'How are we going to trust the United States again?" the Iranian President said. "We re-enter the negotiations, then how can we know for sure that in the middle of the talks, the Israeli regime will not be given the permission again to attack?'
Al Bawaba
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Bawaba
Abbas Araghchi meets Saudi counterpart in Mecca
ALBAWABA- In a significant step toward regional diplomacy, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan received his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, on Tuesday at the Ministry's branch in Mecca. Also Read Two Missing, two injured after ship attacked off Yemen The meeting was Araghchi's first official visit to Saudi Arabia since attending the BRICS summit in Brazil, which indicates an easing of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran after years of tension. According to the Iranian Foreign Ministry, the visit aimed to deepen dialogue on bilateral ties and explore pathways to enhance regional peace and security. The two top diplomats discussed ongoing regional developments, including efforts to stabilize the Middle East amid escalating threats and political unrest. Araghchi's visit comes at a critical moment. In a sharply worded op-ed published by the Financial Times, the Iranian Foreign Minister criticized the United States' regional posture, claiming that 'America First' has effectively become 'Israel First.' He argued that true diplomacy must be built on mutual respect and warned against coercive policies masked as dialogue. 'Negotiations held under the shadow of war are inherently unstable,' Araghchi wrote, cautioning that real dialogue cannot exist while threats and third-party interference persist. He pointed to Israeli airstrikes on Iran and U.S. policy shifts as key factors derailing progress. Araghchi also revealed that U.S.-Iran nuclear talks had gained momentum in recent months, but claimed the diplomatic channel was disrupted just days before a crucial sixth round of talks by what he described as 'an unprovoked Israeli attack.' He expressed doubt over renewed U.S. engagement, citing the collapse of the 2015 nuclear agreement and the lack of trust after repeated setbacks. Despite his sharp criticism of the U.S. and Israel, Araghchi emphasized Iran's commitment to preventing a full-scale regional war and reiterated Tehran's openness to responsible diplomacy. He described recent conversations with U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff as more productive than four years of prior negotiations.
Malay Mail
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Iranian president faces backlash over support for renewed US negotiations following Israeli bombing campaign
TEHRAN, July 9 — Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian came under fire today after voicing support for renewed talks with the United States, with critics accusing him of being 'too soft' in the wake of last month's attacks on the country. The backlash followed the release of an interview with US media personality Tucker Carlson, in which Pezeshkian said Iran had 'no problem' resuming talks so long as trust could be rebuilt between the two sides. His comments came less than a month after Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign on June 13 that killed senior military commanders and nuclear scientists in Iran. The Israeli attacks took place two days before a planned meeting between Tehran and Washington aimed at reviving nuclear negotiations. The talks have since stalled. 'Have you forgotten that these same Americans, together with the Zionists, used the negotiations to buy time and prepare for the attack?' said an editorial in the hardline Kayhan newspaper, which has long opposed engagement with the West. The United States, which had been in talks with Iran since April 12, joined Israel in carrying out its own strikes on June 22, targeting Iranian nuclear sites at Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz. The conservative Javan daily also took aim at Pezeshkian, saying his remarks appeared 'a little too soft'. 'We believe the real meaning of a conversation with an American presenter is conveyed when the words reflect the public's anger and total distrust of America,' it said. In contrast, the reformist Ham Mihan newspaper praised Pezeshkian's 'positive approach'. 'This interview should have been conducted a long time ago,' it wrote, adding that 'Iranian officials have unfortunately long been absent from the international and American media landscape.' Iranian authorities say the Israeli strikes killed at last 1,060 people. Israel, in turn, was hit by waves of retaliatory drone and missile fire, which authorities said left dead at least 28 people. A ceasefire between Iran and Israel has been in place since June 24. — AFP pic
Al Arabiya
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Iran president faces backlash for ‘soft' US stance
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian came under fire Tuesday after voicing support for renewed talks with the United States, with critics accusing him of being 'too soft' in the wake of last month's attacks on the country. The backlash followed the release of an interview with US media personality Tucker Carlson, in which Pezeshkian said Iran had 'no problem' resuming talks so long as trust could be rebuilt between the two sides. His comments came less than a month after Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign on June 13 that killed senior military commanders and nuclear scientists in Iran. The Israeli attacks took place two days before a planned meeting between Tehran and Washington aimed at reviving nuclear negotiations. The talks have since stalled. 'Have you forgotten that these same Americans, together with the Zionists, used the negotiations to buy time and prepare for the attack?' said an editorial in the hardline Kayhan newspaper, which has long opposed engagement with the West. The United States, which had been in talks with Iran since April 12, joined Israel in carrying out its own strikes on June 22, targeting Iranian nuclear sites at Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz. The conservative Javan daily also took aim at Pezeshkian, saying his remarks appeared 'a little too soft.' 'We believe the real meaning of a conversation with an American presenter is conveyed when the words reflect the public's anger and total distrust of America,' it said. In contrast, the reformist Ham Mihan newspaper praised Pezeshkian's 'positive approach.' 'This interview should have been conducted a long time ago,' it wrote, adding that 'Iranian officials have unfortunately long been absent from the international and American media landscape.' Iranian authorities say the Israeli strikes killed at last 1,060 people. Israel, in turn, was hit by waves of retaliatory drone and missile fire, which authorities said left dead at least 28 people. A ceasefire between Iran and Israel has been in place since June 24.
