Iran Review’s Exclusive Interview with John Tirman
Prof John Tirman is the Executive Director and a Principal Research Scientist at MIT’s Centre for International Studies. The American political theorist is the author of several books including “Sovereign Acts: American Unilateralism and Global Security” and “Spoils of War: The Human Cost of America’s Arms Trade.” He has recently released a book entitled “US-Iran Misperceptions: A Dialogue” which he has co-edited with Prof Abbas Maleki. The book includes chapters by Robert Jervis, Hossein Mousavian, Matthew Bunn and Steven Miller, Kayhan Barzegar, Huss Banai, and Robert Reardon.
Prof Tirman has extensively researched the civilian casualties of the wars waged by the US government across the world, as represented in his 2011 book “The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America’s Wars.” His articles and op-eds appear regularly on The Huffington Post, Washington Post, The Nation, International Herald Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal. From 1999 to 2000, he was a Fulbright Senior Scholar in Cyprus and a researcher-reporter at the Time magazine from 1997 to 1979. John Tirman has studied Iran’s contemporary political history comprehensively and has authored several essays, articles and books about the Iran-US relations.
Iran Review talked to Prof Tirman about terrorism and extremism in the Middle East, the global fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the future of Iran’s nuclear negotiations with the six world powers.
On the possible reconciliation between Tehran and Washington, Prof Tirman says, “[t]here have been many cases that are much worse than US and Iran that have been successfully resolved.”
“Then, we can think of France and Germany for example; they had two colossal wars fought within three decades with each other in which millions and millions of people were killed. You know, they resolved their differences and they did so very successfully; in Europe it’s a great success story,” he said.
Prof John Tirman is optimistic that Iran and the United States can find a solution to the controversy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program and then cooperate on other mutual concerns. The following is the text of our interview with Prof John Tirman.
Q: As my first question, what do you think are the reasons for the rise of the terrorist cult Islamic State in the Middle East and the fact that they are waging a bloody war against the governments and peoples of Iraq and Syria, threatening the security and peace in the entire region?
The fact that the Republicans are threatening the position of president in the middle of important security negotiations is really scandalous, but there it is and that’s what they are and that will have to be dealt with
A: Well, it’s a phenomenon that has resulted from many different influences including most prominently the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and there are lots of other causes, but there is a confluence of these factors that has led to a very difficult situation, particularly for the people who are in those areas where they are waging wars.
Unfortunately, it appears as though this could go on for a while; it’s not a small outburst of, you know, a small group. It’s a fairly significant scale; fighters possibly in tens of thousands, well-equipped, well-financed, with a kind of liberationist ideology. That is to say, they do have an ideology that whether or not one finds it consistent with Islam or some other kind of ideology, gives them some purpose and that’s also very dangerous. So, it’s something to be taken quite seriously.
Q: Do you think that the current process of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the six world powers can finally lead to a sustainable solution that can actually put an end to more than one decade of controversy over Iran’s nuclear activities? And do you think that the new U-turn shift in Iran’s foreign policy and its appeal to the West, what the US media refer to as President Rouhani’s “charm offensive”, is really working? Do you find it effective in bringing an end to this nuclear controversy?
A: Well, it will greatly depend on what happens outside the negotiations which is to say, from my standpoint in the United States, what happens in the US Congress. And I think that a deal that is an agreement between the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 can be achieved within three months or so; as Secretary Kerry said, three or four months. And I think they’re very close to an agreement. So, it seems that some kind of agreement can be achieved which would be a considerable achievement.
Then the next problem is selling that in Iran and selling that in United States; Europe would probably not resist; and Russia and China would not resist the deal that is struck. I can’t speak to politics within Iran because I don’t know it well enough, but in the United States, the new Republican majority in the Congress is going to seek to impede the success of this agreement should it come to pass, and that is based not on the merits of the case but based on an animus hatred of Obama by the right wing. And this is really unfortunate to say, but it is something we have to deal with in this situation. And the question is how far will the Republicans go to scuttle an agreement?
The American population seems to be supportive, according to opinion surveys, of a deal. They were supportive of the interim deal; they seem to be supportive of an ultimate deal if it’s in the interest of security all the way around. But Republicans want to scuttle it and they will try to do by so stripping Obama of his authority to lift sanctions on Iran. So you have two different kinds of sanctions; one which were imposed by the UN Security Council which can be lifted of course by vote of Security Council and would be, I believe. But then you have the US sanctions, unilateral sanctions, and those need to be reversed by the Congress or lifted by executive order of the President on a temporary basis; he can do that for example, every two years.
That authority, that latter authority, executive authority of the president is what the Republicans will try to strip away from Obama through legislation. Now the question is: if they vote for that authority to be rescinded, then will they have enough votes to overcome a veto by the president? And that’s really where the issue is going to be decided as far as I can tell. And do they have the votes is not a simple majority to override a veto. So, it is a big question mark. Speaking as sort of an American in this sense, the fact that the Republicans are threatening the position of president in the middle of important security negotiations is really scandalous, but there it is and that’s what they are and that will have to be dealt with. Who will know by springtime what is going to happen.
Q: Do you think it’s really possible to remove all the misunderstandings that have existed between Iran the United States? Although it’s really idealistic to think that all the misconceptions can be eliminated in a short period of time, do you think that the two governments can move toward a viable reconciliation and take away the misunderstandings one after the other, and cooperate on some issues that are of mutual interest such as the security of Iraq, the drug trafficking in Afghanistan, and other areas?
A: Yes, I do think it’s possible. I think that we’re beginning in some ways with one of the most difficult issues, and that’s the nuclear question. And it’s difficult because it’s very technical, involves nuclear weapons which is of course very serious and it also involves the security of Israel which in the United States is a very important consideration. So if we can, in fact, have success with the nuclear issue, then I think we can have success on many other issues.
Ultimately unlike France and Germany, United States and Iran are not neighbours, they’re not even close to each other on the map; they have very different cultural origins, different languages and so on
There are mutual interests in Afghanistan, stabilised Afghanistan; there are mutual interests in defeating ISIS; there are common interests in bringing stability to this region, in seeing Iran become an engine of sustainable economic growth. So, there are lots of things that we can seize upon that are positive, that are good things. And if that happens and trade increases, investment increases, and so on, then the two national narratives as I call, the two antagonistic stories that the United States has toward Iran and Iran has toward the United States can begin to be resolved in the course of time. You know, you look at other places where this has happened, where two countries were antagonistic toward each other.
There have been many cases that are much worse than US and Iran that have been successfully resolved. Then, we can think of France and Germany for example; they had two colossal wars fought within three decades with each other in which millions and millions of people were killed. You know, they resolved their differences and they did so very successfully; in Europe it’s a great success story. And one of the reasons they were able to do – it’s true that they have many common heritages, but they were able to do so because they built institutions, common institutions that made cooperation easier and made life together easier.
And that’s one of the things, I think, we need to do is to build some common institutions, whether they are economic or social or what have you, that bind the United States and Iran in positive ways. So for example, it could be a military coalition against ISIS – I would prefer it to be not military maybe, something that is concerned with sustainable economic development in the developing world or something of that kind. But the fact is that you need institutions, you need cooperation, you need things that bring you together in positive ways in order to lower the tensions and resolve the misperceptions that have been driving each other’s behaviour for a long time.
You know, ultimately unlike France and Germany, United States and Iran are not neighbours, they’re not even close to each other on the map; they have very different cultural origins, different languages and so on. So, it’s conceivable that we could just each go on our own way and pay a lot of attention to the other. One of the things that Iran must come to terms with is that United States, because of its economic power and military power, is much more important to Iran than Iran is to the United States. And that’s the nature of how big powers and smaller powers deal with each other. But that doesn’t mean that they can’t cooperate; that doesn’t mean that they can’t find some accommodation with each other, even if they’re not close allies in the end like Germany and France.
So yes, it’s possible. I think it’s really necessary, given how unstable this region is, now and for the foreseeable future; you not only have ISIS but you still have a civil war in Syria, an authoritarian tendency now in Egypt, Al-Qaeda in Mali, Yemen and so on. You know, there are a lot of problems in this broad Middle East and North Africa region but, you know, a nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran would go a long way toward singling great stability, sanctions can come down [and it] would be very good for Iran. So, economic relations should be good for the entire Persian Gulf region and maybe then we can have a much more productive relationship.
