Detente and messages to the Ayatollah

I remember a time, not so long ago, when a handshake between a US and an Iranian official was treated as a historic breakthrough. Now meetings take place in the open and they pass for normal, if high stakes, diplomacy.

Yet there is one aspect of this tentative detente that still provokes political shockwaves across the globe. It is President Barack Obama’s letter writing to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The latest message was sent last month, ahead of nuclear talks in Oman over the weekend. It was Mr Obama’s fourth letter to the supreme leader since 2009. By most accounts, it stated that the US would be willing to co-operate with Iran on combating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or Isis, the jihadi group ravaging through Iraq and Syria.

Given that Washington is already indirectly working with Tehran to degrade Isis in Iraq, the message was a statement of the obvious.

The president’s critics nonetheless seized upon it as unnecessary grovelling towards an adversary. “Astonishing” and an “enormous mistake” was the overreaction of Mitt Romney. Others grumbled that the president of the US should not subject himself to the humiliation of corresponding with a leader who never bothers to write back.

Another of Mr Obama’s offences, it seems, was that he failed to inform Israel of his letter writing intention. Israel, in any case, does not rely on the White House to know what the president is up to. According to the Haaretz newspaper, Israeli leaders learned of the letter through channels that were not official.

It would, of course, be far less interesting if the president could simply pick up the phone. Or send his ambassador for an audience with the Iranian leader. But diplomatic relations between the US and Iran were severed more than 35 years ago, so Mr Obama’s only option to reach Mr Khamenei directly is to write a letter.

The Ayatollah might not be a fan of old-fashioned correspondence. He rules over an Islamic republic whose legitimacy is partly underpinned by its enmity towards the US. He would not want to be caught writing to the American president.

But he has his own way of responding, through cryptic statements or signals from his negotiators. In a speech last year, before the first secret meetings between American and Iranian officials, Mr Khamenei acknowledged that the US had sent messages to encourage nuclear talks. And he delivered an answer: “I am not optimistic about American comments but do not oppose them.”

The most recent letter is not the problem here. The issue is that it symbolises Mr Obama’s persistence in trying to reach a deal with Iran, and his willingness to personally engage in the effort. With a November 24 deadline for nuclear negotiations looming, the president’s message would seem a small risk to take for the prize of a nuclear-free Iran and a more stable Middle East.

Making clear to Tehran that ending its nuclear pursuit would pave the way for co-operation is unlikely to be a decisive factor in the discussions. The talks in Oman, in fact, have not gone particularly well. But it can only provide added reassurance to Mr Khamenei.

This attitude frustrates sceptics at home and abroad (Israel and the US’s Arab allies in the Gulf); they are convinced a deal is bound to be flawed and, worse yet, it would legitimise Iran’s mischief across the Middle East.

But long-term assumptions about the Middle East are in disarray, and when it comes to battling Isis, traditional adversaries of the west are accidental allies. Suddenly, one aspect of Iran’s meddling is proving useful in the anti-Isis campaign.

Wasn’t it the Ayatollah who used his influence in Iraq to push out Nouri al-Maliki, the former prime minister, this summer, a move the US was insisting upon? And didn’t he dispatch his elite forces to Baghdad to bolster a collapsing Iraqi army and protect the capital?

In any case, all the hostility towards Mr Obama’s letter will not hurt him in Tehran. As Vali Nasr, the Middle East scholar, says: “Taking flak is not a bad thing here: it suggests to the Iranians that the president is willing to put skin in the game and take unpopular positions.”

[email protected]