Hassan Rouhani: A Sheep or a Wolf?

hassan rouhani

BY GABE DAVIS

When Israeli Prime Minister Binya­min Netanyahu took the stage to address the most recent UN Gen­eral Assembly in New York, he was not a hap­py man. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s friendly media blitz had inspired optimism regarding a more moderate Iran, but Netan­yahu was intent on reminding us with whom exactly we were dealing. He lambasted the Iranian president, referring to his recent jovial tactics as a “charm offensive,” which should be regarded as “a ruse.” Netanyahu proceeded to claim that, “I wish I could believe Rouhani… [but I don’t].”

Aware that Rouhani’s smile-filled inter­views and catchy tweets were distinguishing him from former President Mahmoud Ah­madinejad, his inflammatory predecessor, the Israeli PM stated that, “the only difference between [Ahmadinejad and Rouhani] is this: Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf’s clothing, Rouhani is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Though Rouhani insisted in his own speech that Iran simply desired a peaceful nuclear-energy pro­gram, Netanyahu bluntly concluded, “Iran is developing nuclear weapons,” and urged Pres­ident Obama not to soften economic sanc­tions against Iran, but rather to tighten them.

Many criticized Netanyahu’s speech, ar­guing that it had an air of unwarranted des­peration and negativity, which undermined the potential for diplomatic efforts. The fact is, no one appreciates a killjoy. It is no surprise that the prospect of a levelheaded, in-touch, moderate Iranian president caused such opti­mism. One can picture Obama’s mouth water­ing as he envisions a legacy-defining deal that stifles Iran’s nuclear weapon prospects while improving US-Iranian relations. Perhaps it was this vision that enticed Obama to break the United States’ thirty year hiatus of com­munications with Iran when he reached out to Rouhani by phone and engaged in a cordial and positive conversation with him.

Though it is easy to eat up Rouhani’s tan­talizing rhetoric, and though we want so badly to see a stable, democratic Iran, Netanyahu’s angry warning is more than warranted, both in tone and content. We cannot forget that only a year ago, former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad infamously urged world forces to annihilate Israel. Rouhani was voted into office by an electorate calling for a more mod­erate Iran, but the current supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, held the same po­sition po­sition throughout Ahmadinejad’s hostile rule. The Ayatollah holds a higher office than the President, and their relationship is somewhat murky. We must be wary of the Ayatollah’s own agenda working against Rouhani’s, as he too has a stake in Iran’s policy decisions and has yet to show how moderate he will be with a new president.

Considering the uncertainty of the situa­tion, simply talking about moderation should not warrant the amount of public optimism from President Obama that it has. This seems especially true when we consider that the eco­nomic sanctions the United States has in place have been crippling for Iran, making life near­ly unbearable for many of its citizens. Accord­ing to a poll conducted by Gallup, 85 percent of Iranians say that the sanctions have hurt Iranian citizens and 31 percent claim they have personally suffered as a result of sanc­tions. Clearly, Iran has little leverage; as long as the sanctions remain in place, the country and its citizens remain in economic shackles. Israel’s PM would argue that with Iran’s back so against the wall, now is the time to push Rouhani to make substantive policy changes, e.g. an agreement to decrease Iran’s uranium enriching capabilities.

Unlike Obama and other world leaders, Netanyahu cannot afford to turn immediately towards diplomacy. If Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, it is Israel that most fears the threat of instant annihilation. Netanyahu likely desires a diplomatic resolution somewhere down the road, but he must maintain Israel’s hawkish tone until Iran proves itself truly moderate. With so much at stake, Netanyahu does not mind being the spoiler of any fuzzy diplomat­ic feelings.

If the Israeli leader had aimed to make Obama and other world leaders reconsider that Rouhani was crafting an illusion of peace, he certainly succeeded. After Netanyahu’s speech, Obama met with the Israeli PM and reassured him that the United States has an “unshakeable bond” with the Israeli people, adding that he would “take no options off the table, including military action,” in regards to the Iranian nuclear question.

Netanyahu’s speech was a necessary re­minder that we are still dealing with Iran. We cannot forget that though Rouhani may represent a more moderate Iran, he will have to do a lot more than smile and wave before Israel even discusses alternatives to sanctions and military action. Real action is needed. If Rouhani genuinely cares for his people and has no interest in a nuclear weapon, then an agreement in which Iran agrees to decrease its uranium enrichment capabilities to 20 per­cent, the level necessary for energy produc­tion, should be entirely realistic. Until action is taken, however, President Obama should be as hesitant as Prime Minister Netanyahu in trusting President Rouhani. Only time will tell if the new Iranian leader is a sheep or a wolf.

Share your thoughts