Relations between the Obama administration and the Islamic Republic have entered a new phase.  This new phase demonstrates a difference in essence from the administration’s initial policy in its strategic approach.  Obama’s initial approach was to resume Bill Clinton’s failed efforts to thaw the icy relations by officially adopting the policy of active diplomacy and unconditional talks with Iran.  Negotiations were supposed to expand and continue through a series of small steps, such as writing a letter to the Islamic Republic supreme leader, inviting Iran to the conference on rebuilding Afghanistan, and inviting Iranian ambassadors to the U.S. independence day celebration.

The Obama administration officially discarded the Bush administration’s precondition of halting nuclear enrichment for holding talks with Iran.

The main assumption in this approach was that the Islamic Republic is interested in talks, and wrong U.S. policies have caused Iran to feel insecure about the normalization of relations.

Another group believed that the Iranian regime will be hostile so long as it is isolated; but that it would be forced to make its stances more moderate when forced into the negotiation table.  

Increasing violence against the green movement and the dissemination of bloody images of government violence, the deteriorating U.S. public opinion against the Iranian government, the growth and continuation of the nuclear program and the Ahmadinejad administration’s hostile international stance led to a quick abandonment of the U.S. policy.  The policy of ratcheting up pressure and hard diplomacy was once again adopted.  In effect, after several months, the Obama administration has returned to the position of the Bush administration on Iran.  

Proponents of Obama’s initial approach were ignorant of the fact that enmity with the U.S., hostility in foreign relations and challenging the international order are among the tenets of the Islamic Republic’s strategic approach.  Just as U.S. policy makers and researchers think that relations with the U.S. would cause an inevitable change in the essence of the Islamic Republic, Mr. Khamenei is intelligence enough to understand that point and resist the essential change in the regime’s character.  

Enmity with the U.S. is one of the genes in the Islamic Republic’s cell.  The foundation for the present regime was erected with the occupation of the U.S. embassy.  

Now the U.S. has resumed its role in leading efforts to impose a new round of sanctions on Iran.  The carrot and stick policy is implemented alongside hard diplomacy.

The focus now is on increasing pressure and diplomatic actions aimed at paralyzing the regime while leaving the door open for talks.  But as the process nears a dead-end and Iran’s nuclear capabilities are approaching sensitive thresholds, threats of military action are imminent.  

The future of U.S. relations depend largely on political developments in Iran.  If the green movement succeeds in achieving change resulting in the overthrowing or weakening of the coup government, then the international community’s view of Iran’s nuclear program would change.  Democracy and positive changes in the political landscape of Iran can fill in the vacuum of trust surrounding Iran’s nuclear activities.  The U.S. support for the Iranian democracy movement would weaken terrorism in the region while serving the U.S. national interests.  In this regard, a strategic convergence has occurred at the present time between the formation of democracy in Iran and the U.S. interests in the Middle East region.