Signs of Potential Increased Tactical Cooperation Between Iran and the United States

The statements of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani seem to contradict the remarks of the Supreme Leader regarding the possibility of increased cooperation between Iran and the United States. While Ayatollah Khamenei continues to reject any likelihood of closer ties between Tehran and Washington, the tactical shift in Iran's foreign policy and priorities, along with Rouhani's statements, present a different narrative. A close examination of Rouhani's comments on Iran-U.S. relations reveals that his tone refers to two critical issues: First, Iran's willingness to expand cooperation with the West and the United States. This cooperation appears to occur at both economic and geopolitical levels. Rouhani has previously stated his readiness to transform Iran into a commercial hub in the region by increasing economic exchanges with the West and other countries. This indicates that Rouhani, under the Supreme Leader's supervision, is attempting to prioritize economic and national interests over ideological ones. Second, Rouhani is trying to portray Iran as a country combating terrorism and willing to cooperate with the international community to resolve regional issues and eradicate terrorism. In other words, Rouhani is working to enhance Iran's global and regional legitimacy without referencing the country's role in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, nor addressing the actions of the Quds Force in regional crises through military intervention, financial support, and inciting ethnic conflicts. Prioritizing economic interests over ideological ones and strengthening Iran's geopolitical legitimacy globally—supported by the achievement of the nuclear agreement and the Obama administration's foreign policy stance towards Tehran—could significantly impact the quicker revival of Iran's ailing economy. If the legitimacy of the Iranian government is solidified, Western governments will be more inclined to engage in trade with Iran. The Obama administration's view of Iran as a powerful and effective player in resolving crises and 'combating terrorism' endorses this legitimacy. As Obama stated at the United Nations General Assembly, the United States is ready to cooperate with all countries, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the Syrian crisis. On the other hand, the lack of a clear and specific policy regarding Middle Eastern crises and the U.S. foreign policy being based on contemplation and observation of the situation leads Washington to prefer delegating the fight against ISIS and resolving the Syrian and Yemeni crises to Moscow, Tehran, or another country. This indicates that the Obama administration, due to its reluctance to make decisive decisions, will continue to strengthen the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and empower it further. Why is Iran still a staunch critic of the United States? Some analysts and politicians believe that Rouhani's criticisms of the U.S. performance regarding regional crises indicate that he has no desire to strengthen cooperation between Tehran and Washington. They also emphasize that the Supreme Leader's remarks clearly reflect his unwillingness to enhance relations between the two countries. However, it should be remembered that during the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, the Iranian leader outlined several red lines for the negotiations that were ultimately often forgotten. Khamenei's statements often do not reflect the directives he gives to the President and senior members of the Revolutionary Guard. His public remarks consistently emphasize the anti-American policies of the Islamic Republic because he must play his role according to revolutionary principles. Moreover, Rouhani has no choice but to criticize the U.S. and other regional countries to keep his domestic critics satisfied. Prioritizing economic and national interests is merely a short-term tactical shift to preserve the Islamic Republic of Iran. The assumption that Khamenei has instructed the President's team to prioritize economic and national interests over revolutionary ones seems correct; achieving a nuclear agreement and changing Iran's tone globally could not have occurred without a green light from Khamenei. All key decisions in foreign policy must be approved by the Supreme Leader. On the other hand, prioritizing economic and national interests does not mean that Tehran has completely abandoned its revolutionary principles. Tehran cannot give up its revolutionary principles as they are deeply rooted in the heart of the government and constitute the basis of its legitimacy. This revolutionary foundation is even beyond Khamenei's individual control. Prioritizing economic and national interests is merely a short-term tactical shift to preserve the Islamic Republic of Iran. Overall, Iran's prioritization of national and economic interests, the indirect role of the United States in strengthening the global legitimacy of the Islamic Republic, and the U.S. policy of 'contemplation and observation' regarding the Middle East suggest that we will soon witness an increase in tactical cooperation between Tehran and Washington and between Tehran and the West. However, this tactical cooperation will not lead to the resolution of regional crises, as Tehran is unwilling to fundamentally change its foreign policy and revolutionary principles. Nevertheless, increased cooperation between Iran and the United States will enhance Iran's legitimacy on the global stage.