The phone call that took place last Friday between President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was the first time that leaders from the two countries have spoken since 1979.

Although the call lasted only 15 minutes, it was a significant step toward improved dialogue between the two countries. However, the Obama administration must carefully weigh the implications of engaging with Iran and its leaders.

President Rouhani recently replaced Iran’s former controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad was known for his conservative policies and inflammatory statements such as denouncing the Holocaust, bashing Israel and predicting the fall of the “American empire.”

Rouhani won the presidential election with more than 50 percent of the vote — the closest runner-up received 16 percent — according to The New York Times.

He ran on a moderate political platform of “prudence and hope” with an emphasis on reopening dialogue between Iran and the rest of the world and finally producing fruitful negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

But in Iran, the president is not the supreme leader. He is subject to the controls of the religious Ayatollah. Speculation remains as to whether Rouhani was selected as the candidate because he was viewed as the “safest” bet — a public relations solution to a cartoonish image of the radical Ahmadinejad.

On Tuesday, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu called Rouhani a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” a charming diplomatic missionary but someone who should not be trusted.

In his call with Rouhani, Obama acknowledged the “mistrust” between Iran and the United States. But, as Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post pointed out, the two countries do not bear equal responsibility for the mistrust. By acknowledging the issue, President Obama reinforced Iranian propaganda saying as much.

The Ayatollah issued a fatwa — a ruling on a point of Islamic law — against nuclear weapons, but a study by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy concluded that if “[Iran’s] leaders believe that developing, stockpiling, or using nuclear weapons is in its interests, then religious considerations will not constrain these actions.”

Obama appears to accept the fatwa as evidence that Iran is sincerely against nuclear weapons, but Iran has given us no reason to trust its sincerity.

In addition, Iran repeatedly violates sanctions against nuclear stockpiling, supports the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and currently holds two Americans prisoners with one other American unaccounted for. The government supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and maintains radically repressive domestic policies.

Although Obama acted correctly when presented with a chance to begin a dialogue with Rouhani, the stakes are high.

If talks regarding Iran’s nuclear program fail, Obama would be forced to choose between military action and heavier sanctions on Iran in order to placate Israel.

As we saw with the crisis in Syria, the United States is unlikely to further involve itself militarily in the Middle East.

Sanctions from the UN and the United States have already crippled the Iranian economy – the country has high rates of unemployment and inflation is nearly 30 percent, according to The New York Times. If western sanctions increased, the Ayatollah would replace Rouhani with a more radical leader, probably follow the example of North Korea and bolster its nuclear capability to gain geopolitical leverage.

But dialogue has to begin somewhere.

National Security Advisor Susan Rice told CNN that Iranian representatives contacted the Obama Administration and that they suggested the phone call between the two leaders.

Rouhani’s word and actions indicate that the negotiating table is tipped in our favor. This could be the greatest diplomatic breakthrough in the Middle East in many, many years.

Please be careful, Mr. Obama.

Michael Hacker is a senior political science major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mahacker@syr.edu and followed on Twitter at @mikeincuse.

Published on October 3, 2013 at 2:24 am