Who’s afraid of American-Iranian reconciliation?

A telephone conversation between US President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hasan Rouhani leads the news in Arabic media Sunday, focusing on reactions to the conversation in Iran.

“Rouhani and Obama’s telephone conversation confuses Tehran,” reads the headline of Saudi-owned newspaper A-Sharq Al-Awsat, reporting on “two narratives” surrounding the circumstances of the conversation. A White House source claimed that Rouhani expressed his will to speak to Obama before leaving New York, while Rouhani himself said upon his return to Iran that he received a phone call from Obama on the way to the airport and the two discussed the Iranian nuclear issue.

“Two conflicting narratives regarding Obama and Rouhani’s conversation; and Washington notified Tel Aviv about the contents of the call,” reads the headline of London-based daily Al-Hayat, featuring a photo of demonstrators — it’s unclear if they’re pro or anti — awaiting Rouhani at the Tehran airport.

According to Al-Hayat, Iranians responded differently to the first such conversation in 34 years, with “fundamentalists considering it a crossing of red lines, while reformists and moderates welcomed it.”

The daily reports on the mixed reception Rouhani received at the Tehran airport, with supporters calling out “we thank you Rouhani” and opponents shouting “death to America” and “death to Israel.” One man even threw a shoe at Rouhani’s motorcade, which according to Al-Hayat missed the president’s car.

Taking the side of Iran’s optimists, Saudi news site Elaph claims that “Iranians expected much, and immediately, from the phone conversation between Hasan Rouhani and Barack Obama. But the matter requires time to regain lost confidence between the two sides, despite the appreciation of Iranians for Obama’s gesture, which they considered a personal farewell to Rouhani,” reads the article.

Qatari news channel Al-Jazeera tries to understand why Rouhani refused to meet Obama during his stay in New York, despite the American wish to realize such a meeting. Jamal Abdi, director of policy at the National Iranian American Council, told the channel that a televised handshake between Obama and Rouhani would bear “historic significance” and the Iranians would prefer such a photo-op to occur after an agreement is reached with the international community on the nuclear issue.

Meanwhile, Arab columnists struggle to understand the new American approach toward Iran.

A-Sharq Al-Awsat columnist Tareq Homayed dubs Obama’s attitude toward Iran “naïve,” claiming that the faltering relationship between the two countries cannot be reduced to the nuclear issue alone.

“The American president placed much hope in the initiative of testing Iran’s ‘seriousness’ to a degree that raises the question of whether Obama is a genius politician who sees something others don’t or whether he is merely an ‘optimistic’ intellectual. We use the term ‘intellectual’ of course as an understatement for the proper description. Will Obama manage to convince Iran to change? And what change? And to whose benefit?”

Iran, claims Homayed, seems much less gung-ho about rapprochement with the US than Obama does.

“Obama’s excitement raises the question: is the American-Iranian crisis only about the nuclear issue? What about a crisis lasting four decades? What about a host of issues troubling Washington’s allies, be they Arab or Israeli? What about Iran’s expansion in the region? What about Tehran’s support for the regime of Bashar Assad and his crimes? Some may claim that Obama is looking out for his country’s interests, which is true, but what is his country’s interest in naively placating Iran?”

“This is not the case of a genius politician as much as an ‘optimistic’ intellectual dealing with the region and politics with utter naiveté,” writes Homayed about Obama. “It seems like the Iranians understand this well.”

Meanwhile, Saudi columnist Jamal Khashaqji claims that Arabs need not be so terrified by Iranian-American rapprochement, since an alliance between the two countries will not necessarily come at the expense of Arabs.

“We are terrified every time American-Iranian reconciliation appears on the political horizon as is happening these days in New York,” writes Khashaqji in Al-Hayat.

“Some of us go so far as to believe in a ‘conspiracy,’ claiming there is a secret alliance and cooperation between the sides that will soon surface. The new alliance, goes the narrative, will soon be declared publicly at our expense in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf; replacing our favor with America in place of Iran and costing us dearly in interests and rights.”

“I think we all need psychological treatment and lessons in realpolitik to regain our self-confidence and realize we are stronger than we think,” continues Khashaqji.

“Reconciliation (and not ‘a deal’, which is an imperialistic word) with Iran has become more possible than any previous historic moment. But the problem is Iran. The Iranians are the only ones who refuse to change and insist on using all the [regional] changes for their political benefit.”