It is foreseeable that a severe crackdown on dissent in Iran could embarrass Germany, but even that is far from guaranteed. Bashar al-Assad’s Syria managed to maintain trade ties to Europe well into the Syrian War.
Meanwhile, no such qualms are likely to arise for Turkey, China or India. All famously face criticism for treatment of journalists and for police abuses and they are solidly positioned as independent countries carving their own path internationally. Other middle powers would likely follow suit. Even an individual spat with a neighbor like Turkey would likely be contained mostly between the two states.
Finally, while Iran itself prefers to remain a fiercely independent regional power, its support from China and Russia is unlikely to waver. It is foreseeable that, were Iran to gradually change in one direction or another, the current regime could dig in deeper in its relations with Moscow and Beijing.
So, who is best placed for a new Iran? It’s more of the same, really.
China, India, Turkey, Japan, and Germany seem to be in the best position, given both their current economic relationships and their global political influence. Russia, for its part, would likely lose influence in a more secular Iran. Given Russia’s relatively weak economic ties and Iran’s likely new diplomatic optionality, Russia may take a backseat to more economically vibrant and diplomatically powerful partners. That could be the opening the U.S. is looking for.
Tony Nash is the CEO and Chief Economist at data technology firm Complete Intelligence. Jay Heisler is a counter-terrorism analyst, writer and blogger who is a longtime staffer at Washington D.C.-based Young Professionals in Foreign Policy.
For more insight from CNBC contributors, follow
@CNBCopinion
on Twitter.
