|
President Obama dramatically shifted the tone of the US government's interactions with Iran, reaching out to the leaders and people of Iran with respect and a commitment to engage diplomatically. The disputed Iranian presidential election in June 2009, followed by widespread protest and harsh government crackdown, complicated the Obama administration's efforts to lay the groundwork for a better relationship.
While the Obama administration has made an important step in participating in talks with Iran along with the permanent five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, it has not engaged in the kind of serious, committed diplomacy necessary for a breakthrough with Iran. Getting to the negotiating table is an important first step, but the western powers have not been open to Iran's counter-offers to the proposed deal to ship Iran's uranium out of the country. Serious diplomacy involves willingness to compromise on both sides, a virtue the US and its negotiating partners have not yet demonstrated. We cannot afford to walk away from the negotiating table with Iran, because there is no other viable option for resolving tensions between our countries, and the status quo is unsustainable.
Meanwhile, Congress' actions have been largely counterproductive, from urging the US to actively support the opposition in Iran -- a move that would put the Iranian opposition in peril by making it easy for Iranian hardliners to characterize reformers as puppets of the US -- to passing broad and harsh sanctions that would hurt the Iranian people.
President Obama and Congress should:
1. Pursue wide-ranging, direct negotiations without preconditions with Iran.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State John Limbert, who was held hostage during the embassy takeover in Iran, notes, "The United States and Iran should be talking because both sides will find significant common interests in so doing. Talking to Iran, hard and disagreeable as it might be, is likely to be more productive than continuing almost three decades of noisy and sometimes violent confrontation."
While the group talks with Iran are an important step in the right direction, the Obama administration must engage in diplomacy that involves give and take--pressuring the Iranian regime on key points such as its nuclear program, while also offering incentives such as lifting sanctions and security guarantees. Successful diplomacy with Iran will require an understanding of both parties' interests, and allow both Iran and the US to claim some success through effective compromise.
The talks should cover a wide range of issues, including Iranian cooperation in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, human rights, as well as the future of Iran's uranium enrichment program.
2. Adopt a level-headed approach and steer clear of saber-rattling.
While President Obama has made important shifts in rhetoric about Iran, some administration officials have continued the use of threats, and getting "tough on Iran" is a bipartisan sport in Congress. Members of Congress should follow President Obama's early lead and create an environment of respect and willingness to engage diplomatically. Rather than trying to play a "bad cop" to the president's "good cop," it is essential that Congress realize this dynamic conveys disingenuousness on the part of the US and a lack of seriousness about resolving tensions diplomatically.
The US must be pragmatic and focused on results in its work to prevent Iran, and any other country, from developing nuclear weapons. That means being clearheaded about the level of threat Iran poses to the US and its allies, and withstanding a political environment that rewards fear mongering and exaggerations of that threat. According to US intelligence, there is no clear indication that Iran has made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon. If such a decision were made, Iran would face significant technical hurdles in uranium enrichment and developing a delivery vehicle for a warhead. Greg Thielmann, former staffer for the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, wrote that "informed projections of the earliest possible arrival of an Iranian nuclear threat to the United States are actually being extended outward." For years, an Iranian nuclear weapon has been "imminent." Distortions of the meaning of developments in Iran's uranium enrichment process have been rampant in the press, with politicians [like Joe Lieberman boo hiss] using slippery rhetoric that implies--or states explicitly--that Iran is on the cusp of having a bomb. The fact is there would be clear signs, such as kicking out nuclear inspectors, if Iran were moving ahead quickly toward a weapons capability.
Diplomacy is the only viable way to resolve lingering questions about Iran's nuclear program. Rhetoric about "ticking time bombs" and "imminent threats" encourages the kind of rash decision making that threw the US into the disastrous war in Iraq. There is time for diplomacy to work, and we must provide that time to have a peaceful solution to tensions with Iran. Anything less is squandering an opportunity for a stabilized relationship with Iran and a win for nuclear non-proliferation.
3. Avoid counterproductive sanctions that will hurt the Iranian people.
In its ridiculous contest to be the "toughest on Iran," Congress has strongly supported broad, unilateral sanctions that are likely to backfire and hurt the Iranian people. As Iran experts Jim Walsh, Thomas Pickering and William Luers wrote, "Given their track record, new sanctions are hardly the tactic one would rush to as a promising choice. More importantly, by narrowly focusing on a tactic rather than the strategic objective, there is the risk that policymakers will produce the very thing they seek to prevent: an Iran with nuclear weapons."
Thirty years of sanctions have not resulted in positive changes in Iran's behavior. In fact, the purely punitive approach with Iran has fed a useful narrative for a regime that wants to portray itself as under siege by the US. Sanctions also put the US on a belligerent path, and there are still those who are pushing politicians toward military action. Rather than clinging to a failed tactic, the US must look forward with a bold diplomatic strategy.
For more information, see:
"Say no to sanctions," blog series
Political Director Rebecca Griffin's blog posts written during a grassroots diplomacy trip to Iran in May 2009
"Iran and the Problem of Tactical Myopia", Jim Walsh, Thomas Pickering, and William Luers
"Is There Time to Prevent an Iranian Nuclear Weapon",Greg Thielman
"Negotiating with Iran",John Limbert
|
