|
In their final months, the Bush administration tacked tentatively towards diplomacy with Iran, though they ultimately failed to take the steps needed to repair the relationship. War with Iran won't solve our problems and would only create new ones. Congress and the new president must make Iran a top priority, and quickly set the right tone towards getting US – Iran relations on the right track. President Obama and Congress should:
1. Pursue wide-ranging, direct negotiations without preconditions with Iran. Former
US secretaries of state Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Warren
Christopher, James Baker and Henry Kissinger all favor negotiating with
Iran to address its nuclear program.
The US can quickly set a constructive tone
with Iran with early concrete steps, such as appointing a special envoy
to Iran and opening an interests section. After roughly 30 years
without diplomatic relations, the US needs to send a clear message that
it is interested in productive engagement, and lay the groundwork for
higher-level talks in the future. The talks should cover a wide range of issues, including Iranian cooperation in stabilizing Iraq, as well as the future of Iran's uranium enrichment program.
2. Refrain from hostile rhetoric and saber-rattling. The
Bush administration's use of hostile rhetoric paired with incidents
like the misunderstanding in the Strait of Hormuz between Iranian
speedboats and US warships teetered dangerously towards a direct
military confrontation, and strengthened Ahmadinejad's political
standing inside Iran. The new administration should make a clean break
in tone and posture from the Bush approach.
3. Announce that the US does not seek regime change in Iran.
With the threat of military action on the table, negotiations between
the US and Iran are less likely to succeed from the beginning.
Pro-democracy reformists and human rights activists note that the
Iranian people are best positioned to create change, and threats of
regime change by the US hurt their cause as reformists are made the
targets of government crackdowns. The US can make it clear that it
seeks a change in the behavior of Iran, rather than a change in
leadership.
Background Concerns about Iran’s nuclear program have often overshadowed the need for a comprehensive new approach with Iran. For the United States, the goal of diplomacy should go beyond convincing the Iranians to forgo nuclear weapons, and should address our common security concerns. Negotiations should emphasize the shared interests of Iranians and Americans, including stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan.
In addition, the United States needs a more effective strategy to work with Iran on nuclear nonproliferation issues. The Bush administration's approach was counterproductive. The findings of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran reported that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been on hold since 2003, and that the decision to freeze the program was based on a cost-benefit approach that took into account political, economic and military costs. In spite of that, hawks in the Bush administration pushed behind the scenes for war with Iran. The US pursued UN sanctions against Iran, and Congress considered unilateral sanctions legislation. The Bush administration eliminated direct diplomacy as an option and insisted that Iran cease uranium enrichment as a precondition to opening negotiations. As the US has continued its policy of isolation, the pitched rhetoric between the two countries has made public support for uranium enrichment inside Iran a matter of national pride.
The new president will need a sophisticated strategy based on a real understanding of Iran's national culture and political system. The Bush administration's saber-rattling approach made it easier, not harder, for hardliners inside Iran to ratchet up their anti-American rhetoric. Conversely, soon after the 2008 elections, some inside Iran expressed careful hope that the incoming president would embrace diplomacy in a way that would help moderates who have argued for normalized relations with the US for years.
It was those Iranian moderates who argued for and won Iranian support for the US effort in Afghanistan. Their voices were marginalized when, soon after Iran's assistance in Afghanistan, President Bush included Iran in his "Axis of Evil," and started insisting that Iran’s uranium enrichment program was for clandestine nuclear weapons development. In a New York Times OpEd,
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, who worked in the National
Security Council under the Bush administration, outline a possible
framework for broad, productive negotiations with Iran. They propose
that the US would need to clarify that it does not seek to overthrow
the current regime, pledge to stop unilateral sanctions if Iran holds
up its end of the bargain, normalize relations and remove Iran from the
list of countries that sponsor terrorism. In exchange, Iran would need
to address proliferation risks from its nuclear program, allow
intrusive inspections, support a just and lasting settlement between
Israel and Palestine, and stop providing military training and supplies
to terrorist organizations. The results of the 2008 elections were a mandate for a new beginning with Iran. We can achieve a strategic, working relationship with Iran in the next few years, if we start now.
|
