How to Deal with Iran
Edited by Andy Ross
Three of the most pressing national security issues facing the Obama
administration — nuclear proliferation, the war in Iraq, and the deteriorating
situation in Afghanistan — have one element in common: Iran. The Obama
administration cannot postpone dealing with Iran.
The United States has other important concerns about Iran, including Iranian
support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and the threat it poses to Israel. But the
paramount issues of Iran's nuclear enrichment and its influence in Iraq and
Afghanistan, we argue, are closely interrelated.
President Obama will have to develop an integrated approach toward Iran that
addresses all three issues. Both sides must recognize the connection among these
issues. Using military force against Iran's nuclear facilities would make
cooperation on Iraq and Afghanistan impossible. A concession on one issue can be
used to resolve a sticking point on another.
For such a strategy to work, the US must consult in advance other parties
including the UN Security Council, the UN secretary-general, Israel, Turkey,
Pakistan, and the Arab countries. A forum is needed for these parties to discuss
questions involving Iraq and Afghanistan.
Resolving the nuclear issue and bringing stability to Iraq and Afghanistan will
require direct talks between the United States, Iran, and other interested
parties, and these talks must be without preconditions.
We suggest that the new policy be launched after the new Iranian president is
chosen in summer 2009. Before then, the US should consider opening mid-level,
official contact with Iran to discuss public actions to improve the
relationship. Such actions would communicate to Iran that the US intends to
pursue a different strategy from the one followed by the previous
administration.
Iran is a proud nation with roots in a centuries-old civilization. Its
insistence on being treated with mutual respect is not empty rhetoric. Alerting
the Iranian government in advance to the actions would prepare the way for a new
approach to nuclear enrichment, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
In an earlier article, we proposed that, with US support, European nations form
a multinational consortium with Iran to produce enriched uranium inside Iran.
All nuclear developments in Iran would be monitored by an enhanced verification
system with the full participation of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Such a multinational system could effectively prevent enrichment for military
purposes.
The Obama administration will not have many opportunities to formulate a
workable nuclear policy toward Iran. Starting with a workable proposal is better
than continuing with a losing approach in the hope that we can recoup our
position later. If the US continues to insist that Iran scrap all its
centrifuges, we will soon find ourselves in a situation where Iran has tens of
thousands of centrifuges and the only options left are both unpromising and
prohibitively costly.
We have proposed that the United States engage in direct, bilateral talks with
Iran on its nuclear program in parallel with continued multilateral discussions.
We envisage a prominent role for America's European partners in the
establishment of a multilateral enrichment facility on Iranian soil. We argue
that the US and Iran should hold separate but parallel direct discussions on the
issues of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Washington's ideal world, Tehran would have no influence over Iraqi affairs.
Tehran would like an Iraq over which America has little or no influence and an
Iraqi government friendly to Iranian interests. Despite these differences, there
is much on which the US and Iran can agree. Both countries support the Maliki
government, and neither wants to see Iraq become the battleground for proxy
wars.
Both the US and Iran would profit if they were willing to settle for a stable
and secure Iraq to which both countries have strong ties but over which neither
is dominant. The stakes are sufficiently high and the potential for disastrous
conflict sufficiently strong that there is reason to find common ground.
The primary challenge facing Iraq is political, not military. Iraq's internal
political disputes have to be resolved by the Iraqis themselves. But Iraq's
neighbors have the power to promote progress, paralysis, or civil war. A
multilateral diplomatic initiative would complement and facilitate a change in
the size of the US military deployments in Iraq.
We propose that the US encourage an international diplomatic effort on Iraq. Its
purpose would be to help Iraq create a workable federal government, preserve its
territorial integrity, achieve a fair distribution of oil wealth, and resettle
the nearly five million Iraqi displaced persons and refugees. We suggest that
the various governments in the region establish a regional diplomatic forum for
ongoing consultation and negotiation.
The diplomatic effort proposed here would have several components. First, the US
president would appoint a special envoy to initiate a round of diplomacy with
all the governments in the region to address questions concerning Iraq. American
leadership will be critical, but international participation under UN auspices
will provide legitimacy.
The main goal of this initiative is to support Iraqi sovereignty and regional
stability. No plan for Iraq can succeed without the support of the Iraqis and
the endorsement and participation of Iran. It is almost certain that there will
be increased suspicion and rivalry between the United States and Iran if Iran is
left to pursue its own interests in Iraq without some form of regional
mediation.
Afghanistan and Pakistan face difficult problems. The Taliban have very
substantially increased their presence in Afghanistan, while Pakistan itself has
become a safe haven for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. These
developments are of great concern to Iran, which shares borders with both
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A new US strategy toward Iran will be difficult. Some analysts view Iran as an
"existential threat" to Israel. Iran's human rights record provokes opposition
internationally. We believe that successful engagement with Iran on Iraq,
Afghanistan, and the nuclear issue could translate into progress on other
issues.
AR This analysis by three wise men is worth taking seriously. President Obama is lucky to have such experts so near at hand.
