Serious analysis on Iran from a former NSC player
Tuesday, January 24, 2006 at 6:16PM OP-ED: “The Gulf Between Us: The solution to our Iran problem may lie in Riyadh,” by Flynt Leverett, New York Times, 24 January 2006, p. A25.
We are told by the Iran experts that our carrots haven’t worked in recent years, but this is bullshit.
Read on:
AS the United States and its European partners consider their next steps to contain the Iranian nuclear threat, let's recall how poorly the Bush administration has handled this issue. During its five years in office, the administration has turned away from every opportunity to put relations with Iran on a more positive trajectory. Three examples stand out.In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Tehran offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban and establish a new political order in Afghanistan. But in his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush announced that Iran was part of an "axis of evil," thereby scuttling any possibility of leveraging tactical cooperation over Afghanistan into a strategic opening.
In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case. Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.
Finally, in October 2003, the Europeans got Iran to agree to suspend enrichment in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed.
Now Washington and its allies are faced with two unattractive options for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. They can refer the issue to the Security Council, but, at a time of tight energy markets, no one is interested in restricting Iranian oil sales. Other measures under discussion - travel restrictions on Iranian officials, for example - are likely to be imposed only ad hoc, with Russia and China as probable holdouts. They are in any case unlikely to sway Iranian decision-making, because unlike his predecessor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disdains being feted in European capitals.
Leverett’s answer?
A “contact group” of Core powers (U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China) + the Gulf’s powers coming together to declare a nuclear-free Gulf. This is the new Saudi proposal that does not link this goal to Israel’s relinquishment of nukes. In other words, we create an organization for the region like what the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe did alongside NATO in taming and ultimately integrating the old Soviet threat. We guaranteed security and seats at the table, and countries that could have had nukes when the Soviet empire fell apart chose not to make that choice.
Grand bargains are never in the offing. You build these relationships slowly but surely in tiny little steps—meeting after meeting.
We have come nowhere near to exhausting this process. What we’ve exhausted is our military in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran-the-regime-change is not an option, because no one will help us on this one—bet on that.
We’ve waged the war as much as we can for now. Better get on with the peace.
Reader Comments (6)
These comments imply a US administration already in a war mindset vis a vis Iran.
Personally it is difficult for me to get past my own prejudices and see Iran as anything other than a "politicaly bankrupt state", that remains an unrepentent teror threat. How do we as Americans cross the line of "no negotiations with terrorists" and find a way to treat with the Mullahs?
I think this administration is in a mid-term election mindset, and Cheney's balls have gone back up in his stomach. Can't they at least give the next administration some "field position"? Where is James Baker incidentally?
are the Mullah's really 'terrorists'? it depends on how you define it (as usual). were the Soviets? were/are the Chinese? we've made great strides in helping those major players globalize by connecting them up to the world economy. what's the minimum amount of democracy a country must have for us to negotiate with them? capitalism? non-fundamentalism? or are we willing to achieve those goals through negotiation and globalization instead of making them prerequisites?
I think we all have a little to much David Easton in us (international relations theory) and to little Gabreil Almond. My problem with the Iranian situation is that no one seems to remember that Irans army is no Republican Gaurd. Last time I checked, Iran had a 8 year war with Iraq durning the rebuilding of their country after the Islamic Revolution. These people (thats were Easton gets kicked to the curb) and Almond gets rought into the picture. These things must take time, we're talking nuclear here...
The Iranians are a terrorist regime. They blew up 300 U.S. Marines in Beruit. They are funding and equipping Hezbollah. Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan have felt Iran's terror. That country could be integrated in the world so fast, if the mad mullahs were gone. But how? That's the $64mil question.
Highly educated population that is rather pro-core, as I understand it, but now we've got Armageddonijad as the face of the regime. Anyone heard of the return of the 12th Imam? Scary stuff. I hope he doesn't get his wish.
I think your ideas on economic integration are dead on. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it is working. Eastern Europe, China, Brazil, Chile, countries that have joined the core, do not care about being militaristic.
Can you impose democracy in Iraq or does it have to come from within their own citizentry. It will interesting and expensive to watch. I maintain the war in Iraq was a poor allocation of capital resources by the Bush Administration, akin to a large mulitnational company making a large acquisition that subsequently destroys shareholder value. I hope the situation in Iraq works out for the US but I believe we will be left wondering if it was worth all of the costs. In today's world, can we afford to be the global policeman? There has to be a better way.