Posted By Daniel Brumberg, Barry Blechman
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 - 10:02 AM
Share
Frustrated by the absence of substantive progress during the latest round of P5+1 talks in Geneva, some Iran analysts would have U.S. policy plunge once again into the murky territory of regime change. Some hope that a military attack might bring about this goal. Others, taking what seems to be the high road, argue that the U.S. should back a people's democratic revolution. This second idea is deeply alluring. After all, it accords with our most cherished ideas while also offering a solution that serves U.S. national interests. What advocate of democracy would not want Iran's Green Movement to prevail? In one fell swoop, its victory would bring to the table legitimate Iranian leaders who keenly defend Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power, but who would also provide a far more constructive negotiating partner for the U.S. and its allies.
The problem, however, is that democratic reform in Iran is a long-term proposition. As a result, it cannot serve as the basis for an effective U.S.-Iran policy. If the Obama White House were to rest its efforts to dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons on regime change, it would end up with an Iran policy as incoherent as those of the administrations that preceded it.
That incoherence is rooted in the reluctance of both Republican and Democratic administrations to make a decisive choice between making war or talking peace. Given the costs of both it is hardly surprising that our leaders have been unwilling or unable to mobilize political and bureaucratic support for either option. Instead, they have split the difference by using a mix of punitive measures and tepid incentives to in one way or another "contain" Iran -- thus avoiding the domestic discomfort that would inevitably accompany a more strategically cogent policy.
To his credit, President Obama tried to overcome this legacy of policy confusion. He did so by reinvigorating a "two track" approach that imposed increasing costs while holding out the prospect of benefits that Tehran might gain in the event that it came clean on its nuclear program. But this policy has been long on the tactics of sanctions and other punitive measures, and short on a cogent strategic vision on the ultimate relationship with Iran that U.S. leaders -- and the public -- would endorse.
If, as administration officials insist, sanctions are a "means rather than an end," we need to define that end far more clearly. If it is stopping Iran's nuclear program, then let's be clear: sanctions may be slowing that program down, but by themselves they will not compel Iran's leaders to comply with the International Atomic Energy Commission or the UN Security Council. To get the attention of Iran's current leaders, we must decide whether the goal of sanctions (or for that matter, engagement) is to set the stage for war or for sustained peace negotiations.
On this elemental question, the White House's Iran policy is not all together clear. Hesitant to prematurely reveal its negotiating hand, and determined to show at home and abroad that it is tough, the Obama administration has hesitated to spell out a detailed package of economic, geo-strategic or diplomatic benefits that Iran might attain by seriously addressing the amply documented concerns of the International Atomic Energy Commission the UN Security Council.
Tehran's actions and words have not helped matters. Its dismissal of Obama's two "Nowruz" messages, President Ahmadinejad's verbal attacks on the legitimacy of the "Zionist enemy," Tehran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas -- not to mention the regime's repression of the Green Movement -- have all undercut support within and outside the administration for engagement.
As support for engagement wanes in Washington, calls for regime change are reverberating in the U.S. Congress and out national media. The idea that we can slay the Iranian nuclear dragon by destroying its autocratic heart will probably become a leitmotif of the House and quite possibly the Senate in 2011.
How to accomplish this is the question. Secretary of Defense Gates has publicly asserted that a military attack on Iran would "bring together a divided nation" and make Iran's weapons program "deeper and more covert." This sober observation echoes conclusions set out in a joint report of the Unites States Institute of Peace and the Stimson Center, namely that a U.S. attack on Iran would "destabilize the entire Middle East in ways that could do grave damage to U.S. strategic, economic and political interests." Drawing on the insights of a diverse group including James Dobbins, Dov Zakheim and Admiral William Fallon, this report argues that an attack would not only cement Iran's determination to get the bomb, it would also accelerate the effort of ultra-hardliners to impose total control, thus shutting the door to any hopes of even modest political reform.
Political reform will eventually come to Iran, but in manner far more prolonged and partial than that imagined by advocates of a full-scale democratic revolution. This kind of dramatic scenario may pluck a tour heart strings, but it has not been the animating vision of Iran's reformists. The latter speak for a 25-million urban middle class of Iranians, many whom share one goal: to compel the state to stop forcing religious dogma on the population.
In the wake of the controversy over the June 2009 presidential election and the mass protests that followed, this drive for reform within the system gave way to a more radical vision of the system within some circles of the Green Movement. But battered by a repressive regime and deeply divided, the movement's leaders have yet to define a common strategic vision of what they want to achieve. Moreover, they must still or forge durable alliances with key elite groups such as the urban commercial bazaar and the official clergy, or with popular sectors among the urban and rural lower classes. This is not an impossible project, but it will require a grass roots process of networking, communication and alliance building that will take years to unfold.
There is very little the U.S. can or should do to affect this prolonged dynamic. The more we embrace Iran's democratic activists, the more we suffocate them. Iran's reformists want the international community to stand up for their human rights; they do not want to be pawns of a U.S.-Iranian conflict. In a land where concerns about national sovereignty and religious identity cut across the regime-opposition divide, the quest for democracy will be discredited if it is seen as anything but homegrown.
There is one thing, however, that the U.S. can do promote political decompression in Iran, and that is to make détente with the Islamic Republic a top priority. Sustained U.S.-Iranian engagement would undercut the "threat" that ultra hardliners regularly invoke to legitimate their efforts to pummel or isolate their critics. The latter include prominent conservatives, many of whom are eager to deflect the efforts of Revolutionary Guard to undermine the autonomy of clerical institutions, private sector businesses, and the parliament. Fighting for their very political and economic survival, these conservative leaders are likely to push for a process of internal political accommodation that could open up some doors for reformists. While they face many hurdles, one thing is sure: an escalation of U.S.-Iranian tensions (much less a war!) will only harm the efforts of those Iranian leaders who favor internal dialogue to make their voices heard.
In the coming decade, Iran's politics will be defined by a slow, agonizing struggle waged through rather than against the institutions of the Islamic Republic. If we indulge in the seductive dream of a sudden democratic revolution -- whether delivered by bombs from above or by popular resistance from below -- we will destroy the seeds of a political change in Iran. But we if we push for a process of engagement that moves Iran and the U.S. from conflict to diplomatic coexistence, we can help nurture Iran's own capacity to change and transform from within.
Let us hope that 2011 will be the year, not for war, but for a revitalized diplomatic initiative to resolve the crisis over Iran's nuclear program. If we do not pursue a bolder engagement strategy, the U.S. and its allies will ultimately have no choice but to contain a nuclear Iran. Secretary of State Clinton's recent BBC interview, in which she stated U.S. conditional acceptance of Iran's enrichment rights, provides one step in the right direction. The Obama administration must move forward, despite the obstacles at home and abroad.
Daniel Brumberg is a special advisor to the U.S. Institute of Peace. Barry Blechman is co-founder of the Stimson Center. They are the co-authors of "Engagement, Coercion, and Iran's Nuclear Challenge," a collaborate report published by the Stimson Center and the U.S. Institute of Peace. This report is the product of a year-long examination by more than 50 experts of the Iranian nuclear problem.
I wonder why the author assumes that a different and more democratic regime would be a "more constructive negotiating partner" considering that in fact the US has been the intransigent party, insisting that Iran should be deprived of enrichment. Lets not forget that Iran accepted the uranium swap agreement and it was the US that inserted last-minute conditions that killed the deal, much to the embarrassment of Turkey and Brazil. Indeed, support for Iran's nuclear program cuts across political boundaries in Iran and is seen as an issue of national pride.
The US has consistently ignored Iranian compromise offers that could have resolved this standoff including the faxed 2003 peace offer and Iran's offer to open its nuclear program to multinational participation -- exceeding by far Iran's legal obligations under the NPT. Why have these options been ignored? Because the nuclear issue is merely pretextual anyway, just as "WMDs in Iraq" were pretextual, and so no amount of negotiations will resolve the issue since the US needs to keep it articificially alive.
Concern about Iran's nuclear program is mostly hype
As far as "amply documented concerns" about Iran's nuclear program -- the Feb 2008 IAEA report on Iran essentially gave it a clean bill of health, and every IAEA report has consistently stated that all of Iran's nuclear material is safeguarded and none has been diverted to non-peaceful uses. Iran's nuclear program is far better inspected than that of Argentina or Brazil's, in fact. The "ample documentation" casting suspicion on Iran is from the so-called "Laptop of Death" which is itself suspicious and consists more of innuendo than fact.
This is an excellent article with wrong conclusion.
Obama has nothing to offer to Iran
The authors make a good analysis of the situation and their suggestion of rapprochement with the Islamic Republic is welcome. However, the problem is that President Obama has nothing positive to offer to Iran. Even the offer of the exchange of 5% enriched uranium for 20% enriched uranium rods is no longer needed by Iran since they expect to produce it themselves by next September.
Essentially, the US and its allies have backed themselves into a corner by imposing all these ridiculous and unjustified sanctions on Iran. The only thing they can do now would be to remove the sanctions which will embarrass them no end. Thus, they are almost forced to continue the sanctions, thereby guaranteeing that relations with Iran will not improve for years to come. At the same time, Iran is not willing to give anything up, regardless of who is in power. Even if the so-called Democracy Movement took over, there will be no change in Iran's nuclear policy. Fortunately for Iran, it is a large country with vast resources. In addition, despite all the sanctions, Iran is increasing its trade with the world at large and is expanding its industrial base.
In review, there is no possibility of a "win" for the US in its conflict with Iran. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, it will be clear that the US foreign policy is really bankrupt and is not going anywhere. The chance of a military attack on Iran has also essentially disappeared. So, here is a war that the US has lost without even fighting it.
You, Logical123, are either making propaganda for the IRI or have no access to correct information about the disastrous economy of the IRI. Non petroleum export of Iran was about ~ $17 billion in 2009. Certainly, due to sanction it will be less in 2010. To learn how abysmal the Iran trade is simply compare its figures with the annual export of ~$360 billion for S. Korea and ~$140 B. for Turkey; both were less developed than Iran before 1979 revolution. Needless to say that neither S. Korea nor Turkey has oil to export, while Iran received about $350 B. from exporting oil during Ahmadinejad five years presidency. Some industrial units operate less than 50% in Iran. The export figure is a good indicator of the fact that Iran is no industrial products to export, but receives oil revenue to import all kinds of commodities from other countries mainly China.
AKAZ: You have no idea what you are talking about
Iran's non-oil exports were $20.30 billion in the first eight months of the current Iranian calendar year, representing a 26% increase compared to the corresponding period of the last year. Also, according to an IMF report, exports to EU will increase by 81% in 2010. So, your guess is simply wrong. More specifically, Iran's automobile industry is now the second largest industry after oil (12th largest in the world). Iran has the largest auto production in the Middle East and exports cars to over 40 countries.
Comparing Iran with South Korea does not make sense since Iran has been under sanctions for over 30 years and only during the last 10 years has been able to concentrate on industrial development. Also, according to a Canadian study that came out earlier this year, Iran has made the fastest progress in scientific research of all countries in the world. Here is the reference:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18546-iran-showing-fastest-scientific-growth-of-any-country.html?haasFormId=f9768f0e-e55c-439a-b647-e3a56f64a4f7&haasPage=0
To call me a propagandist for Iran is a joke. I detest the influence of religion in Iran. However, the West is making false accusations against Iran. There is not a shred of evidence for any nuclear weapons work in Iran. Yet, the West keeps making ridiculous accusation against it because it wants to control Iran's oil resource. It is just like the story of WMDs in Iraq.
Violations of human rights by an illegitimate fascist regime
I am an Iranian-American who wants democracy for Iran. It is not correct to assume that a new democratic government would support the same policy for it's Nuclear program!
First of all, an illegitimate fascist regime in Iran, does NOT represent the people of Iran.
Second, Iranians pioneered the human rights 2568 years ago, under Cyrus the Great. Today the people of Iran have no rights!!
It is a shame that the U.S government, the protector of the human rights across the Globe, is ignoring the violations of the human rights by an illegitimate fascist Mullah's regime.
Third, in 1992 the U. S. military entered Iraq to restore democracy for Iraq.
I do not recall even one Iraqi asking for democracy!? But today 70 million Iranian are begging for democracy, and the U.S is totally ignoring them?!?!?!?
Get rid of the Mullah's regime and all of the Nuclear issues will go away... But instead the Obama's administration is secretly negotiating and supporting the fascist regime, and ignoring the democratic opposition group in the U.S.
To learn more and to give support to the opposition group, please go to the following website: http://www.thenewiran.com/
God bless the people of Iran, and God bless the Unites States of America, the protector of the human rights in the World.
Your dream of bringing back the monarchy in Iran is a joke
Your comments are so superficial that it is not worth responding to them specifically. I am against the Mullahs too, but your rambling complaints don't make any sense. Also, the Web site that you referenced is an advocate for the Shah. It is good that his barbaric regime was overthrown. The time for monarchy in Iran is gone. So, just forget it!
some educated people prefer religious despotism than democracy
Logical1213 sounds old Marxists pro Ahmadinejad that after the collapse of the socialist states they found their ideals in Ahmadinejad and Chavez; because what is more important for them is anti Americanism, not development of their own countries.
You have bragged that Iran’s export will exceed $20 B. in this year. Do you know 20 is 1/18 of 360 of S. Korean export? Is it something to brag or to be ashamed of? Although, knowing the fact that few days ago three commercial ships owned by Iran were on auction in Malaysia, and five more are on the row to be auctioned, I am not sure your speculation could go through. The auctions of these ships are very bad sign for the IRI’s economy. They either cannot use them, or cannot pay the loan’s payments or both.
In your earlier note you said sanction doesn't work, in your latest note you wrote: "Comparing Iran with South Korea does not make sense since Iran has been under sanctions for over 30 years ..." Isn't it that you wanted to change the fact and propagate for the IRI?
Why you support a regime which does not recognize the rights and interests of the people and isolate Iran for its backward ideological dogmatism? What's wrong to have a normal relation with the US like S. Korea, Turkey, Brazil, India, Mexico, Vietnam, China, and the rest of the world do? Do you think Iranian people are handicapped or fool that American could control their natural resources? It’s amazing that some educated people prefer religious despotism than democracy for their country.
Not many countries can compete with South Korea
South Korea is one of the biggest economies in the world. Do you expect Iran to compete with it right now? The sanctions have made things difficult but Iran is surviving and progressing. The ships in Malaysia are insignificant. You are grasping for straws. As another sign, Iran is one of only 8 countries in the world that has placed an internally build satellite in space.
The biggest sign that you have no idea what you are talking about is in your statement,
"What's wrong to have a normal relation with the US like S. Korea, Turkey, Brazil, India, Mexico, Vietnam, China, and the rest of the world do?"
Are you crazy or just ignorant? Iran is perfectly willing to have normal relations with the rest of the world. It is the US and its allies that are making all these false accusations and are putting all these barriers against Iran. It is like saying why isn't Cuba having normal relations with the US and the rest of the world. Have you been sleeping all these years?
Another big problem right now is that the US and its allies are funding terrorist activities in Iran. Besides the nuclear scientists, do you know about Jundullah and the CIA funding of its operation?
Khamenei: "Iran-US relation is like ewe & wolf relation"
Are you coming from another planet? Khamenei like Khomeini has forbidden anyone to make a normal relation with the US. He continuously says "Iran-US relation is like ewe and wolf relation." Also, it has been 32 years that the IRI mobilizes its supporters to chant "death to America" and burn American flag. Are these the sign that the Islamic regime wants to make a normal relation with the "Great Satan"?
You write: "South Korea is one of the biggest economies in the world. Do you expect Iran to compete with it right now?" You must know the fact that Iran was ahead of S. Korea before 1979 revolution. Why don't you ask what S. Korea did for its development and the Islamic regime failed to do same? S. Korea like Japan created a normal relation with the US and the rest of the world. The Islamic regime instead mobilized it’s supporters to chant “death to America” and now mentally unstable Ahmadinejad wants to manage the world!
Terrorist groups do not need the US funds. They have religious ideology which is sufficient to justify killing of innocent people. Almost, every day tens of Shiite Muslims are killed by Sunni terrorist groups and Sunni Muslims are killed by Shiite terrorist groups in Iraq and Pakistan. Are they funded by the US, or they are anti American groups? Why don't ask yourself what the IRI has done to ethnic Bloch in Iran that a terrorist group like Jundollah was created? Few years ago, the IRI registered almost 60,000 young people to be trained for suicide bombing in other countries. Were they paid by the US? Under this regime, do you expect Iran develops like S. Korea?
Again you have bragged that "Iran is one of only 8 countries in the world that has placed an internally build satellite in space."
It’s a Joke. Iran still needs other countries to complete its car production. Yes, it’s true that the IRI is following the steps of N. Korea which has nuclear bomb while they cannot produce the basic necessities of life, including food, and definitely there is no freedom. Is that what you like about the IRI?
Isn't your anti Americanism a justification to back the reactionary religious regime in Iran that has kept Iran in complete isolation in the world or what?
You are barking up the wrong tree
As Polderman said, "The other commentators [including you] live in their own airtight ideological bubble and are beyond help." You can believe whatever you want. I don't have the time to try to straighten you out.
Finally some observations and analyses by people who know what they are talking about. And finally a breath of fresh air and some sanity amidst all the stale Neocon chatter and warmongering.
Although I have little hope Obama will heed the advice Brumberg and Bleich. The Republican majority in the House, who have exchanged their former paranoia for Communist World Domination for the new Islamophobia, have long ago lost any sight of what is really going on in the world.
They still think that military interventions can solve problems, in spite of the disasters and failures in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. They are just not able to learn from their past mistakes. I can advise everybody to regularly read: Lobelog foreign policy (see http://www.lobelog.com/ ) if you want to stay up-to-date informed about the pundit opinion war on Iran.
And thanks for the appropriate and well-informed comments by Hass, Tarquinis and Logical 123.
The other commentators live in their own airtight ideological bubble and are beyond help.
Nowrooz initiative unconvincing
Analyzing Iran in U.S. media usually reflect Israel's interests but thankfully this isn't one of them
However, Obama's Nowrooz message included the regulation threats that would be anathema to any sovereign state, let alone one that has been bullied by the U.S. for the past 30 years. If there is a serious wish on the part of Washington to seek engagement caveats such as "all options are on the table" have to go.
The Middle East Channel offers unique analysis and insights on this diverse and vital region of more than 400 million.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(14)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE