IRAN
Think First
A renewed sense of urgency has returned to the nuclear impasse with Iran. Media reports published this weekend suggest that U.S. strategists are planning for potential military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, and hawkish conservatives eager to take the focus off Iraq have turned their attention to Iran. Yet beneath these sensational headlines, more important developments are occurring. The near-unanimous vote to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council over its nuclear program, and the growth of the international coalition working to convince Iran to shift course, represent serious diplomatic victories. Americans should be focusing on these developments, rather than the "atmosphere of panic and hysteria" being promoted by the right wing. As Matthew Yglesias argues, "The one aspect of the Iran question that does enjoy universal agreement is that it involves difficult, unappealing choices and a notable absence of easy answers. Under the circumstances, it's vital that the public have a clear understanding of what is genuinely at issue here."
REALITY CHECK: Last August, a National Intelligence Estimate representing the "consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies" projected that Iran is "about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years." Likewise, a report by the Institute for Science and International Security determining the "worst-case scenario" for Iran concluded that "at a minimum, it would take about three years for the Iranians to build a bomb even if one assumes that, contrary to the historical record, their scientists face no technical problems whatsoever along the way." In other words, Iran's nuclear program is a problem, but not a crisis. The Bush administration must keep the Iran issue on the front burner, as it has neglected to do consistently over the past five years. Yet the United States also has time -- time to engage Iran directly, to draw together a real coalition to persuade Iran to shift course, and time to help advance real democracy in a country whose citizens have higher regard for the United States than almost any other in the region.
SOME SIGNS OF AN OPENING: "The great void of Iranian-American relations is also the great, and perhaps most dangerous, anomaly of international relations today," Roger Cohen wrote last week in the International Herald Tribune. The Bush administration has for too long ceded leadership on Iranian diplomacy to "Old Europe." Instead, as American Progress has argued for months, the United States must engage Iran. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said yesterday, "It may well be that the United States is going to have to find some way to engage the Iranians off channel," pointing out that "one of the results of us having no relationship with Iran, when all of our allies do, is that the intelligence we get pretty much is third-hand. We don't have any presence in Iran." Roger Cohen suggests an appropriate opening: Iraq. The interests of the United States and Iran mostly converge there, since both governments will gain when Iraq moves on a course towards stability and development. Moreover, there appear to be some elements of Iran's power structure that seek a less confrontational approach. Former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, head of the powerful Expediency Council, said at a rally last week that "instead of relying on strength, we must try to fix the situation wisely," while a former speaker of Parliament told demonstrators that officials must "try to adopt dialogue and act wisely." Says Cohen: "In the long term, engagement with Iran, even that of Ahmadinejad, is in America's interest. Iraq offers an avenue, and a venue, to start talking. It will not happen soon, but a Nixon-to-China moment in American-Iranian relations is the only way to turn events from a destructive spiral."
HAWKS WANT U.S. TO PLAY ITS WEAKEST HAND: The UK Telegraph reported this weekend that Pentagon strategists are drawing up "last resort" plans for "devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites." Meanwhile, Reuters reported that during a private meeting last week, "a former senior U.S. official raised the idea of launching a dozen B2 bombers in an air raid aimed at crippling key Iranian nuclear facilities." If true, these reports should be considered skeptically. There is widespread agreement among Iran experts and U.S. defense analysts that, while the military option should always remain on the table, there are few good military solutions to the Iran conflict. As Hagel (R-NE) said this weekend, "I hope we are a long way from seriously considering a military option...because I don't think it would result in the objective here. What is the objective? The objective is to deal with the reality that Iran is moving closer to getting the capability to develop a nuclear weapon." Of course, that hasn't stopped headline-chasing politicians like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) from blustering about military attacks, even as they support the disastrous Bush policy in Iraq that has allowed an historic expansion of Iranian influence in the region. They are advocating a path of confrontation with a weak hand. Their policy is ill-fated and, in essence, a dead-end. |
