A New Way Forward Is Now Possible With Iran

Source: Getty
Op-Ed Cleveland Plain Dealer
Summary
As current events demonstrate, the security challenges of the Middle East cannot be permanently solved solely through the use of American military power. On Iran and other regional challenges, the only lasting solutions will be diplomatic ones.
Related Media and Tools
 

"It's because of Iran's strategic importance and its influence in the Islamic world that we chose to probe for a better relationship between our countries.” 

President Ronald Reagan’s words, spoken almost three decades ago, ring true today. Despite the difficulties and the longstanding disagreements between the two countries, it is squarely in America’s national security interest to explore the new opening that now exists in U.S.-Iranian relations.

The election of a new, more moderate president in Iran and the departure of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have set the stage for possible progress on nuclear negotiations.  And precisely because the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran poses tremendous security risks for the United States and our allies, the United States must test this opportunity.

The Iranian nuclear program is also not the only reason to “probe for a better relationship.” As the Syria crisis deepens, it becomes increasingly clear that diplomacy is the only way to achieve long-lasting resolution to the security challenges the United States faces in the Middle East.

While caution is necessary, there have been several signals from the new Iranian president, Hasan Rouhani, that bode well for nuclear negotiations.

 “Our nuclear program is transparent but we’re ready to take steps to make it more transparent,” he said, and that Iran is “ready to engage in serious and substantial talks without wasting time."

This is consistent with his explicit campaign platform over the summer. His appointment of a U.S.-educated foreign minister and now nuclear negotiator for Iran, Javad Zarif, was widely interpreted as an indication that the new president is willing to back up his rhetoric with action. Zarif not only has close ties to the West but also has extensive experience with the nuclear file, having served as Iran’s nuclear negotiator with European counterparts during his time as the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations. 

Rouhani has also struck a different note on Syria, by “strongly condemn[ing the] use of chemical weapons.” And the International Atomic Energy Agency has already scheduled another round of talks with Iran in late September.

The sanctions imposed by the international community have taken a toll on Iran’s economy, but frankly, they have failed to induce a change in Iran’s nuclear policies and have arguably strengthened the hand of Iranian hardliners who oppose negotiations.

While economic pressure can provide important leverage for U.S. diplomats, that is only true if they have the opportunity to use that leverage in negotiations. Economic pressure divorced from a diplomatic strategy will not succeed. An effective strategy for resolving the nuclear conflict in the short-term will employ targeted and flexible sanctions as a complement to diplomatic engagement. The first step, however, must be to resume negotiations.

There should also be a long-term vision in the U.S. approach. After several decades of mistrust and miscommunication, building confidence on both sides will be an enormous challenge, but the cost of abandoning negotiations is unconscionably high. A military strike against Iran would be a likely catastrophe, from endangering U.S. personnel and further destabilizing the Middle East to threatening the global economy and spurring another decadelong war in the Middle East.

Importantly, the military option would almost certainly fail to achieve the primary immediate goal -– preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. At best, military strikes may set Iran’s nuclear program back a few years. They would not eliminate it. Meanwhile, Western military action would likely unite Iran behind building a bomb, accelerate the nuclear program and drive it underground, and initiate a spiral into a full-scale war.

The liabilities of pursuing the military option argue strongly for taking on the challenge of negotiations. And there is good reason to be hopeful that negotiations will be successful, provided each side is willing to seriously engage.

There are specific steps that the United States will have to take in order to reach an agreement with Iran: First, accept Iran’s nuclear program under transparent and verifiable limits with proper safeguards. Second, be prepared to relax sanctions as Iran takes action. 

These steps are just a beginning; a comprehensive deal will require more intensive negotiations and defining the end result for both sides.

As current events demonstrate, the security challenges of the Middle East cannot be permanently solved solely through the use of American military power. On Iran and other regional challenges, the only lasting solutions will be diplomatic ones.

This article was originally posted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

End of document

About the Middle East Program

The Carnegie Middle East Program combines in-depth local knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to examine economic, sociopolitical, and strategic interests in the Arab world. Through detailed country studies and the exploration of key crosscutting themes, the Carnegie Middle East Program, in coordination with the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, provides analysis and recommendations in both English and Arabic that are deeply informed by knowledge and views from the region. The program has special expertise in political reform and Islamist participation in pluralistic politics.

 

Comments (2)

 
 
  • saynotowar
    The only concrete step that can be taken is to move Iran's dossier to the IAEA where it belongs, lift all illegal and immoral sanctions.   
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • HorowitzCSM1985
    Any comprehensive deal between Washington and Tehran must disentangle Iranian support for the war criminal Assad and the terrorist organization Hezbollah from inside its very structure. Iran is only one key to the future of Syria. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel hold the other keys, and none of them would be very happy with any deal that does not roll back the Iranian "axis of resistance". An Israeli military tilt against either Assad or Hezbollah or both is a likelihood if the US lifts the sanction regime while allowing some measure of Iranian enrichment. This has now become a firm Israeli red line. In the Syrian Civil War, Israel has become the wild card with Saudi Arabia strongly in its corner, while both Turkey and Jordan quietly assent. But a comprehensive deal, with a roll-back of the Iranian axis, will only be possible if Iran's strategic interests are satisfied, as well. The Syrian balance has been in play since the very founding of the Islamic Republic and recently the head of the Revolutionary Guard Corps was quoted as saying that for Iran: Assad's survival has become a red line. A Sunni victory in Syria will become not only an Alawite and Shia blood bath but the beginning of the next front to the war, Iraq, or worse, the Gulf itself. This cannot be a part of President Obama's plan for the US economy. So what will a comprehensive deal look like? It must include: a regional political framework that has the blessing of Iran and Israel, that can protect Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, that stops the flow of weapons into Syria and holds out hope for a moderate transitional authority that can write a constitution and hold an election, that is firmly endorsed by the UN Security Council, that is strictly verifiable, that is non-hegemonic, and finally it must remove all foreign forces from the region. In other words, a grand bargain or "Zone of Peace" is precisely what is required. But, time is running out and only through international cooperation can a dangerous and more comprehensive regional war be prevented. The days when the US could go it alone in the Middle East are over. The American People are against another war in the region; this is most certainly true. But at the same time, I am equally certain that they will not accept a deal with Iran (of all countries) that leaves their one true ally in the Middle East totally vulnerable. And make no mistake, Israel will act, if its vital interests are put in jeopardy. Now is the time to think big.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • Report Abuse
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/09/13/new-way-forward-is-now-possible-with-iran/gna7

More from The Global Think Tank

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。