How to Engage With Iran

| Wed Apr. 8, 2009 6:49 AM PDT

President Obama has been preoccupied with Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently North Korea, but his attention will soon inevitably turn to one of Washington's greatest diplomatic wild cards: Iran. A new white paper (PDF) prepared by a group of former US ambassadors and progressive foreign policy experts urges the Obama administration not to succumb to hawks pushing an unduly harsh and counterproductive stance regarding Iran. At issue is how to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In clear reference to Iraq invasion (remember those elusive WMDs Saddam was supposedly stockpiling?), the Iran Nuclear Policy Group warns, "publicly assuming the worst in the absence of evidence--and issuing an ultimatum based on that assumption--is a singularly bad idea."

The Group instead suggests a three-part approach to the problem, emphasizing reliance on facts rather than hype (a novel idea), a clear expression of US foreign policy goals in a way that leaves Iran space to manuever and save face, and "true diplomacy" that emphasizes not "the bad things that American can do to Iran but... things that the United States can withhold," namely foreign investment, diplomatic respect, and help developing Iran's oil and gas sectors.

Advertisement

Advertisement

See the white paper for details on the group's recommendations. Its conclusion, though, is clear in its criticism of past approaches and the resulting setbacks Washington has suffered:

For five years, efforts to coerce Iran to stop enriching and answer potentially embarrassing questions have failed. Sharpening the sticks and sweetening the carrots will not change that.

The current path leads only to a painful choice between escalating to armed conflict or backing down in embarrassment. A change of course is needed. We expect hardliners in Tehran will crow over any concession that opens the door to the possibility of enrichment in Iran. In diplomacy, as in war, however, a tactical shift to more defensible terrain is often the key to success.

What is needed now is a calm, firm, measured and principled response that clearly defines and protects U.S. vital interests; respects the rights and legitimate interests of Iran; and finds a way for Iran to accommodate U.S. core interests while also advancing its own. This statement has outlined the key elements of a diplomatic strategy that we believe meets these conditions and has the best chance of succeeding.

 

Bruce Falconer is a former Mother Jones' Washington bureau reporter. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

The true issue is being ignored.

tagged as: 
"At issue is how to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons" -- no, it is not. At issue is how to stop Iran from enriching uranium, which both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have falsely equated with making bombs. There already exists and international treaty and mechanism to ensure that the sort of purely civilian nuclear program Iran has developed is not diverted to military use -- it is called the NPT and the IAEA inspections process, which after 6 years have failed to turn up an iota of evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran (which is why our "experts" instead accuse Iran of seeking the "capacity" to build nukes -- a nonsense accusation since any country with a nuclear energy program can be said to have this "capacity") The real issue is about control over the nuclear fuel cycle, which some countries have been attempting to monopolize. Long before the conflict with Iran, this has been a contest between developed and developing nations, who do not trust the US and Russia etc. to be reliable suppliers of nuclear fuel. Since the 1980s, the UN General Assembly (dominated by developing nations) has been issuing resolutions against efforts to monopolize nuclear technology in the name of fighting weapons proliferation. The conflict with Iran really has nothing to do with "nuclear weapons", it is about economic domination.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.