Challenging Iran's Leaders at Their Own Game
by JAMSHEED K. CHOKSY
31 Mar 2010 17:2517 Comments
The U.S. needs to act like a diplomatic superpower too.
[ opinion ] Though the threat of more economic sanctions have eased for now and the threat of military strikes has faded since the passing of the Bush administration and its belligerent rhetoric, Washington's power brokers appear to have given up on engaging Iran diplomatically, taking a tried-that/didn't-work approach. Offers of dialogue are unconvincing. The Obama administration seems to have dug in its heels, demanding that Tehran cave, rather than seeking a mutually agreeable solution.
In the meantime, Iran appears to progress steadily toward nuclear weapons breakout capability. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates Iran possesses sufficient low-enriched uranium (LEU), over two metric tons, for purification into a single weapons-grade warhead of 20-25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium.
Iranian leaders have begun comparing their program to Japan's, which is capable of producing nuclear weapons rapidly. Japan stopped once it attained breakout capability; as it feels threatened by the outside world, Iran may not. So the nuclear impasse continues, with both sides trading barbs and prospects for improvement in bilateral relations further corroding.
Consequently, the United States increasingly looks to containment and mitigation as the means for dealing with Iran, replacing attempts at communication and prevention. American officials from President Obama down have proposed missile shields for the Middle East and Europe. For the United States, it seems, Iran has superseded the Soviet Union as the new evil empire. The politicians in Tehran and Qom have not failed to recognize this elevation in international status brought on by their actions.
Granted, the Obama administration's hopes of swift dialogue with Tehran have been dashed by mullahs who fear regime change. Yet the tacit dismissal of sustained diplomacy on the grounds that Iran's government is not open to it, cannot make decisions, or is not trustworthy has proved counterproductive. Few viable options are left for the United States.
In the immediate aftermath of the June 2009 presidential election and during the subsequent internal challenges to the legitimacy of the theocratic system, Iran's government did appear incapable of reaching agreement with the West on nuclear issues. However, Tehran's autocrats have quashed many forms of public dissent and are in control again -- at least for now.
Opportunities to resolve the standoff through negotiations do exist. In part due to Russian and Chinese diplomatic efforts, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's MIT-trained former representative to the IAEA and current chief of nuclear programs, declared in mid-March that his country was "ready to deliver the total amount of fuel in one go, on condition that the exchange take place inside Iran and simultaneously. We are ready to deliver 1,200 kilograms and to receive 120 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium." Salehi's remarks are particularly notable given Iran's previous reluctance to exchange so much of its LEU stockpile in a single transaction, as initially proposed by the IAEA and endorsed by the P5+1 last October.
Even with this declaration, the sticking points of timing and location remain. Iran, worried that the West will not send enriched uranium once the LEU has left its borders, wants a simultaneous exchange. The United States has opposed any exchange within Iran, fearing the regime may hold on to the LEU after receiving the 20 percent enriched fuel rods and plate. Iran's qualms are unrealistic as the United States and its allies know the world is watching and the U.N. is exercising oversight. A breach of contract on the other side would provide ample cause for the United States to take unilateral punitive measures and cost Iran the stature it is gaining in the Third World. Indeed, none of the parties involved wishes to be viewed as pirates.
It is not unexpected that an American administration distracted by other matters at home and abroad would fail to respond to Iran's latest attempt to reach a deal. Yet this failure also underscores the narrow understanding of the diplomatic process that continues to characterize the U.S. government. Yes, Iran's offer does not completely meet American demands. But diplomacy is a progressive process, not an all-or-nothing strategy. For engagement to be successful, it has to be more than a series of nonstarters based on inflexible positions. It's neither about accepting or rejecting a particular proposal nor waiting out the other side, but about keeping all eyes on the prize even as time runs out. And, in this case, there are two potential rewards.
The focus here should not be on victories over terms and conditions. The crucial objectives are to build trust between the two nations and to ensure that Iran does not assemble nuclear weapons. Realization of the first objective can go far in making the second one possible. The United States and its allies in the P5+1 have little to lose by responding to Iran's latest offer, telling Tehran to set a firm date for nuclear fuel exchange via the IAEA. Such a gesture would demonstrate to Russia and China, whose support is needed against Iran in the U.N. Security Council, that America is heeding their concerns and appreciates their assistance. In other words, the United States would be generating shared stakes for those two nations in the success of the process, as well.
Iran has been claiming in recent months that it wants to reach a deal with the West, that it seeks nuclear cooperation rather than confrontation. Here is yet another opportunity for the Obama administration to use diplomacy to America's advantage -- either Iran follows through on its offer or is shown to be talking just to stall. If a successful fuel exchange transpires, it could prove to be a major step forward in bilateral relations. If it fails because of intransigence in Tehran, the rest of the world will be less sympathetic toward and trusting of Iran's leaders. And the United States will be seen as having sought, yet again, a peaceful resolution. Either outcome would benefit U.S. interests, while demonstrating a greater understanding of the gains achievable through diplomatic engagement.
Jamsheed K. Choksy is professor of Iranian and International studies and former director of the Middle Eastern Studies Program at Indiana University. He also is a member of the National Council on the Humanities at the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities. The views expressed are his own.
Copyright © 2010 Tehran Bureau
via RSS
17 Comments
The author makes great omission and statements of cause and effect with no logical links:
One important omission is the role of Israel and AIPAC in the US which have been hard at work towards sanctions and ultimately military attack, whilst sabotaging any prospect of dialogue.
Another important omission is Israel's possession of a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and its refusal to join the NPT. This is the central issue in discussing Iran's nuclear programme, particularly in the light of Mr Choksy's unsubstantiated remark that 'Iran appears" to be moving towards weapons capability.
Mr Chosky states "Granted, the Obama administration's hopes of swift dialogue with Tehran have been dashed by mullahs fearing regime change", that is, in the authors view Obama's US had the 'intention' and the 'hope' to engage in swift dialogue, but it was Iran's paranoia regarding US intentions that got in the way of these negotiations!!!
However, what the author fails to question is the result the Obama administration was 'hoping' to achieve from 'swift dialogue', and the context in which the negotiations became a non-starter, that is, enforcing harsher unilateral sanctions, pressuring other countries to sanction, and threatening crushing petroleum sanctions, whilst the military option has been obstinately left on the table!!! The author also fails to mention that the 'regime change' is not Iran's leaders' paranoia, it is rather the active operational policy of the US!! In fact it has been this treacherous policy that has been instrumental in the set-backs the Green Movement has suffered. Making the regime 'paranoid' regarding the nature of the oppositional democratic movement is also the active policy of the US, openly advocated by its think tanks such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy!!
I appreciate the author's support for dialogue and reaching some agreement regarding uranium exchange, but this can only be meaningful if it acknowledges the realities of the US and Israeli political interests in the region. Iran's nuclear programme and Iran's security and Iran's international rights should be assessed and acknowledged irrespective of the like and dislike of the regime, and its repressive or even non-representative nature.
Anonymous / March 31, 2010 11:25 PM"Granted, the Obama administration's hopes of swift dialogue with Tehran have been dashed by mullahs fearing regime change".
The US if sincere in its intention should offer Iran a restart of its 'Atoms for Peace' programme as a carrot. This was the programmed in 1950s which first initiated Iran's nuclear programmed. Personally I think IRI is better off tapping into, with such a huge landmass and thousands of kilometres of ocean, into developing and producing energy from renewable sources which are much safer and would provide many more jobs. However strategically since it already had a programme and considering it is surrounded by nuclear armed states (either as occupying powers or in their own right - US/UK in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia and Pakistan) it should have a good nuclear programme with a break out capability. This is a strategic necessity in the neighbourhood and the world that it lives in. Although all evidence suggests that any intentions to actively develop such a capacity was, if at all there, abandoned a long while. A deal should and can be struck if the US and its Western allies decoupled their Iran policy from their 'support and bow to Israel at any cost'. In this they are being myopic and will undermine their long term strategic interest no matter what political changes might happen in Tehran.
rezvan / April 1, 2010 4:42 AMI appreciate the contribution but I should point out an underlying premise in your writing that needs to be spelled out.
This assumption is exemplified by the statement "The United States and its allies in the P5+1 have little to lose by responding to Iran's latest offer". This is true only if the U.S. is genuinely interested in engaging Iran. From a purely Darwinian point of view, one could argue that the interest of the U.S. lies in weakening Iran -- softening the target if you will -- for the real regime change to come. In this context, the role of diplomacy is to create the charade behind which the real motivations could hide.
Frankly, from a purely cold and calculated point of view, I find it difficult to see the benefit of "real" engagement to the U.S. It would seem to me that for the U.S. to remain the superpower for as long as feasible, it should gain control over as much strategic energy and energy-related resources as possible. Given the proclivity of the current regime in Iran to think of itself as a regional superpower and its rather unbending attitude towards surrendering to the will of the U.S., one would have to conclude that the pragmatics of U.S. goals would dictate an unclenched fist that can land a deadly karate chop!
jay / April 1, 2010 9:30 AMThe United States and the Iranian mullahs have been deadly enemies since the 1950s, when the US overthrew Mossadegh (read the wonderful book "Countercoup" by Kermit Roosevelt). This murderous regime, wrapping itself in the swaddling clothes of divine right needs to be overthrown and the Iranian people granted their freedom. Hang this murderous so-called "Supreme Leader" and his henchmen as high as Haman. Then Iran can become part of the community of nations.
Greg / April 1, 2010 9:07 PMDear Jay and Anonymous,
Keen insights from both of you.
The unspoken premise of Dr. Choksy is the innate benevolence of American power projection abroad.
This is news to you and I, but an article of faith for Americans regardless of their ideological bent.
But we do not need to speculate, for his foundational beliefs are starkly revealed in an opinion piece recently published in the neocon Wall Street Journal. At the conclusion of his article, entitled "Iran's New World Order," dated March 1st, 2010, he opines:
___________________
"President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have both said recently that the U.S. must lead the world. They are right. As the leader of the Free World, the U.S. can do much more than any other nation to extend prosperity and human freedom across the globe.
But words are insufficient. After constant demands, sporadic threats and inconsistent economic sanctions, the U.S. faces a profound leadership test on Iran. To keep its position of unparalleled influence, the U.S. must demonstrate that it can thwart both the Iranian regime's nuclear and world-wide ambitions."
___________________
Ali from Tehran / April 1, 2010 11:13 PMGiven this mindset, the article he has written in TehranBureau likely represents the most enlightened argument he can make for dialogue with Iran without exiting the clearly marked boundaries of American groupthink.
Netreba puno razmišljati i tražiti odgovor na pitanje zašto je amerika tako istrajna da kazni Iran! Postoje višestruki standardi kada je upitanju neka Muslimanska zemlja bez obzira kakvo imala društveno uređenje. Izrael na Muslimanskoj zemlji svakodnevno čini teror i zločin uz blagoslov amerike. Strah je uzrok u americi ali to je nemoguće spriječiti bilo kome pa ni dječku sa imenom Barak to je iluzija.Sačekajmo neko vrijeme!
Anonymous / April 1, 2010 11:49 PMDear Dr. Choksy,
In a piece pubished 12 days ago in Forbes.com, entitled, "A Nuclear Iran is Inevitable," you claim:
_____________________
"[Iran] has tested an advanced two-point coordinated nuclear warhead detonation design as deployed by the U.S. and Russia."
_____________________
Please provide clear attribution for this statement.
Did IAEA find evidence of this nefarious test during its campaign of inspections in Iran, or is it another one of the damning documents conveniently stored on the dodgy laptop of unknown provenance?
Ali from Tehran / April 2, 2010 1:22 AMIf the latter, then TB readers are certainly aware that the Americans have denied repeated entreaties by the IAEA for permission to share with Tehran the digital watermarks of the incriminating files hosted on this Mother of All Laptops. Examination of the digital trail of the documents would shed light on their authenticity.
The author fails to understand that the current stand off is indeed a demonstration that it is the US that cannot make a decision.
After western states made their offer in October of 2009, the slightest hesitaion by Iran saw them leave the negotiating table and on to the sanctions game. The west showed it had no room for negotiation. Iran's position had been very flexible. In fact, and contrary to this article, Iran announced from the very beginning that it accepted the general principle of EXCHANGE of nuclear matterial.
Why the inflexibility by Western states? mainly because the US government is completely beholden to the Israel lobby who wants no compromise. This is the only reason why Obama has left the negotiating table. This is why, as the article proclaims, the US has failed to respond to Iran's latest offer. Contrary to the author's assertions, it is not because the US is "distracted" by other issues. GIVE ME A BREAK!!
Pouya / April 2, 2010 10:10 AMThe Dictators ruling Iran never had and never will have good intentions in negotiating with the west over their nuclear program. Iranian Government for the past few years has used negotiations as stalling tactics to reach its goal of making nuclear weapons. This government thrives on crisis, as it is has shown time and time again in the past by its involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. The mullahs in Iran don’t understand diplomatic language, all they concerned about is to become a regional power and to gain leverage over their own people and oppress them even further. The only solution to this crisis is acute tough sanctions to cut this government’s life line, free Iranians from 30 years of Tyranny and dictatorship , and resolve this nuclear program issue once and for all.
Sia / April 2, 2010 5:38 PMSia,
I second that motion.
Niloofar / April 2, 2010 8:27 PMObama on Iran, 2 min. 50 sec.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwk8EKOTH7c&feature=player_embedded#
Anonymous / April 3, 2010 1:07 AMAs Glenn Greenwald and several other bloggers that are doing some real journalism have pointed out (see http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/31/iran and links therein), there is an ongoing, organized, and concerted efforts at all levels to sell a story to the public. While Glenn illustrates this with respect to journalists, other bloggers suggest that there is indirect evidence that intelligence agencies are funneling money through fronts to support websites, bloggers, and traffickers to post as much deception as possible regarding Iran.
As displeased as I may be with the current repression and restrictions in Iran, and in light of the clear evidence I see, I find it difficult to assign benevolence to the motives of the the US regime -- neither do I assign any benevolence to the Iranian regime.
I find it more sane to stay as rational and objective as possible -- shrill declaration does not contribute to fruitful results.
jay / April 3, 2010 7:09 PMGreg, well said. I couldnt agree with you more.
Sia / April 4, 2010 6:26 AMNiloofar
Sia / April 4, 2010 6:40 AMThanks. Those of us with social conscience and clear Idea about Iranian illegitimate government’s essence and intentions should use every opportunity to divulge this regime’s Evil games and prevent sites such as this one to become a propaganda machine for them.
Sia...I thirdly second that emotion...The Iranian (fake) government are not of the people...not even of God...so they cannot be allowed to continue with their nuclear weaponry madness. Ahmadinejad & his cohorts are getting closer to their nuclear weapon ideal by the day, bent on destroying Israel but their own people at the same time. Because they have no regard for he lives of thei people....they just want a legacy that they destroyed/annihilated Israel as they themselves choke on returned nuclear weapons & so will their people. All because of the "Satan's" in charge who want to preach hate & kill. Time the world woke up, (like today if you can)?
Jaker / April 4, 2010 6:28 PMJust discovered another gem from Jamsheed Choksy, apparently on a mission to break Judith Miller's record in WMD- and terror-related spin.
Take a look at this learned article entitled, "Iran Targets U.S. via Latin America," dated January 20th, 2010:
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/01/20/iran_targets_the_us_via_latin_america__97488.html
A few quotes and some observations:
QUOTE: [...] Iran's tentacles continue to enmesh Latin American nations. ENDQUOTE
OBSERVATION: Nice choice of words. Love the cephalopodic imagery. Very scholarly. Poor, defenceless Latin American nations. Uncle Sam, please rescue them!
QUOTE: The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Corporation reported Iranian corporations are tunneling and excavating in Venezuela - perhaps like their activities around nuclear sites in Iran. ENDQUOTE
OBSERVATION: Why the non-suggestive and anodyne word 'perhaps'? Drop the reticence and go straight for the jugular. Why else would anyone in his right mind tunnel or excavate, other than for WMD? As we all know, WMD was the original purpose of both the Suez canal and the Tehran Metro.
QUOTE: Recently, Tehran and Caracas have reached agreement to supply Iran with 20,000 barrels of gasoline per day - a move that could render ineffective U.S. attempts to embargo refined fuel imports by Iran. ENDQUOTE
OBSERVATION: Someone should inform the good professor that 20,000 barrels of gasoline daily will not cover even 20% of Iran's import needs. So don't worry. Your beloved sanctions will still bite, and a new American century will dawn on humanity.
QUOTE: Flight manifests between Tehran, Damascus and Caracas remain undisclosed as well, with reports that illicit materials, destructive equipment, and dangerous individuals are moving between those destinations. ENDQUOTE
OBSERVATION: Reports? No doubt from our prolific Israeli friends and their media claques in the U.S. Of course, none of those 'dangerous individuals' could possibly be as much of a global menace as as the man who appointed you to the National Humanities Council, Senor George W. Bush.
QUOTE: In return, Bolivia has publically supported Iran's nuclear program and may have provided some uranium as well. ENDQUOTE
OBSERVATION: May have provided some uranium as well? Well, why not? I thought Ahmadinejad had a big bulge in his pocket as he was departing Bolivia. So that's what it was. Now, Bolivia is also in violation of its NPT commitments.
QUOTE: Moreover, like Bolivia and Venezuela, Brazil is a potential source of uranium for Iran and a possible future recipient of Iranian assistance in nuclear technology. ENDQUOTE
OBSERVATION: Actually, in some aspects, Brazil's nuclear technology is more advanced than Iran's.
QUOTE: [...] a regime that is brutally repressive to its own citizens is unlikely to sow anything other than turmoil in the Western Hemisphere. ENDQUOTE
Ali from Tehran / April 6, 2010 1:43 PMOBSERVATION: As opposed to the U.S., which has sowed only democracy, stability and prosperity in Latin America since the halcyon days of Teddy Roosevelt.
Well spoken Ali from Tehran. You are a brave man in dangerous terrain! at TB
rezvan / April 7, 2010 1:43 AM