EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
1. Policymakers ranging from the formerly optimistic to the perennially pessimistic have argued that President Obama’s engagement policy has failed and needs to be abandoned in favor of air strikes and/or “smart” sanctions
2. But there are no guarantees that military action will succeed, or that it will not provoke huge retaliation, and the Iranian regime has proven its ability to deal with sanctions of various sorts for the past 31 years.
3. President Obama’s engagement policy needs to be given a second opportunity, because in no other time and under no other American president since the Islamic Revolution have the Iranian people felt empowered enough to create a movement, let alone give it a color.
4. The strategy should be augmented by a renewed public diplomacy drive to direct funds to cultural and educational enterprises that will strengthen free-thinking Iranian society.
5. There is also a significant role for direct negotiations with Iran to force the Mullahs into the glare of the public eye so that their obstructionist tactics can be seen by all.
6. Having proven to the Iranian people through its policy of engagement and concern for their human rights that it is not the ‘Great Satan’, the Obama administration should press home its strategic advantage now with vigorous action in order to force compliance and change through a position of moral strength and people power.
Israel perceives Iran as dangerous – a policy assumption that was reinforced by the recent report by the IAEA that Iran may currently be working on a nuclear payload, and by President Ahmadinejad’s venomous rhetoric continuing to raise the hackles of Israeli politicians. As one famous Persian proverb goes, “Those who are bitten by a snake will fear even a striped yarn.” Israel has been bitten many times and the stripes it sees are on an Iranian nuclear warhead. The web pictures streaming back to us from the bloodied and defenseless Iranians of the Green Movement have merely reinforced the point the Israelis have been making all along: “If they can do that to their own citizens, why wouldn’t they do it to us?”. For Israel the very possession of nuclear weapons, so long as this regime is in power, is menacing to the stability of the Middle East and more broadly to international security. This is an observation shared well beyond Israel’s borders. As Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated recently “What happens in the Middle East does not stay in the Middle East.”
Policymakers ranging from the formerly optimistic to the perennially pessimistic have argued that President Obama’s engagement policy has failed and needs to be abandoned in favor of air strikes and/or “smart” sanctions – a political Prozac aimed at controlling a country’s unruly behavior.
A military strike would be a prescription for failure. Either directly or through proxies, Iran can retaliate in any theater of operation, from Afghanistan to Lebanon, and target both American and NATO troops; not to mention renewing its rocket attacks in Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas. In case of an attack, the Iranian people, even the reform-minded pro-western youth, may pour into the streets in support of their leaders. In the words of Karim Sadjadpour from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, “Nothing extends the shelf life of this regime more than if Israel or America attacked Iran.” America-loving Iranians may hate their regime, but they hate being bombed more.
Sanctions have been largely ineffective in improving Iran’s behavior. Iranians have managed to withstand eight years of a brutal war with Iraq, survive another eight years of the Clinton administration’s “dual containment”, US unilateral sanctions, three rounds of UN sanctions, and a fractious international effort to counter their monetary and military operations. To this end, the steady and easy flow of goods from Dubai - estimated by US Department of Treasury at $8 billion per year - solid trade with EU, China and Russia, and a traditional Iranian resiliency and penchant for suffering continue to help render all sanctions, even the so-called “smart” sanctions, palpably ineffective.
But all hope is not lost. There is reason to believe that President Obama’s engagement policy may not have failed, because in no other time and under no other American president since the Islamic Revolution have the Iranian people felt empowered enough to create a movement, let alone give it a color. The massive demonstrations that started as a legitimate protest over the results of the presidential elections on June 12th 2009 did not fade into the archives of the regime’s secret service. The Green Movement is alive and well and by some accounts gaining momentum, even taking into account the muted protests on February 11th, the thirty first anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. The Mullahs are getting visibly nervous and at odds with each other. Recently Iran’s judiciary forced the ouster of Iran’s key prosecutor, Saeed Mortazavi - the notorious “butcher of the press” - only to announce weeks later the execution of two protestors whose crimes are classified as Moharrebeh, or waging war against God. The throne of theocracy is not crumbling yet, but it shows some signs of stress fracture.
Washington should think of creative ways to help the opposition, or our only hope for the Green Movement will dim to black. President Obama may want to revisit his predecessor’s “Public Diplomacy” and revive it to reflect a more nuanced approach to Iran. During President Bush’s second term, Congress poured close to $120 million into a State Department initiative aimed at promoting regime change in Iran. Most of the money for the “Democracy Program” was spent on the U.S.-backed Radio Farda, Radio Free Europe and Voice of America (VOA), to broadcast Persian programs into Iran via its satellite television. The State Department worked hard to find and fund women and student groups, lawyers, journalists, labor organizations and human rights advocates inside Iran. Money was also earmarked for student exchanges and cultural outreaches.
But not all of President Bush’s “Public Diplomacy” was truly public. In fact it was shrouded in secrecy, which only provoked the already paranoid Iranian leadership. The State Department’s plan backfired and brought down many hapless Iranians with it. Tehran accused the United States of trying to foment a “Velvet Revolution” and cracked down on those it viewed as sympathizers to the cause. Among those jailed were Princeton University’s Haleh Esfandiari, and the activist/journalist Akbar Ganji. Numerous websites and newspapers were closed and their editors prosecuted. The Basiji poured into the streets of Iran’s major cities and arrested men and women who looked Gharbzadeh, a Farsi term describing an Iranian who looks and acts western.
This time Washington should couple its words with meaningful actions. Instead of sanctions, let Congress revive the funds for Iran, but spend it differently. The United Nations, not the State Department, can work in tandem with many American political, educational and industrial leaders to oversee the expenditure of these funds. Since a premium is put on higher education in Iran, American universities can work together to install satellite campuses in major Iranian cities. This was done in Gulf States with astounding success. Qatar’s Education City and the newly opened New York University in Abu-Dhabi are educating tens of thousands of Middle Eastern youth whose hopes of getting a first-rate education were close to nil. By carefully crafting a curriculum that protects the national security of the United States and respects the sensibilities of the Iranians, America can actually deliver a dose of hope and change every day.
Another way to implement change is to hold high-level bi-lateral first-tier meetings in both Tehran and Washington. These meetings can showcase the results of Track II diplomacy in which ideas are exchanged and parameters are established between Iranian and American non-officials. Moving up the ladder to Track I discussions will serve as an international platform where diplomacy can be helped by the visibility of the process. If the whole world is watching, it will be harder for Iran to be evasive and non-compliant. As hard as it is to envision President Obama sitting across the table from the Iran’s Supreme Leader - and I am not suggesting initial meetings at that level - it is worth remembering that we sat across the table from another “evil” empire during the Reagan presidency and watched as it collapsed in the rubbles of the Berlin Wall not much later.
In the case of Iran, talking may be an end onto itself. Isolating Iran has worked to the Mullahs’ advantage and has given them exactly what they wanted and needed to survive and thrive. In the 31 years since the Islamic Revolution the Mullahs have managed to strengthen their grip on power, double the population of the country by a call to multiply the “soldiers of Islam,” crush dissent, marginalize women, stir up trouble in the region, make huge advancements in indigenous and borrowed technology to build centrifuges and missiles, and spend oil profits as if it were their personal trust fund.
However the election of President Obama and his subsequent invitation to Iran to “gain its rightful place in the community of nations” has threatened the Mullahs much more than any saber-rattling from Washington. All of a sudden the leaders of the Friday prayers all across Iran found themselves scrambling for adjectives to replace the “Great Satan” and the “Imperial Arrogance” to describe a new administration in Washington that sounded neither “evil” nor “arrogant.” Scratching off the allocated budget for a regime change in Iran, President Obama effectively removed the last peg the Mullahs could hang their “Velvet Revolution” turban on. In short there are no more excuses for Iran’s bad behavior, and its leaders know it.
To this end Washington should aggressively pursue Track I and II talks with Iran and not take no for an answer. The Mullahs are cunning. They answer a question with another question, drag the meetings around the targeted agendas and miss the agreed upon deadlines, fully expecting any sane country to turn on its heel and walk out.
However, the United States still cuts a fearsome pose in Iran which makes the Mullahs shake beneath their robes. President Obama should remind Tehran that it is not invincible - not against the most powerful country in the world anyway. That’s a calculus the Qur’an-reciting mullahs readily understand. Upon the occupation of Iraq in 2003 and fearing that their days were numbered, Iranian leaders sent a conciliatory letter to Washington offering a “Grand Bargain.” The letter was dismissed on the grounds that it was unauthorized and suspicious. Nevertheless Ambassador Guldimann, the Swiss Ambassador in Iran in who acted as a mediator, considers the letter valid, and the 2003 gambit a lost opportunity to deal with Iran.
Whether Tehran had seriously considered a bargain may not be known for a long time. We cannot go back to 2003, but we can pick any year to shame this regime for its record of human rights abuses. If Iran is using God as a political ally, then America must take the lead as the moral crusader of the Iranian people. This posture is not incompatible with President Obama’s attempts to talk to Tehran. Engagement is not appeasement; it is patient political jostling. President Obama’s promise of change has crept into the Iranians’ psyche, and has planted itself in their dreams. What the world needs to remember is that change is slow to occur in the Middle East, where the past is very much a part of the present, and where traditions are not only kept, they are revered. President Obama’s bold diplomacy needs time to take hold and to make the past irrelevant. America must continue to offer an “out-stretched” hand. This is the only way to pry the door open and expose the regime for what it really is.
Nazee Moinian is an Associate Fellow, Middle East at the Henry Jackson Society and a former consultant to the Council on Foreign Relations on Iran issues