Realism and Leverage for Engaging Iran
President Barack Obama's unprecedented video message to the Iranian people yesterday is a strong indication that Iran will continue to be a high priority for the new administration. Engagement through new diplomatic avenues, like the video, is worthwhile, but we must not lose sight of the challenge Iran still poses.
As if we needed a reminder, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's recent trip to the Middle East made clear that Iran plays a central role in the thoughts and fears of most countries, whether Arab or Jewish. While Israel might justifiably be most vocal about the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran poses for its people's future, the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, moderate Lebanese and others are also clearly on edge.
Indeed, in a recent interview on CNN with Gamal Mubarak, the heir apparent to his father in Egypt, this articulate young man made it clear that his country, too, had serious differences of opinion with Tehran about the future of the region.
On issue after issue, from a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to curbing radical Islamic fundamentalism, Iran remains a major stumbling block.
It is also worth noting that just in the last few years, as Iran's nuclear development has proceeded in earnest, a number of other regional states including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria have all signaled their intention to develop their own nuclear programs. A future nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which had never been an issue in all the decades since Israel ostensibly became a nuclear weapons state, is now a very real possibility due to Iranian proliferation.
While the Obama administration is still formulating its policy on Iran, the public debate for quite some time - both here in the U.S. and in Israel - has focused too much on extremes: on the one hand, conservative hard-line proponents of the military option against Iran's nuclear installations; on the other, those liberal champions of dialogue and negotiation with Iran which, so the thinking goes, are ready to cut a deal which might not even achieve disarmament.
While this debate plays out, the Iranian nuclear issue only grows as a problem, with no resolution in sight.
What is needed, it seems to me, is a policy that understands both the clear limitations of either "just bombing," or "just talking." Rather, real sanctions that take into account present economic realities could provide us in the West and the Middle East with the best opportunity to attenuate Iran's behavior and goals.
First, we have to acknowledge that at no point since we began to take Iran's nuclear ambitions seriously a few years ago has the global price of oil been so weak. For all the very real damage that the global financial crisis has inflicted, it has arguably hit energy producers like Iran even harder. Export revenues have cratered, government budgets have been slashed, and the very real structural difficulties Iran had before - like high unemployment and inflation - have been exacerbated.
More importantly, because it lacks an adequate domestic refining capacity, Iran still needs to import about 40 percent of the gasoline its people use. Herein lies the opportunity. Recently, a bipartisan group of congressional members called on the U.S. government to sever its business ties with a Swiss firm responsible for supplying Iran with about 25 percent of its gasoline imports. While commendable, these initiatives need to be publicly embraced by the administration and implemented quickly. The responsible thing to do would be to pursue such corporations, and offer them a simple but ethical choice: Washington or Tehran.
Such sanctions and divestment strategies, combined with a firm but expansive diplomatic outreach, will provide the West with the strongest point of departure from which to engage Iran.
However, and this is the second point, we should be preparing a secondary plan. American contingency planning and the credible threat of further economic hardship have to be taken into account by Iran. When American and Israeli politicians say publicly that "all options are on the table," they should really mean it - and not just use such language as an unrealistic threat for a massive military campaign.
Other options should include physically targeting Iranian gasoline imports and shutting down, by any available means, Iran's primary oil refinery. While clearly risky, such options would entail far less damage than air strikes against Iran's underground nuclear facilities, and could have surprising and positive consequences.
In effect, what we need is a graduated scale of diplomacy and coercion for engaging Iran, in order to achieve the best possible outcome for the U.S. and its regional allies. As a liberal and progressive, I abhor the notion of conflict and bloodshed and very much want to find a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear issue.
During my many years in international business and public life, I have had the good fortune of sitting down for lunch with people with whom I completely disagreed, in practice and principle: Soviet communists, heads of state from various unsavory regimes, benighted religious figures, corrupt business leaders. The dialogue between us, while always helpful in reducing tensions and intellectually stimulating didn't obscure the main lesson: idealism without realism, and negotiations without leverage, simply don't work in this world.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
One more thing. Many of the comments have gone beserk and completely twist Bronfman's words. At no point whasoever does he contemplate the idea of a military solution to the problem. He only suggest a more aggresive diplomatic stance that would indeed pressure Iran to halt its nuclear program, or at least, make it transparent (he has shunned IAEA inspectors several times). The thing is, it is clearly not working the way it is now and it is quite clear that Iran is buying time. So, yes, suggestions for a diplomatic solution with a firmer pulse should be welcomed.
Oh, and concerning the two-state solutions. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 05. If Hamas hadn't transformed the strip into a missile launch site, it would be very hard today to argue for the occupation of the West Bank. So, Israel leaves Lebanon and Hezbollah kidnaps Israeli soldiers on the other side of the border. Israel leaves Gaza and 10,000 rockets fall on southern Israel. I can't find a clearer pattern. Qassams were the ones that put the right in power.
This is very funny to read. You equate Israel and Iran in its pursue of nuclear weapons and you say that Israel has gone completely right, thus leveling Iran in its warmongering. The fact is, first, Israel has never threatened to "wipe any nation off the Earth" like the Iranians have done and Israel came up with nuclear weapons as a defensive deterrent against hostile neighbors that kept competing for who would destroy Tel Aviv first. Second, you talk about a nuclear-free Middle East. Well, I believe in it too. However, there's one small setback. You cannot make any agreement if the other side doesn't accept the small requirement to acknowledge your existence. If all Arab nations chose diplomacy and actually talked to Israel, I doubt it would feel the need to keep a defensive nuclear arsenal. Finally, the Israeli government has gone rightwards, unfortunately. However, this does not mean they are pursuing war with neighbors and you cannot compare an elected right government that is still accountable under a democratic system with an extremist theocracy like the one in Iran. Last but not least, as far as I remember, it was the Israeli Right that always surprused the world with concessions and peace agreements (Egypt in 76, Gaza in 05).
Neocon propagandists falsely attributed the "wipe Israel off the map" to Ahmadinejad . It won't fly any more. Give it up. Nobody is buying your neocon lies.
He actually said that Israel would be wiped off the map just as he denied the Holocaust and blamed 9/11 on the Mossad. I despise Likud and all other rightist parties. I truly believe that the moderate Left, led by Kadima, Labor and Meretz would be the best government for Israel. However, that doesn't mean that I will sit idle and blame all problems of the Middle East on Israel. Oh, and supporting the Left would hardly make me a neocon. So, I suggest you stop labeling everyone as neocons, far right, Israel Lobby, evil and bad and look at the situation, where there is no black and white. Israel has to stop the occupation now. But it can only do that with peace guarantees. That's all it ever required. The longer the Arabs refuse to, the stronger the extremists within Israel get.
Fair is fair. If you want to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities you must bomb Israel's as well. The only way that Iran will stop seeing Israel as a threat is if the threat is eliminated, and vice-versa. So B2 stealth bombers can spread radioactive debris over the Israeli population centers at the same time it's spreading radioactive debris over the Iranians. After all, fair is fair.
Bronfman's article eloquently advocates extortion, abrogation of the NNPT, preemptive war, and the further sacrifice of countless humans, and our national treasure, all for the sake of his favorite foreign power. This is genocidal narcissism expressed calmly and coolly. The Spanish would term this "sin verguenza".
What is considered Israel's 'national interests' are not necessarily the same 'interests' of the United States.
Israel has gone radically right.
Iran's "political leaders" are also over there in that rightwingnut crowd.
Neither is willing to listen.
I say, cut them BOTH off monetarily, make them 'sit in the corner together' until they work it out.
I assume there are still some mature adults on both sides not wedded to this "faith-based" fiasco.
It's the SAME GOD they both bow to, correct?
Geesh.
Iranians see Obamas little speech as surrender. That's based on the religion..and he was addressing the religeous leaders..when your enemy says let's talk..that is seen as defeating your enemy..How naive can he be..or us..been there done that..and we ended up with 911..
Wiseup2Day, are you Iranian? Do you speak for Iranians? I've married into an Iranian family and not one of them felt that Obama's "little speech" is a surrender. On second thought, after reading your post again, it's silly to waste any effort on you.
Surrender? "Your enemy"? You are talking about the country that Reagan, the patron saint of the right, saw fit to sell THOUSANDS of sophisticated weapons to in the early 80s. Are you saying Reagan 'surrendered'? Are you saying Reagan's action make him a traitor to the nation?
"...and we ended up with 911"
Um, you do realize, don't you that if you were to look at the attack plotters it turns out Germany has more associations with the 911 attacks than Iran. Or are you the type that lumps all western Asia countries together simply as "towel heads"?
With dialogue and respect for others the US may end up changing hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim worlds, thus reducing possibilities for further deterioration between both sides.The road to peace in the region starts with the establishment of a Palestinian state.Short of this goal,the region will witness further escalation of hostilities between Arabs and Israel.Iran is part of this equation,solving the Palestinian problem will automatically open venues for fritful negotiations.No Arab or Muslim will accept Israeli continued flagrant occupation of Palestine and in defiance of all international laws.Without American blind support ,Israel wodn't dare to challange the whole world and refuse to abide by any legal or ethical rule. As an Israeli analyst once described Israel saying that, while it may not be fully considered as an Apartheid state, it certainly belongs to the same family.
Why don't we apologise to the Iranians for giving them the Shah and making them live under one of the more brutal dictatorships in of our time. They have never done anything to us, they have never invaded a neighboring country, the only thing we complain about is that they support several groups thatn were formed to resist Israeli aggression. If they do want nuclear weapons to deter attack by the U.S. and Israel, who can blame them. Drop the sanctions and make nice. Friendship with Iran is more to the advantage of the U.S. than friendship with Israel. At least we don' have to finance them/
"They have never done anything to us..."
That isn't true at all! There is violence and guilt on both sides. But to write what you did is to ignore reality. You can claim we started this whole mess with Operation Ajax in '53 and be accurate.
How depressing. Obama makes one small sane move (amid a sea of Bush/Cheney foreign policy and executive power continuation) and the pro-Israel lobby comes out to whine.
Please note that the latest NIE said that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. And yet this fact is perpetually ignored by the anti-Iranian scaremongers.
How about this? All countries in the middle east promise to eschew the possession of nuclear weapons. True, Israel would have to destroy its caches of WMD, but then at least they and their supporters would be less hypocritical on one issue at least.
don't you think if you were surrounded on all-sides by hostile enemies you'd want to protect yourself?
Hypocritical less? never!
Do as we say not as we and Israel do! No wonder the USA has lost it's respect and therefore influence in the world. Next we will get absolute proof that Iran has WMD and there we go again.
There is one other country in the Middle East that our demonizing of Iran and invasion of Iraq has benefited - Saudi Arabia (the redacted nation in the bogus 9/11 report). We have sided with the Sunni Moslems over the Shia, and Al Qaeda is a Sunni fundamentalist organization. If Iran was our major oil supplier, we'd be depicting Saudi Arabia as a part of the "axis of evil".
Instead of raising fears over Iran's alleged intention of acquiring nuclear weapons,serious consideration should be given to Israeli nuclear arsenal in light of its nihilistic attitudes towards Palestinians under occupatin and its Arab neighbours. Why should we assume that Arab people would accept living with nuclear Israel while rejecting Iran's legitimate nuclear know-how for peaceful purposes? If peace is what Obama is trying to secure,then he should declare the whole region as a nuclear free zone , which would include both Iran and Israel.Only then would Obama get Arab support for his peace efforts.
I read this blog and found myself disappointed and alarmed. Then I read all of the comments and, to my relief, found that most were negative. The author refers to himself as "liberal and progressive" but it appears he is as liberal and progressive as he can be given his own background and agenda (read his bio). He writes:
"Other options should include physically targeting Iranian gasoline imports and shutting down, by any available means, Iran's primary oil refinery."
By any means? To this I say, enough sanctions, enough threats. Leave Iran alone to work out it's own problems. Stop talking down to them. Stop throwing carrots, sticks, coercion, leverage, or any other word you want to use for MANIPULATION. Stop it.
Iran is a threat because:
1. In 1953 Iran interfered in our political affairs and set up a coup and changed our democratic elected government of Dr. Mosadegh. Iran repeated similar action in many other countries. Just recently has allocated a large fund to create instability.
2. When Iraq attacked us, Iran fully supported this war and provided Iraq with military, political and WMDs. Our 1000+ WMD victims are still in their hospital beds for the world to see.
3. In July 1998, Iranian Navy shot down our commercial plane with almost 300 passengers and crewmembers while flying legally over OUR Persian Gulf using two cruise missiles. Only 100 bodies were recovered from water. The captain who executed this mission received an presidential honor medal.
4. Iran has been involved in many covert missions in our country targeting some ethnic groups for uprising. They also have been involved in some sabotage and mercenary activities, explosions in mosques and military bases.
See part-2
Part-2
5. Iran has attacked and occupied our two neighboring countries and spread their large navy including carriers and nuclear submarines on our shores.
6. Iran has been threatening us by initiating and supporting numerous economical sanctions and constantly repeating the phrase “all options are on the tableâ€.
7. Iran with 6000+ nuclear warheads had made threats aiming many countries that have no nuclear arsenals.
8. Iran has installed and supported many dictatorial regimes around the world.
9. In 1988 when four Iranian diplomats were kidnapped and still held in captivity by Israelis, they immediately attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
10. In 1998, when Taliban beheaded 11 Iranian diplomats sent to Afghanistan by Iranian government to initiate diplomacy, Iran immediately attacked Afghanistan with nuclear weapons.
But we are very RATIONAL nation. We do not take similar uncivilized actions that are mainly done by irrational RAGUE nations.
Israel will NOT allow any peace between US and Iran to take place. When it comes to Iran, Israel’s interests and American interests do not overlap. Since Iran has been isolated from American Businesses, the big gainers have been mainly China, India and Russia. At the time American businesses were prohibited to do business in Iran, Chinese and Russian businesses have been signing multi-billion Dollars contracts. If US-Iran relations are ever improved, Iran would make a strong and effective US ally in the Middle East and US may not have to rely on Israel so much. Consequently there would be no longer any incentive for billions of Dollars of annually financial and military US aides to Israel. Therefore every time there is a chance that there could be some improvement in the US-Iran relation, the process is sabotaged directly by Israel or indirectly via Israel’s special interest groups such as AIPAC &Associates. To dig this further, one has look into “who†inserted Iran’s name in the GWB 2002 States of Union Speech with other “axis of evil†just before he delivered his speech!!!!!
"who inserted Iran"s name in the GWB 2002 States of Union Speech with other "axis of evil"?
Um, that wouldn't be the same guy who 'forgot' that the yellowcake claim was false and made sure that it was in Bush's SOTU address? Why he's the same guy that disclosed that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent to Bob Woodward. By some incredible coincidence this same guy worked for Wolfowitz and Perle, and he's the very same guy who "inserted what was described as "a far-reaching sentence" into a letter sent to the United Nations Security Council threatening possible action against Iraq and other nations that Wolfowitz, Perle and their allies are alleging to be sponsors of terrorism"
More on Israeli corruption--see the article in Haaretz, 'Dead Palestinian babies and bombed mosques - IDF fashion 2009' where IDF forces create barbaric tee shirts celebrating the murder is Palestinian women and children, noted in this issue of the Huffington Post.
Iran as a challenge, yes. Iran trying to get a bomb so it can nuke Israel or the U.S. - fear mongering fiction.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
