In the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama ran on a foreign policy platform of increased engagement with America's adversaries. Obama was particularly critical of the Bush administration's refusal to negotiate with Iranian leaders without preconditions. Yet aside from a "single roll of the dice" at diplomacy -- as Dr. Trita Parsi refers to it in his new book on the subject -- Obama's Iran policy bares an uncanny resemblance to that of the Bush administration's pressure-only approach. How is it that the same candidate who advocated so strongly for using diplomacy with Iran ended up being the president that has implemented the most "crippling" sanctions to date -- and who made only one inchoate effort at negotiations?
The answer lies with Obama's official Iran policy, or the 'dual track' strategy as it is known. This approach advocates pursuing two separate avenues with Iran rather than using a single-faceted approach. The first track is diplomatic engagement; the second track is the continued application of economic and political pressures. Unfortunately, this strategy has suffered from two major defects.
First and foremost, there is something fundamentally contradictory about trying to engage in diplomacy with the same people that you are simultaneously putting the screws to with increasingly harsh sanctions.
Diplomacy requires building good will and trust. However, after 30 years without diplomatic relations -- and with a continued demonization of the other side as 'mad mullahs' or 'the great Satan' -- sustained efforts to fill the trust gap have been in short supply. The continued pursuit of 'crippling sanctions' only exacerbates this problem. The idea that an onslaught of sanctions, secret assassinations and computer viruses will somehow inspire Iran to engage in good faith negotiations has no basis in the 33-year history of the Islamic Republic.
Perhaps no less important, however, is that Obama's 'dual track' approach inaccurately portrays a balance between pressure and engagement. In reality, the former has superseded the latter. Yet, pressure cannot prevent a nuclear Iran. Short of the leadership in Tehran deciding to unilaterally end the very same nuclear program they have staked their legitimacy on, pressure can only increase Iran's recalcitrance, or create leverage for negotiations. Either way, pressure alone cannot succeed.
This is true of both economic and military pressure. High-ranking generals acknowledge that a preemptive strike cannot permanently end Iran's nuclear program. Military options are a temporary stopgap measure; there is no military solution. Even if a military strike or corresponding threats could pressure Iran into making concessions on its nuclear program, a diplomatic solution would still be required to permanently end the crisis.
Additionally, those that eschew diplomacy and harbor hopes for an Arab Spring-style regime change in Iran should remember that its nuclear program enjoys wide support on the Iranian street. Even opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi supported Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear program during the 2009 presidential campaign. This reveals an inconvenient truth: If the current regime in Tehran falls, the U.S. still must engage in sustained nuclear negotiations with whatever government takes its place.
Diplomacy is the only realistic solution to the nuclear crisis. The real question is: What approach is most likely to bring Iran to the negotiating table with the motivation to make concessions? For years, the pressure card has been played, and any net benefit has likely already been reaped. Thus, it's time for a change in strategy. Rather than relying solely on pressure to coerce Iran into acquiescence, we must offer real incentives -- as perceived by Iran. A notable incentive that has been hinted at by the administration -- but not sufficiently spelled out to Iranian decision-makers -- is a guarantee of Iran's right to enrich uranium to the 3.5 percent level if they allow sufficiently stringent verification measures to be put in place.
Being an election season there are political risks for the administration making such an offer, and there is no guarantee that the Iranians would accept. But like many long-standing adversarial relationships, diplomacy seems hopeless until it works. If the U.S. could make peace with nuclear-armed Maoist China that was supplying the North Vietnamese with weapons to kill American troops, there is hope for diplomacy with Iran.
Recent events warrant cautious optimism. It has been reported that Iran may provide IAEA inspectors with access to the controversial and previously off-limits Parchin site. Additionally, Iran and the P5+1 are in the final stages of an agreement to return to negotiations next month. Even Supreme Leader Khamenei publically offered moderate but rare praise to Obama for his comments about a "window for diplomacy" existing with Iran. Do these indicators point to a new desire by Iran to compromise on its nuclear program, or is this an attempt to buy time and undermine its international isolation? Given that the pressure track has been exhausted, it is time to test Iran's seriousness and give diplomacy the sustained effort that it needs in order to succeed.
Iran's leaders are currently pursuing the "Japan option." In this scenario, they develop a civilian nuclear program with the capability to weaponize within months. The country's oil reserves would be freed up export. increasing revenues and in turn, Iranian influence in the region through economic consisting of aid for Iraqi construction or even low interest development loans.
Increased influence could lead to autonomy for Saudi Arabia's Shiite regions, resulting in a Shia regional power bloc consisting of Iran, Iraq and the then autonomous regions of Saudi Arabia, controlling the bulk of the ME's oil reserves. Additionally, the threat of rapid weaponization would limit Israeli militarism and end any possibility of regime change.
This isn't about national security. maintaining the integrity of the NPT or any of the other nonsense trotted out by the chickenhawks in Congress and countless thinktanks. Its about U.S. hegemony in the region.
If you read IAEA inspectors report you clearly see that the intention is only to increase pressure on Iran. IAEA is not at all interested in making a deal with Iran.
2. Most importantly who says the US wants the Iran situation to go away?
If you ask me US always needed to have an enemy in history. If there wasn't one to attack they invented one. Just look at Cuba? Can any sane person explain why US still is hostile against tiny nation Cuba? Imperialistic behavior. The sad things is that Americans can´t even see it any longer that they are slowly turning to the villian of the world. Just listen to the republican candidate. It's scary!
If I keep kicking you in the shins and pushing you down I cannot really claim that I'm dancing but only abusing.
Peace come through honest negotiations, mutual respect, commerce, cultural exchange.
His answer: there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. There is no threat.
This position has been confirmed by two National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) on the question of Iran and nuclear weapons. These expressed the collective opinion of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies. Their unanimous conclusion has been that “there is no evidence of any weaponization.”
This was reconfirmed in mid-February of 2012 by an array of top U.S. intelligence chiefs appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee to give their annual report on “current and future worldwide threats” to national security.
Hersh set his understanding of the issue against the background of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In that case there was no credible evidence for weapons of mass destruction yet the United States had high government officials going around talking about the next world war and mushroom clouds over American cities. Both the U.S. Congress and the general population bought into this warmongering.
Hersh is obviously worried about a replay of that scenario. Thus, in his interview, he said “you could argue it’s 2003 all over again.
There’s just no serious evidence inside that Iran is actually doing anything to make nuclear weapons.
In 2003, those kinds of sanctions, applied to Iraq, along with the accompanying misinformation campaign, led to a tragic and unnecessary war.
Out of pressure, even if Iran listens to dictates of the US and agrees to discontinue its nuclear programmes, it is not going to change the enmity between the US ( read Israel) and Iran until the US works out a regime change in Iran, until a horrible king like Shah of Iran ( a profligate, pleasure seeking descendant of him) or a military dictator like Mubarak is brought to power.
Such proxies can be easily manipulated, bribed and hoaxed by the US. and can be made to listen to American dictates.
That is the basic issue that the world does not comprehend. Is Iran an American type democracy is a pretext and academic.
In Pakistan the US has manufactured consent for democracy by successfully carrying out regime change without assassinating Pervez Musharaf who was not as stupid as Saddam Hussain who did not know to play the game that Musharaf successfully played until he fell by popular revolution.
By clever move Musharaf saved millions of innocent Pakistani lives, but Saddam, by his martyrdom, created millions of revolutionaries among the indifferent Arabs, we see that now in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Jordan, Algeria etc. Saddam hated Al-Qaeda, but his martyrdom gave a safe place to terrorists like Al-Qaeda ( The US’s imaginary enemy to keep the war on terror to continue.)