With Iran, a Tactical Pause Is Needed

Two weeks ago, I wrote an analysis for ForeignPolicy.com, arguing that engagement should remain the policy with Iran, but that a tactical pause is necessary to make sure diplomacy succeeds. I argued that this wasn't necessary just because Washington would be wise not to engage with any faction in Iran before greater political clarity about the internal political situation in Iran can be found. Or because the outcome of the political fight in Iran can determine which Iran the world will deal with for decades to come.

Rather, the key argument was that the political chaos in Iran has made Tehran incapable of negotiating with the U.S. If the U.S. adheres to its pre-Iranian election crisis timeline, and seeks engagement with Iran prior to September, it risks dealing with an Iran that can't negotiate, can't decide and can't deliver.

Moreover, even nuclear talks would have a negligible impact on the election dispute. Iran currently is not in a position to negotiate. Some in Washington believe that the paralysis in Tehran has weakened Iran and made it more prone to compromise. But rather than delivering more, Iran's government currently couldn't deliver anything at all. The infighting has simply incapacitated Iranian decision makers.

Iran's lack of capacity creates a tremendous danger for the White House. Of all scenarios the Obama administration could end up facing -- an Iran that refuses to come to the table, for example, or an Iran that only uses talks to play for time -- the worst scenario is another one: where the parties begin talks according to the set timetable, but fail to reach an agreement due to an inability to deliver. If talks fail, U.S. policymakers will be left with increasingly unpalatable options as a result.

Obama should not be married to any artificial deadlines. Pushing for talks now simply because he decided on a timetable before the elections could undermine the chances for diplomacy to succeed. Paradoxically, the best way to enhance prospects for diplomacy might actually be not to pursue diplomacy for now. Better instead to make a tactical pause, see how things develop, and be ready to engage at the right time.

The main argument against a pause has come from those tending to view Iran solely from the nuclear prism. In their view, the nuclear clock keep ticking and the US cannot afford to lose any more time. Iran will soon, if it hasn't already, pass a mystical nuclear point of no return, they argue.

While I argued in the Foreignpolicy.com piece that "Delaying nuclear talks a few months won't make a dramatic difference to Iran's nuclear program," that article was written before the publication of the latest DNI report, which stated that, "While Iran has made significant progress in uranium enrichment technology, the State Department's intelligence bureau (INR) continues to assess it is unlikely that Iran will have the technical capability to produce HEU [highly enriched uranium] before 2013."

So, if the U.S. has four years, rather than three months, to address the Iranian nuclear program through diplomacy before Iran can produce HEU, then the case for a pause is stronger than ever. Indeed, mindful of the fact that few at State believe the Iranians will or can begin negotiations in September, the biggest mistake the U.S. can commit is to begin setting deadlines that no one -- including the U.S. itself -- believes can be held up.

In fact, it's that bad Bush-Cheney habit of substituting diplomacy with the dictation of unrealistic deadlines that weakened America's negotiating position vis-à-vis Iran in the first place.

Follow Trita Parsi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tparsi

Comments

[Reza4Freedom]

One more message from Iran to the rest of the world!
Dear Economical Powers,
Your governments due to massive financial/ Economical benefits have cooporated for over 30 years with an EVIL regime called Islamic Republic.
Despite their claims of discontent and disapproval of such barbaric regime occupying Iran for 30 years and killing Iranians, all your governments have sold things (from A to Z) to Iran with up to 300 times more than its current Price and value in a world market today!!! Islamic Republic is simply your best possible customer!!
You see, we Iranians know that your goverments need VILLAINS such as Islamic Republic to portry an unstable world and a Country such as Iran with 2nd and 3rd wealth of Natural oil and gases globally!By doing massive business behind the stage with Islamic Republic you have financially dried us already!
Your government's actions have cost many Thousands of Iranian lives already! Imagine 911 and other tragedies that has happend in the world!!! We Iranians are under same conditions!!!! Stop supporting Islamic Republic directly or indirectly NOW. In a very near future things will change in Iran and subsequently around the world! Iran will eventually FREE herelf from injustice and tyranny. Believe me you would still want to do business with us...

Iranians will deal with the whole world humanly, respectfully and fairly and will not ask for anything less from your sides....

Peace and Love again from Tehran...

[Reza4Freedom]

Mr. Parsi,
As an Iranian I disagree with you! En contrer, The time line is exactly what Iran, Iranians and the whole world absolutely needs! And we are not just talking about the Nuclear issue...
Giving any "Tactical Pause" only benefits Islamic Republic to carry on with its crimes against humanity/Iranians Sir!!!
To avoid another world war, Mullahs must fight within! Whichever side wins, we shall take care of them later, one by one...

Mr. Parsi, after what has been proven to the whole world by now (which Iranian have known for 30 years), True Iranians (more than 87% of population in Iran) don't want to have anything with Islam of any sort of oppressive mentality and regime!!!!
Like any other sovergein nation, Iranains want their basic human rights, Freedom, Justice, Independence and democracy.
True Iranians want to love and be loved by the whole world, regradless of their Religon, Race, Color and........... Something that Islamic Republic has never been able to deliver and never will...

Dear U.S. , Europeans and the whole world,
Iranians will be your best faithful friends and forever grateful to you all, if you help us Iranians to Free ourselves and the entire world from THESE CANCERS, MONSTERS,EVILS who are occupying IRAN and killing our defensless people Today!!! Not to mention, what the EVIL Islamic Republic is capable to inflict on the rest of the world!

Please help............


Love and Peace for the whole world.... (Sending out an S.O.S from Tehran)

[Sam55555]

For us Iranians who live with the hope of a better future for Iran, engagement with the US is a must.

However, the main issue here is that any engagement with the current government will be with illegitimate "representatives" of Iran who do not represent the people or their position. To make matters worse, if these masters of deception engage in talks, they will talk and talk and talk and the talks will not lead to anything substantial. The west may end up progressing a couple its own minor agenda items with the regime using the whole engagement to legitimise itself.
The Iranian regime must understand that it can not get away with the crimes against humanity that it is commiting on an ongoing basis and any engagement with the US will give them a strong message that actually they may be able to do what they want with the locals so long as they give the US what it wants.
Finally if the US does engage with the illegitimate reprentatives, will the masses in Iran still feel the same abouit the US? Ask the Iranian national football team coach, Afshin Ghotbi how the love of a nation can turn to hate over night. All he was guilty of was attending Ahmadinejad's "inauguration". This could be yet another US strategic error in the Middle East.

[EstherHaman]

Mr. Parsi, Lets assume everything works out and Iran produces the Nuclear Energy that it wants and builds more nuclear power plants, as she has said 12 or more are planned to be built. What do you think Iran wants to do with all that energy? That is the big picture. It seems that people are naive in thinking that this is all about the "Atomic Bombs". There is much more to this than meets the eye. The atomic bomb issue could very well be a red herring for a much more important issue at hand.

The Zionist forces are merely trying keep a struggling third world nation down, to keep it weak and divided, to not allow it to industrialize and to make progress in any area. Do you know why? Because there is a price associated with that. What is that price you ask? The Market share. Iran could be the Japan or China (economically) for its region. It has an educated population, resources and oil. So what it boils down to is the all mighty $$ (as ALWAYS).

[kooshy]

Mr. Parsi using the same reasoning a better argument was, that Iran also reserves the right to refuse a dialogue with US government who has intentionally waged illegal wars and committed numerous crimes against humanity (Gitmo, Abu Gharib etc. etc. etc.) some of us think now that we have Obama all the past is clean, so whatever US has done was very humane just because we changed administration. That is not how the world feels.

[Hass]

Iran has already offered to forego the technology to make bombs, and impose additional restrictions on its nuclear program well beyond its legal obligations, in order to address concerns that it "may make the bomb" one day.

However, these offers -- which included opening Iran's nuclear program to multinational particiation and which were endorsed by international and American experts -- have been totally ignored, and instead the US continues to insist that Iran should not make Highly Enriched Uranium OR EVEN low-enriched uranium useful only for reactors.

Under these circumstances, what is the point of negoting?

[vabayad]

In your opinion, Mr. Parsi, what sort of crimes would have to be committed by the Iranian regime, before the United States should feel compelled to squarely refuse a policy of engagement?

Would raping political prisoners qualify? Torture? Execution? Show Trials?

[Trita Parsi - Huffpost Blogger]

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you view engagement as a reward. It's not a reward. It's an instrument to address problems - precisely the problems you mentioned.

For 30 years the Iranian government has committed crimes against the Iranian people. The US refused to have a dialogue with it, and nothing improved. Human rights violations continued and intensified.

So refusal to dialogue has a fantastic track record of resolving nothing. If you prefer the status quo, well, then perhaps non-engagement is an obvious choice.

[Hass]

The worst thing that tyrannical regimes fear is opening them up to influences and diversity from the rest of the world. External sanctions and threats only strengthen such regimes.

However, the people who insist that the US and Iran should not engage are not really concernd about human rights of Iranians. That's just an excuse. They're more concerned about their own agendas and ambitions which would be defeated by a US-Iran rapprochement.

[turtledude]

To think that the US can do anything to improve the human rights situation in Iran is truly laughable. What possible means of exerting pressure could the US acquire by engaging in a dialogue with the regime that it doesn't already have at its disposal..­.Absolutel­y nothing!

The only "seemingly" option the US used to have was the possibility of a military strike. Irrespective of who is in power in Washington, the US has never used, nor I think will it ever use military force just to rectify a human rights issue.

The only thing the regime wants is an eternal insurance, which it thinks can be acquired through a nuclear deterrent. This regime, especially now that it has shown its true colors very very vividly, is clearly willing to do ANYTHING, even the most unimaginably stupid things to hold its grip on theocratic power.

So I think, this idea that the US could somehow "improve" or "resolve" anything that is of any significance to the Iranian people, or to US interests, through dialogue and agreements is absurd. Assuming the US sees it its interest to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, then exerting real pressure to where it hurts the most is a THE BEST remaining choice, and that is the economy, the oil revenue, and the dollars that enables the regime to buy Russian, Chinese and North Korean missiles, and pay thugs to rape and kill people.

[kooshy]

Mr. Parsi using the same reasoning a better argument was, that Iran also reserves the right to refuse a dialogue with US government who has intentionally waged illegal wars and committed numerous crimes against humanity (Gitmo, Abu Gharib etc. etc. etc.) some of us think now that we have Obama all the past is clean, so whatever US has done was very humane just because we changed administration. That is not how the world feels.

[vabayad]

Let me first point out, I never actually made an argument, just an underhanded implication that for you, there is no actual upper bound on what the regime must do before we refuse a policy of engagement .

I will however say that you are incorrect in suggesting the US has refused dialogue. How many high level meetings between Bush officials and the regime took place? (http://bit.ly/4Ab2ht) And Clinton's overtures? (http://bit.ly/13qwGE). The Tower Commission Report is peppered with references ofthe US being more concerned with improved relations than arms for hostages (for fear of Soviet influence http://bit.ly/2YWGn3). Richard Murphy's tirade against the PMOI claiming they are marxist/terrorists (http://bit.ly/KgPQ2) as a response to a request from Iran? Indyk and placement of the PMOI on the FTO? (http://bit.ly/5BHmw).

The ultimate irony? While there was no fundamental flaw in my 'argument' since I made none, there is no fundamental flaw in your "plan" since the plan you lay out fundamentally lacks... a plan! Engagement? Care to comment on what that entails/whether or not you believe the abusive criminal government (as you noted) will meet these as yet non-existent conditions?

Most importantly, are you willing to sell out Iranians who are every day taking to the streets, and giving their lives for more liberal trade relations? (At least the "millionare mullah" as Forbes called him, can gain ground in the worlds richest man competition!)

[Wozzeck]

The USA actually cares about human rights in other countries only to the extent that they can be used as a pretext for its real goals, which are economic and ideological .

[FrankCornish]

Its funny how when Iran became the Islamic Republic we suddenly became concerned about human rights. The Islamic Republic in all its repression has yet to commit crimes against its people equal to the Shah. It is not even close.

People think Carter's human rights policy brought down the Shah--what a joke. When it came to the Shah even Carter was status quo, and he described the Shah as an anchor of peace a stability in the Middle East. Carter was more of the same.

No need for show trials, SAVAK just took you, and if you did not have powerful or connected friends you could easily never be seen again.