On Iran: Time for the Next Step
Feb 11th, 2010 | 14 responses
Guest post by Amir Farokhi
Amir Farokhi is an Atlanta attorney and a principal with the Truman National Security Project.
Ed. note: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. At a rally in Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran is now a “nuclear state.” This past Sunday, Ahmadinejad gave the order to proceed with uranium enrichment. This process would produce uranium enriched at 20 percent, well short of the 90 percent required for weapons-grade nuclear fuel. Iran’s excuse is that it needs enriched uranium for its medical reactor, but it is relatively easy to move from 20 percent to 90 percent enrichment. Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, and, to be sure, Iran is still a long way off from being able to build a nuclear bomb, but there is little doubt that the Iranian regime, whatever its ultimate goal, is aggressively flaunting its new status. This may be as much for domestic as for international consumption, but it is nonetheless essential that we take the threat seriously. — Michael Stickings
**********
As Iran approaches the anniversary of its revolution, the U.S. would do well to reflect upon the changes President Obama has instituted in America’s Iran policy. Characterized by a theme of “engagement,” Obama sent a well-received Persian New Year’s greeting to the Iranian people in 2009 and inserted U.S. diplomats alongside European counterparts to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear activity. It was a good start to a new approach.
Yet this new approach, while pitch-perfect, has not visibly slowed Iran’s nuclear activity. Iran has played cat-and-mouse with the West: appearing to negotiate in good faith and then pulling back, presumably to buy more time to develop its nuclear program. Indeed, this week, Iran announced it would resume nuclear enrichment at levels indicating progress toward nuclear weapons.
Iran’s intransigence begs the question: “Is it time for more aggressive steps?” In short, yes. The world has given Iran multiple opportunities to act in good faith. Iran has not. To protect American interests and slow Iran’s nuclear development, the time has come to add sticks to the promise of carrots. Some options, however, are better than others.
Continued engagement? Yes, on the nuclear issue. Engagement has yielded results. Several years ago, American calls for strong action on Iran were met with skepticism by Europe and rejection by Russia and China. The one-two punch of President Obama’s outreach coupled with Iran’s obstinancy has convinced our European allies to support sanctions. With Europe now backing sanctions, and even Russia showing frustration with Iran, the time is ripe for additional pressure. In just one year, President Obama has spurred more international consensus than his predecessor was able to muster in eight.
Impose sanctions? Yes. With Iran refusing to play ball, the next reasonable step is sanctions. To be effective, they must hit at the economic heart of the regime. Instituting tougher sanctions through the United Nations will be difficult, as China and Russia are reluctant to support harsh measures toward Iran, a major trading partner for each. Moreover, Iran has learned to operate under severe sanctions. Nevertheless, the U.S. still has an opportunity to push for effective sanctions that target Iran’s gasoline imports, oil refining needs, Dubai banking connections, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
Push for regime change? No. In the wake of last year’s disputed presidential election, a reformist “Green” movement captured the world’s attention with its defiant protests, technological creativity, and resilience. The U.S. avoided the temptation to overtly support the opposition movement, to avoid bringing additional heat on the reformers. Indeed, Iran’s political protestors requested that the U.S. stay out of Iran’s political drama. Given the longstanding history of Western interference in Iran’s domestic affairs, this approach gives nuclear negotiators a greater chance of success.
However, there have been calls from across the political spectrum for President Obama to change course. Last month, Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a pragmatic voice on foreign affairs, called on the U.S. to strengthen Iran’s opposition movement in order to “deepen rifts among the rulers.” Haas reasoned that because rifts within the regime are so significant, and because Iran’s reformers are already labeled as pawns of the West, the U.S. should take advantage of the moment and push for change.
Yet this approach remains unlikely to succeed. First, Iran’s reformists are just as committed to nuclear development as the hardliners. Second, Iran’s fierce nationalism, embodied by the reformists as well, will surely reject Western efforts to promote regime change. Finally, such efforts will severely handicap future diplomacy with Iran. While the U.S. should speak up in support of human rights in Iran and condemn violence, we should not actively seek to influence Iran’s domestic politics.
Military Action? No. The least attractive option remains military intervention, including targeted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. America’s military is stretched perilously thin, public support for a new war is nonexistent, and global allies are unlikely to contribute to such action. Moreover, a military strike on Iran puts American troops in the region at greater risk of attack, increases the likelihood of Iranian-sanctioned terror activity, and may mute the progress made by the reform movement. Further, there is no guarantee military action would be successful.
Yet even if the U.S. holds fire, we may be sucked into conflict if Israel unilaterally strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is the least desirable outcome. The better military deterrent may be to increase military technology and training in Iran’s Arab neighbors, a process that the U.S. has already begun. The risk of setting off an arms race in the region, however, stands as caution.
Keep on Keeping On? Yes. Iran’s domestic politics will only be resolved from within. But the Obama Administration has successfully cast Iran as the bad guy, with the U.S. playing the role of responsible global leader. This is the best shot we have at coercing Iran into acting as a responsible member of the international community. President Obama has already gotten the ball rolling. It’s time to get it rolling faster.
14 Responses to “On Iran: Time for the Next Step”
In other words after diddling around for the past year, let's keep diddling around.
Targeted air strikes on the nuclear facilities don't go far enough.
America's military is only stretched thin if an actual invasion of Iran is being considered, which it is not. An air/naval action is entirely feasible.
Public support for a war is non-existent. That's not what the polls say. Again, there may be little support for actually invading Iran but there is a great deal of support for reducing it's power in the region.
Global allies are unlikely to contribute. And? Do we really need them to be successful?
Puts US troops at greater risk. Marginally, but they are already being attacked by Iranian backed terrorists. And this risk is unlikely to do anything but increase if Iran believes it can do what it likes with impunity.
Increases the risk of Iranian sanctioned terrorist activity. And doing nothing somehow reduces this risk?
May mute the progress… what progress? Their efforts may be bold and admirable but they don't seem to have gotten very far in terms of making actual changes.
President Obama has already gotten the ball rolling. That's a hilarious assertion.
It may or may not require military action to stop the Iranians from gaining nuclear weapons. But taking military action off the table does nothing to improve the likelihood of a peaceful resolution to the crisis. If anything, it undermines it.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV: On Iran: Time for the Next Step: Guest post by Amir Farokhi
Amir Farokhi is an Atlanta attorney and a principal wi… http://bit.ly/arExwC...
I agree. They have to believe we will strike, or at least allow Israel to strike, if they decide to go 90. While I applaud Obama's attempt at reconciliation with Iran, it appears to have failed. They simply used the extra time to continue to develop their program without having to deal with sanctions. It is time for economic sanctions…now…right now.
We could drop just one bomb….as an F you for screwing up my morning coffee.
Good article. My thoughts
…or toward nuclear energy. The same people who want to stop Iran are calling for more and more “peaceful” nukes at home. To make fuel rods for nuclear reactors, Iran needs more enriched uranium than the 4% they currently have.
Yes, bravo.
but when has that ever worked. We may even make it worse, by allowing the government to claim “foreign meddling” is behind the opposition
Indeed
Read some more Tom Clancy, DaMav. That's exactly where you can see macho military adventurism working out. In fiction. You have stock in Blackwater or something?
Just because you keep bringing it up, I have read many many books but have never read a Tom Clancy book in my life. Hopefully that won't disturb your GreenDreams.
“They have to believe we will strike, or at least allow Israel to strike, if they decide to go 90.”
Cowardice (appeasement) or ineptitude (confusion) by us will likely encourage them to progress.
* * *
“The same people who want to stop Iran are calling for more and more 'peaceful' nukes at home.”
Are you saying this as if there's something wrong with this, or with one or more parts of this? (Not so.)
Cowardice (appeasement) or ineptitude (confusion) by us will likely encourage them to progress.
I would argue the opposite. By attacking Iraq, but not N. Korea, we showed Iran EXACTLY what they need to do to be safe against American military adventurism. This tough guy crap doesn't impress anyone, except the scared babies of the right. Please, Daddy, beat up the bully for us.
And is there anything wrong with pushing for an increase of nuclear materials all over the world, while quaking in fear that it will fall into the wrong hands? I'd say yes. It's illogical. If we're so scared of uranium, why bring ever more of it out of the ground and enrich it to dangerous levels?
Oh you probably should, DaMav. You'd enjoy them. Fantasies of heroic Americans saving the world from evil dictators and terrorists, blended with an almost pornographic love of weaponry.
“By attacking Iraq, but not N. Korea, we showed Iran EXACTLY what they need to do to be safe against American military adventurism.”
Oh, yes. But that presupposes something that most of us find indefensible: that Iran wants to make trouble, and is threatened by us, the same way a criminal is threatened by perceived inclination or increased willingness of the police or of a community that the criminal may wish to threaten or be threatening, to use force and resist in other ways more strongly. Iran has no “right” to attack or threaten its neighbors, or sponsor terrorism, and we're not bad or wrong for threatening those “rights” it wants to enjoy.
* * *
“And is there anything wrong with pushing for an increase of nuclear materials all over the world, while quaking in fear that it will fall into the wrong hands? I'd say yes. It's illogical.”
We aren't pushing for Iran and nations like it to acquire nuclear technology, in case you weren't aware.
“If we're so scared of uranium, why bring ever more of it out of the ground and enrich it to dangerous levels?”
We're not “scared of uranium,” any more than our concern with Iran is not falsely described as concern “about another nation” as if there were no difference between the two (or as if someone aiming a gun at the President were described merely, generally, vaguely as “expressing displeasure with” or “protesting”) — or as if it were a peer or morally equivalent to us.
We can't stop Iran from having nuclear power, nor is it our right to. We can't even stop our own companies (e.g. Halliburton) from helping them. You can rant all you want, but the truth is no nation has ever kept any other nation from acquiring any technology at all. Tech is like that. Sorry.
So you're welcome to your fantasies, but the truth is that any and all nations of the world, including Iran, can have any weapon they can afford. Actually the most self-destructive thing Iran could do, hence the best for us, would be to follow US and RUSSIA in wasting their dwindling wealth on weapons.
“We can't stop Iran from having nuclear power, nor is it our right to.”
We have the right to oppose wrongfully behaving governments who are opposing us or our interests, obviously. And why again are you casting the USA wrongly as the party in the wrong, and criticising those of us who see things as they really are and are concerned about Iranian misconduct? (Why even begin to try to change the subject to the critics, and attack them, a form of ad hominem argumentation, at term so many of you misuse?)
“you're welcome to your fantasies”
You are the one making the “unworldly” remarks on this thread, as well as “blaming” the good guys and defending the and bad guys. (Liberal moral relativism? How about moral inversion?)
“You can rant all you want”
Odds are you'll join everyone else after an Iranian-provoked crisis being angry at the USA for not Doing Something – and join the others who will avoid any criticsm of the current administration by blaming Bush for it.
DLS, I'm not “siding” with Iran at all. And perhaps I should know better than trying to talk reality with you. We can oppose, we can fume and threaten as Bush did; we can negotiate and sanction as Obama is doing; we can hold our breaths and turn blue. We will not stop Iran, just as we did not stop India, Pakistan, Israel or N. Korea.
Believe what you want. Iran will have nukes.
“And perhaps I should know better than trying to talk reality with you.”
First you have to go there, and be there, GD.