An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
A Win-Win U.S. Strategy for Dealing with Iran
A Win-Win U.S. Strategy for Dealing with Iran
Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons as fast as they can while Russia and China have their back for various reasons. Military action by us would be difficult and probably alienate our allies both in and outside of Iran. So here is an alternate strategy from some folks at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.
We need a new approach. It is time for the United States to get smart in dealing with Iran and frame its own win-win proposition, which we propose here: a sophisticated two-track policy that deals boldly and directly with the regime as well as the Iranian people on all issues in the bilateral relationship. By expanding the agenda to include not only the control of nuclear technologies but also Tehran’s support for terrorism, the lifting of sanctions, democracy and human rights, and even diplomatic relations, U.S. policymakers could radically change the very limited parameters of the stalemated debate with Iran in a way that would serve arms control and democratization.
Our own Marc Schulman has a review of this same proposal at
A Promising Proposal for a “Grand Bargain� with Iran.
It seems to me that most of the US leaders on deck are increasingly embracing active engagement with difficult adversaries. What kinds of proposals might they consider?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “A Win-Win U.S. Strategy for Dealing with Iran”
It’s not clear to me why you think that Iran would do anything other than use it as yet another way to stall. Iran is not a democracy – it is a repressive theocracy, run by an unelected and unaccountable cleric, who is happy to use an “elected” president as the public face of the nation.
It may be similar to the shrewdness of Reagan who understood that the that USSR was economically frail and could not sustain a military escalation. He probably did not anticipate that we could topple the entire Government but in fact he created a tipping point that mobilizes many other forces.
Without natural resources these near and mid eastern states are pretty shaky economies and ultimately are likely to be at the mercy of creative and productive societies.
I’m sure the Iranian view is similar to ours. The USA has a madman in office “elected” by Supreme Court cronies and voter fraud, eschewing international election oversight. The madman has nuclear weapons, is constantly rattling sabers and talking of holy war, Armageddon and evildoers. Half the country rails against Islam and talks of geopolitics as a struggle against Muslims.
We already blew the best opportunity to stop the nuclear juggernaut. Well, Reagan and GHW Bush did. When the Soviets fell, we had the obligation, and the money to secure many tons of nuclear materials and to employ, retain or otherwise co-opt jobless nuclear experts.
GW Bush finished the job, abandoning the Nuclear Test Ban treaty, the antiballistic missle treaty, land mine control and chemical and biological weapons bans. In effect, he said ‘this is an arms race and we’re going to win.’
Negotiating is the only sensible approach, and I support the suggestions of the linked article. We never beat China nor prevented its nuclear aspirations. That has not turned out so badly. If we can avoid escalation, turn down the war talk, and let Iran modernize without weaponizing, we can outlast the repressive regimes there, too.
And exactly how do we do that? That’s the key – Iran is intent on acquiring nukes and every carrot dangled before them has not had slowed them one bit.
Iran doesn’t have the bomb. If we are the ones to help them with 1) peaceful development of electric generating capacity and 2) alternative energy technologies, we, along with allies in Europe and Asia, have leverage to require concessions. If we let China, Russia or Pakistan provide the expertise and technology, we have no such leverage. I’m not the negotiator, Russ, but negotiate we must. What is our other option? You know we can’t beat Iran into submission. We can’t even dislodge Afghani warlords. As for “not slowed them one bit,” I disagree. Without the efforts of European negotiations and UN monitoring, Iran would already have the bomb.
Russ – What carrots? We have basically ordered them to do what we want or we will beat them to a pulp or something like that. We have not engaged them in any constructive way at all. We are the bully on the block and our might is right, period.
George W Bush and diplomacy are oximorons. Our current government is intent on force, brute force. Unfortunately outside of nuclear weapons we have nothing to threaten with thanks to our involvement in Iraq. That way leads to total madness.
Sootytern,
We aren’t the only kid on the block. While we do not negotiate directly with them we have supported the European negotiations with Iran and there have been plenty of carrots as well as the stick.
And where does Israel fit in?