December 2004
What to do about Iran?
August 8, 2004
By: George A. Lopez
One unanticipated finding in the report of the 9-11 commission was that a number of the hijackers passed through Iran at some time before their deadly deed. While no charge was made regarding complicity of Tehran in this activity, the commission's claim heightens US concerns about Iran as a terror-supporting state.This puzzle became further complicated by Iran's announcement last week that it will resume enriching uranium. Is this step, which reverses an autumn, 2003 pledge by Tehran not to do so, a legitimate attempt to increase the nation's energy options, or part of a program to build a nuclear weapon? Faced with such complexities, US neo-conservatives proclaim that Iran has become an enduring enemy. Undeterred by our experience in Iraq, some even call directly for regime change in Tehran. For example, Jeff Jacoby in a March 11 op-ed in the Boston Globe asserted, "Iranian governments started the war we are in .... Every bomb that unleashes new carnage in Iraq is a reminder that our war on terrorism will end in defeat unless the turbaned thugs next door are forced from power."
Iran's back-tracking on earlier agreements regarding its weapons production capacity does indeed present a serious challenge. And their continued support of groups like Hezbollah, who are bent on the destruction of Israel, has always soured US-Iranian relations.But responding to these Iranian actions by either isolating them via sanctions or attacking them would be wrong-headed US policy for two reasons. First, a punishing approach toward Iranian leaders has not produced the results desired in the past. Often, in fact, it reinforced the hand of the hardliners. Secondly, there are numerous signs of change moving in directions favorable to the US over the longer term.Political reformers swept into the parliament in the 1997 elections but lacked the political acumen to outflank the conservative religious rulers who controlled the executive. Via various manipulations of the February elections, the conservatives have reasserted their power. They will likely retain official positions for some time, predicting to a more contentious foreign policy with the US. But the reformers have not disappeared.Rather, they are a key component of irreversible trends in the development of a strong civil society in the country. The rights of women and freedom of the press are more pronounced in Iran than in other states in the region. Nearly 60% of the population is under 24 years of age, and more than 75% of the population believes that Iran ought to improve its relationship with the United States.The United States should continue to advocate that Iran refrain from aiding and abetting terrorists and that they not develop a nuclear arms program. But a strategy of constructive engagement over these issues, rather than one of punishment and ostracism is more likely to produce US goals.As the US election process unfolds President Bush is likely to pursue a policy toward Iran that emphasizes swinging a big stick, rather than one that dangles the much needed carrot. Debating the merits of these distinct policy options would be a service to U.S. voters, provided that the candidates would actually have real differences on this important issue.Thus far, Iran's own actions play directly into the Bush campaign's theme about the need for vigilance in the war on terror and the characterization of Tehran as a real axis of evil. And if he remains true to his recent pronouncements in other areas on the war on terror, democratic candidate Kerry may take the position that he can be tougher than Bush in dealing with Iran. That would be short-sighted and counterproductive in light of more creative, available options.Recently, for example, a number of think tanks and organizations have pointed to some particular strategies that the candidates might scrutinize and debate. The first would articulate a strategy that seeks to engage and influence Iranian policy more with incentives than punishments. One particular action that could signal seriousness of US policy would be to end the US opposition to Iran's application to participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO).Secondly, in our rightful concern with the development of Iran's nuclear program, we might more aggressively target sanctions against those companies and governments who are all too willing to supply centrifuges and related technologies to Iran. The notion of sanctioning Iran as importer is a poor second-hand approach to the problem.Thirdly, in collaboration with our European allies we must renew our own commitment to discuss Iran's real energy needs. Such unity among the Atlantic alliance produced serious advances in the recent past.Finally, the US should acknowledge that Iran has legitimate, regional security concerns. The US should continue to demand that Iran end its support for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, the US position will never be credible unless Washington intensifies its effort to create a viable and just Mideast peace process. And that effort must ultimately produce the two state solution that President Bush has claimed is America's preferred outcome. Moreover, continued internal discord in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be addressed fully without the active participation of Iran as a regional security partner. Toward this end, the winner of the November election might consider the appointment of a special, high ranking envoy to lead US efforts in such dialogue with Iran.With a quarter century history of bad relations between Iran and the US, it is unlikely that any single initiative will reverse Tehran's course in the short-term. This may be especially true as long as a large contingent of US troops is living next door in Iraq. But a reasonable movement from hostility to cautious cooperation can occur as a result of a smart and sustained US policy of engagement.Policies that seek to punish, isolate and humiliate Iran are out of touch with current realities and are doomed to failure.
George A. Lopez is Senior Fellow at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. He writes monthly for La Opinión.
Contact George Lopez at George.A.Lopez.1@nd.edu