Making Sense on Iran in Washington

BEIRUT - Perhaps the most interesting case to watch in these days of American power transition is Iran.

Not the "threat" of Iran, or the "puzzle" of Iran - as some of the wild-headed in Washington and Israel refer to it; but, simply, the Iran that is developing a full uranium enrichment nuclear fuel cycle. The worst and best aspects of American political culture are on display here, as different domestic and foreign groups do battle to win the dominant position of influence on Washington's policy towards Iran in the Obama administration.

The worst aspect is reference to those hardline ideological groups and surrogates for foreign (mainly Israeli) interests that want the United States to lead a global confrontation of Iran, using sanctions and threats to force Iran to stop its enrichment works and cut short its own technological progress as a nation. They fear that Iran wants to develop a nuclear bomb, dominate the Gulf oil-producing region, threaten or attack Israel, bolster allies like Hizbullah and Syria, and perhaps threaten Western powers. And their fears are based on assumptions that are either unproven or patently false.

But here enters the best of American political culture: the free flow of ideas based on quality scholarship, and a willingness to assess in public every aspect of a national or foreign policy issue. In recent weeks, the United States has witnessed a veritable gusher of studies and recommendations on Iran that mostly echo what many in the Middle East have been saying for years: Engage the Iranians through normal diplomatic channels, treat them with basic respect, abide by the same rules of law and international conventions that you want them to comply with, and negotiate mutually beneficial relationships based on equal rights for all, rather than the primacy of American or Israeli interests in the Middle East.

Two particularly solid texts in this respect caught my eye in recent weeks, which should provide some comfort to those who have feared that American foreign policy is largely crafted by ideological warriors who lack basic knowledge of the world and the global actors they must deal with. (The truth is that Washington is loaded with knowledgeable, sensibly-composed men and women who appreciate both the realities of the world and the limits of American power.)

One important paper was published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace a few weeks ago, entitled Iran: Is productive engagement possible? written by Carnegie Associate Karim Sadjadpour. He makes the point in his succinct ten-page analysis that Washington and Tehran share important overlapping interests on several issues of broad mutual interest, such as Iraq, energy markets, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and terrorism. He thinks the United States should initially engage with Iran on issues where mutual concerns might lead to cooperation and diplomatic breakthroughs -- recognizing who actually makes decisions in Tehran and seeking to promote democracy and human rights in Iran by facilitating, rather than impeding, its modernization and reintegration into the global economy.

Just weeks later, another substantial report with recommendations on Iran was published in the United States, this time by a group of leading, experienced experts who actually know Iran and the Middle East, which is not always the case among American officials or lobbyists who formulate US foreign policy. Four non-governmental organizations put together a study group of 20 experts -- co-chaired by former ambassadors Thomas Pickering and James F. Dobbins, and Columbia University professor Gary G. Sick -- that decisively shattered a series of eight "myths and misconceptions" that have tended to define the public debate on Iran in the United States in recent years. (See http://americanforeignpolicy.org/).

They note clearly the failures of prevailing American policy that has tried for over two decades to manage Iran "through isolation, threats and sanctions...[that] have
not solved any major problem in US-Iran relations, and have made most of them worse."

Dispassionate analysis, they say, "shows that an attack would almost certainly backfire, wasting lives, fomenting extremism and damaging the long-term security interests of both the US and Israel," while economic sanctions are unlikely to coerce Iran to change policies.

They suggest another way that they feel is far more likely to succeed: "Open the door to direct, unconditional and comprehensive negotiations at the senior diplomatic level where personal contacts can be developed, intentions tested, and possibilities explored on both sides...sustained engagement is far more likely to strengthen United States national security at this stage than either escalation to war or continued efforts to threaten, intimidate or coerce Iran."

The strength of these two texts and others like them emanates from their provenance: experienced scholars and former officials in the heart of the American establishment, who place American national interests and the rule of law at the top of their priority list. Such sensible people and positions have always lurked in Washington's corridors. It would be refreshing if they actually influenced policy-making in the new American administration.

Rami G. Khouri is Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, in Beirut, Lebanon.