|
There has been a great deal of discussion about what is
the most suitable policy to pursue towards Iran. Although we seem to have
been given various approaches, real choices have remained few with none
consisting of all the necessary elements for sound policy. Let's briefly
review some of these approaches and why they make for poor policy.
Military strikes on Iranian nuclear installations are flawed policy for
several reasons. While republicans - and now many democrats, including
Senator Clinton - claim that Iran's nuclear program is for weapons building
purposes, they have presented no evidence to back that claim. In light of
false allegations about Iraqi WMDs, we need to not back down this time from
rigorously demanding that those who make this claim present evidence to
support that claim, because this country is not ready for any more generic
if-I-knew-then-what-I-now-know excuses from Senator Clinton and others who
are cheerleading this administration's anti-Iran rhetoric. Anyone with the
smallest level of commitment to freedom and democracy would be appalled by
human rights violations in Iran. Regardless, Iran has been allowed to
become a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which gives it the
explicit right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. That's what Iran is
doing. In fact, Iran's nuclear program had the full support of the United
States before the overthrow of Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1979.
Finally, Israel (Iran's main adversary) is allowed to have about 200-300
nuclear weapons without joining the NPT. In light of all these facts, one
wonders, what is the point of NPT if every time a non-U.S.-ally NPT member
decides to exercise the nuclear rights given to it under the treaty, it is
to face sanctions and threats? As long as we allow non-NPT-member enemies
of Iran to have nuclear weapons, veto UN security council resolutions
against them - as we have done 47 times in Israel's case since the
beginning of the Reagan Administration - and fail to present evidence to
back the claim that Iran wants a nuclear weapon, we cannot gain moral
justification and international support for military strikes against Iran.
If we carry out such attacks without meeting that standard, we will pay the
price with our international standing as we have done time and again since
World War II.
Besides, what benefit would a so-called surgical strike on Iran's
nuclear installations have for us? The majority of experts now agree that
since Iran has obtained the knowledge to reach its current level of uranium
enrichment, any strike would only delay its program by 5 to 10 years, which
means that we will have to fight the same battle again soon. On the other
hand, such a strike would have a devastating impact on the under-reported
reformist movement within Iran. Since the early 1990s, Iran's young
population has been involved in a highly secular and pro-western movement
that gave rise to the moderate President Khatami and shook the foundations
of the theocracy in a massive student protest in the summer of 1999.
However, the movement lost its momentum after the United States adopted a
sharp anti-Iranian stance following 9/11, even though Iran had nothing to
do with 9/11, and in fact, President Khatami was one of the first world
leaders to categorically denounce terrorism and that day's "barbaric
acts." This anti-Iranian stance cut the legs from under the reformers
and saved the hardliners in Iran by creating a false sense of patriotism
around them and contributed to pushing Ahmadinejad into power. While a
military strike will have little tangible impact on Iran's forty-year-old
nuclear program and broader intentions to complete a project that has now
become a matter of national pride, it will further undermine the efforts of
moderates by helping the regime find support among the Iranian public.
Hence, Military strikes would be of little benefit for our security and a
colossal mistake in helping to farther the cause of democracy in Iran.
Then there is the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment approach, which labeled Iran's
Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization." It was
extremely unfortunate to see so many senators buy into this
administration's justifications for this action as the legislation was an
example of everything that has been wrong with Bush's foreign policies.
Over the past seven years, President Bush's approach to diplomacy has been
more about name-calling than dialogue. I read Joseph Wilson's piece in
defense of Senator Clinton's support for yet another neoconservative piece
of legislation, in which he makes the point that the legislation was
necessary in order to impose additional sanctions on Iran. I have a great
deal of admiration for Mr. Wilson's courage in speaking the truth about the
Bush administration's false assertions on Iraq's purchase of uranium from
Niger a few years back. But despite his reasoning, the fact is that by
voting for the legislation, Senator Clinton has managed to squander the
possibility of ever having a chance of being taken seriously in diplomacy
with the Iranian regime. (Usually when you call a country's army
"terrorists," they're not going to want to make deals with you).
If there is a State Department rule that requires a country's army to be called
"terrorist" in order to enact certain sanctions against that
country, then it is that rule that's the problem and must change. Those who
support this reckless name-calling approach do not seem to understand its
consequences on countries' internal affairs. The Iranian state-run TV's
heavy reporting on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment to further create
anti-American sentiments within Iran is an example of such consequences.
Mr. Wilson condemns Senator Obama for not signing onto this flawed
legislation or the subsequent damage-control letter that followed it. Why
should he sign this letter? Since he never signed onto the original
legislation and has been consistently against giving this administration
the authorization to use the military for its adventures, his presumed
position is that Bush does not have the right to use military action
against Iran without explicit congressional authorization. He does not need
to sign Senator Clinton's letter about that. It is rather Senator Clinton
who is at fault for once again signing onto another neocon legislation and
then trying to do PR damage control after the fact.
Ambassador Wilson mentions his diplomacy experience to strengthen his
argument. While I admire his service and dedication to this country, I am
not sure if he has ever been to Iran and do not see any signs that he has
any understanding of the reformist elements within Iran or how Senator
Clinton's policies are impacting the movement or her legitimacy to do
substantive diplomacy should she get elected to office. As someone who was
born in Iran and lived there for seventeen years, did research in the
streets of Tehran on the growth of the Iranian democracy movement in 2005
and is now intimately involved in promoting democracy in that country, I
believe Senator Clinton's approach is wrong on Iran. When it comes to Iran,
Senator Obama's "personal diplomacy" approach is much more
productive and suitable for our broader goals of promoting democracy and
human rights in Iran.
But an important point to make on policy toward Iran is that none of the
candidates are giving us all the components of the right policy. At the
core of that sound policy is the recognition that the term "Iran"
or "Iranians" should never be used alone. There is no such thing
as "Iranians" for all our policy purposes. There is rather on the
one hand the Iranian regime - an undemocratic repressive Islamic theocracy
that is a non-U.S.-ally - and the Iranian public - which is an
overwhelmingly young, pro-western, secular and pro-democracy population.
Because the Iranian regime is not democratic, it does not represent the
interest or will of Iranians, and therefore cannot be referred to as
"Iran" or "Iranians." As for the country of Iran, the
United States must pursue a double policy.
One policy focuses on containing the Iranian government and maintaining
a certain level of diplomacy for strategic and geopolitical purposes
without becoming allies with them as that would damage America's legitimacy
and help the Iranian regime's survival. But a second set of policies should
aim at directly engaging the people of Iran and energizing the democratic
movement. While the United States should not explicitly call for regime
change as that would jeopardize its diplomatic efforts with the regime, it
should continuously and vigorously acknowledge the violations of human
rights and work to open the channels of information to Iran and try to
prevent western companies from selling internet censorship or spying
technologies to the regime.
What none of the candidates have so far acknowledged is that it is only
with such precise double-policy that they can help bring democracy to Iran
without having to sacrifice lives or farther damage America's popularity
abroad. As I have said before, any Iran policy that does not have the clear
distinction between the pro-western and secular young population and the
religiously fanatical regime at its core will fail miserably.
Comment
. Link to the article on The Huffington Post.
|
