Kickin' Some CNAS on Iran Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

I have sometimes disagreed with my friends over at the Center for New American Security - especially on the question of Iraq.  But I have to say their latest report (PDF) on Iran from Jim Miller, Christine Parthemore and Kurt Campbell totally nails it (Conveniently it's also fundamentally in agreement with the much shorter brief that we at NSN put together recently).  It should be required reading for the next President of the United States (i.e. Barack Obama) and his advisors.  It takes the idea of talking with Iran and comprehensively answers the critical question:  how?

Game-changing diplomacy would have six main elements:

• de-emphasize military threats;
• make comprehensive verification the urgent priority for Iran’s nuclear program, while continuing to press Iran to voluntarily forego enrichment;
• initiate serious discussions with Iran on Iraq, Afghanistan, al Qaeda and broader Middle Eastern peace;
• offer to establish bilateral relations;
• offer the possibility of relief from sanctions and over time additional economic and political
• incentives to provide Iran the chance to join the international community; and
• condition incentives and progress in bilateral relations on Iranian behavior.

The authors recognize that this policy might not work and that if it doesn't then at some point we may be forced to return to the current policy of coercive economic pressure.  But they argue that if that time comes the U.S. diplomatic position and the support it can expect from the International Community will be much stronger, which will make its ability to impose effective sanctions much more likely.  They also argue that military force should be seen as an absolute last resort that would be highly problematic at best.

The other thing I like about the report is that it absolutely follows reasonable foreign policy principles that Democrats can support, but it in no way seems "soft."  There is no chest thumping for the sake of seeming tough, but no one can read this without coming away with the clear idea that the authors are hard-headed and serious about keeping America secure.

Finally, I think the report is indicative of a broad consensus which is building on the entire left and also amongst the realist wing of the Republican party.  For anyone wondering what the stakes are for the upcoming election and for those who argue that Obama and McCain are somehow the same, this report should be a wake up call.   If McCain is elected there is no way we'd implement something this bold, far-ranging and smart.  But this is exactly the type of thing that Obama would be willing to explore and work with reasonable Republicans to pursue.

Comments

[John]

To Quote Ronald Reagan...

“Freedom has never been so fragile so close to slipping from our grasp as it is this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a Utopian solution of peace without victory, they call their policy “accommodation”. And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as war mongers. By committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now you can give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters. Alexander Hamiltion said a nation which can prefer disgrace to danger, is prepared for a master, and deserves one.

Now lets set the record straight…
There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war. But there’s only one guarantee you can have peace and you can have it in the next second…surrender.

Admittedly there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement. And this is the specter our well meaning liberal friends refuse to face, that their policy of accommodation is appeasement. And it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender, If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand, the ultimatum… and what then?

He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the war, and some day when it comes time to deliver the final ultimatum our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have been weakened from within morally, spiritually and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for peace at any price, or as one commentator put it, “he’d rather live on his knees than die on his feet”. And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery.

If nothing in life is worth dying for, then when did this begin? Just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses should have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the Pharoes? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the “shot heard round the world”? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazi’s didn’t die in vain.

Where then is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all. You and I have the courage to say to our enemies there is a price we will not pay there is a point beyond which they must not advance. And in destroying, they would destroy that which represents the ideas that you and I hold dear. This is the meaning, in the phrase of Barry Goldwater, “peace through strength”. Winston Churchill said the destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits not animals, and he said there’s something going on in time and space and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty. You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this the last, best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.”

[Don Bacon]

I agree with John -- peace is the way to go.

Iran is no enemy of mine, or of any thinking American, but AIPAC, that Mecca for all US politicians, wants to whack Iran.

Iran is now in the cat-bird seat in the ME. It has a new, friendly Islamic fundamentalist state next door, courtesy of the Pentagon, and with all that high-priced oil and gas it has powerful friends in Russia, China and India. It's nuclear program has been fully vetted by the IAEA, which has stated that Iran is not diverting enriched uranium. Iran has a powerful military which, if it were attacked, could wreak havoc on the US Fifth Fleet as well as US forces in Iraq. So why does Iran need to negotiate anything?

I agree with John. Don't appease AIPAC and let's have peace. Stand up to AIPAC, welcome Iran into our great western coalition and we'll have peace through strength.

[Dan Kervick]

You know, many people have been putting forth a virtually identical list for several years now. By now, this is old hat. I hate the Washington presumption that seems to hold that even commonplace ideas aren't real until some tiny network of self-styled "think tanks" and their broods of inbred insiders discovers them and vouches for them.

One thing I didn't see on the list is any mention of offers to resolve outstanding issues related to Iranian assets that have been frozen since the Iranian revolution.

[Don Bacon]

You know these lists on Iran or Iraq or wherever are always America-centric. They are strictly based on the erroneous "common knowledge" from a US propaganda/MS perspective. They address "what everybody knows," not considering that WEK is often wrong. They NEVER include any viewpoints from foreigners, PARTICULARLY those most affected, like Iraqis and Iranians.

"Hi, I'm from America and I know what's best for you. First we're going to stop threatening to nuke you, then send our intelligence personnel into every Iranian military facility, then have some serious discussions about everything, then offer to remove the ineffective sanctions by the western elite, and also offer to put a big US embassy in Tehran. Then we'll try to wean you off of China, Russia and India, and place you back under Anglo-American control just like the good old days of the Shah. If you behave yourselves, and quit enriching uranium even though it's allowed under the NPT, we've got some other goodies to give you."

"Well, gosh, all the Iranians I know are so overwhelmed with all this generosity and good will that we will do everything you say, even though it seems entirely in your interest and not in ours. We will overlook our predominate position in the ME, forego our new commercial ties with China, India and Russia, give up relationships with Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah even though they currently tie our tormenters in fits, overlook the huge advantages that we enjoy in natural resources and military power and accede to every wish of the Americans who are currently losing two Asian wars while their economy tanks."