This comment was published in The Daily Star on 20/11/2010
From the late 1960s to the early 2000s, the central conflict in the Middle East, one that spilled over to influence many other domestic and regional issues, was the Arab-Israeli conflict. For much of that period, until the early 1990s, it overlapped with the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.
However, during the past decade, the confrontational center of gravity in the region has shifted somewhat to include new dynamics that see Iran and some Arab allies together forming a “deterrence and resistance front” that both confronts and engages with the US, Israel and some conservative Arab parties. As the Iranian-led defiance of Washington has linked with the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, it has become far more difficult for diplomats and conflict-resolvers to achieve a breakthrough on any of the many regional conflicts.
The old “Middle East conflict” has now been transformed into multiple conflicts that combine to form a broader “Middle East confrontation” comprising many parties and sources of disagreement, tension and active political or military battles. In this context, it is not just the fact of a large, dynamic, robust Iran being an active regional player that makes a difference, especially through its close ties with Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas; rather, it is the spirit of defiance and the demand for respect and the equitable application of a single standard of international law that Iran is trying to project and champion that represents an important new factor in the regional and global diplomatic equation.
Broadly speaking, Americans and their elected officials have remained chronically clueless about this reality and how to deal with it. There are many reasons for this, including historical bilateral tensions, a general weak spot in American diplomacy outside the confrontational context of the old Cold War, the incessant and strong goading of pro-Israel fanatics in Washington, the general inability of the US to sort out religion from nationalism, and almost biological hysteria about how to deal with strong, proud, defiant, uppity Muslims or Muslim-majority countries.
The result has been an erratic track record in American-Iranian relations that has seen tensions persist and increase, while core issues raised by both sides remain unresolved. American sanctions and pressures and Iranian resistance and defiance have given both sides emotional satisfaction, but few real political gains or successes. There is an almost juvenile dimension to how the United States and Iran conduct their bilateral relations, or non-relations, so it is refreshing to see a new report just published by a group of specialists in the US that suggests a more effective strategy for dealing with this matter.
The report by the US Institute of Peace (USIP) and the Stimson Center, titled “Engagement, Coercion, and Iran’s Nuclear Challenge,” is the culmination of a year’s work by over 40 scholars and policy analysts. They conclude that the US should “rebalance its approach to Iran, leveraging the gains achieved from sanctions by indicating a willingness to engage Iran diplomatically on a wide range of issues.” (The title of the report could have been more judiciously crafted to transcend the American-Israeli fixation on Iran’s nuclear industry, and instead – as the report itself does – acknowledge the need to address a much wider range of strategic issues that are important to both sides. But then, the transition from an adolescent to a mature adult condition – in ideology and diplomacy as in biology – occurs in stages, rather than at once.)
The report by the US Institute of Peace (USIP) and the Stimson Center, titled “Engagement, Coercion, and Iran’s Nuclear Challenge,” is the culmination of a year’s work by over 40 scholars and policy analysts. They conclude that the US should “rebalance its approach to Iran, leveraging the gains achieved from sanctions by indicating a willingness to engage Iran diplomatically on a wide range of issues.” (The title of the report could have been more judiciously crafted to transcend the American-Israeli fixation on Iran’s nuclear industry, and instead – as the report itself does – acknowledge the need to address a much wider range of strategic issues that are important to both sides. But then, the transition from an adolescent to a mature adult condition – in ideology and diplomacy as in biology – occurs in stages, rather than at once.)
Among the recommendations for engagement offered by co-authors Barry Blechman of the Stimson Center and Daniel Brumberg of USIP are: Washington needs to make adjustments of comparable importance to the demands it is making of Iran, such as recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under international safeguards; the US and Israel must avoid the threat to use force, which only reinforces those in Tehran who believe Iran requires nuclear weapons for its security and undermines those who argue for compromise with the international community; the US must take advantage of the leverage gained from sanctions to reinvigorate, broaden and engage Iran diplomatically and strategically, which might persuade more pragmatic members of the ruling elites in Tehran that it is in Iran’s own interest to end its estrangement from the international community by reaching a compromise on the nuclear and other security issues.
Such an approach, though still debatable, would be far wiser than either engaging in military clashes or a long-term containment policy after Iran achieves its full nuclear aims, whether those aims are simply a full enrichment cycle or producing nuclear weapons. As the US and its Western allies prepare to sit down and resume negotiations in the coming weeks, it is heartening to see that some thoughtful adults in Washington are pondering how to address the issues at hand with more sophistication, nuance, realism and pragmatism than has been the case to date. If similar signs emerge in Tehran, we may have a deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment