By Philip Giraldi View all 18 articles by Philip Giraldi Published 03/20/09  
Printer-friendly version
As the United States has gotten involved in two unnecessary wars in Asia in the past eight years, neither of which is yet concluded, the possibility that a third war might be initiated either inadvertently or deliberately should be of concern to every American. If there is a war it will be against Iran, partly due to genuine disagreements but also derived from the efforts of powerful constituencies in the United States to bring about such a conflict. As President Barack Obama appears to be shaping his foreign policy now would be a good time to examine the nature of the Iran-United States relationship in order to determine what steps the new administration might take to minimize conflict and establish a sustainable modus vivendi between Washington and Tehran. America and Iran do not have to be friends, but they should at least learn to be neighborly. President Obama has indicated that he is prepared to talk to Iran, something that the George W. Bush administration was unwilling to do without Tehran first agreeing to a series of preconditions that amounted to capitulation. The process of opening the door to Iran might already have begun. There have been reports that a former Clinton cabinet officer recently returned from the Persian Gulf where he met with Iranian officials in a private capacity. Speaking for the administration, he indicated that President Obama would be willing to talk directly to Iran after the June elections, clearly a hint that Washington would like to see a moderate politician replace President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has done so much to poison the waters through his inflammatory rhetoric. Obama's emissary also indicated that the new administration would like to look for ways to work with Iran to control radical Sunni groups, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda, which threaten both Iranian and American interests. The overture is a belated recognition by Washington that Iran has legitimate interests relating to its neighbors and can be a moderating force in both central Asia and the Middle East. And there is much more to talk about. Genuine disagreements over the nature of Iran's regional role in the Persian Gulf and its nuclear ambitions are only part of the picture and are issues that are potentially resolvable through negotiation and compromise. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reportedly said that she doubts if negotiations with Iran will be successful and there have been other voices in the administration that are also skeptical. The appointment of Dennis Ross as a special adviser is also troubling as he has long favored exercise of a military option against Iran but there is as of yet no sign that Ross will be able to do anything more than advise. He might not be able to influence policy in the direction that he would prefer. The Obama administration must proceed to talks in good faith believing a positive outcome can be obtained because anything but that would be disastrous for both countries and also for the entire Near East. The White House should realize that negotiations themselves are critical to resolve specific issues, but they should be only a part of a broader effort that relies on American example and soft power to bring about lasting change. For starters, Obama should reopen the United States Embassy in Tehran, something he could do by executive order. The purpose of an embassy is to resolve issues short of conflict. Talks in Geneva or Istanbul are no substitute for the day-to-day presence in a foreign capital and the interaction provided by a fully staffed embassy headed by an ambassador who represents the President of the United States. And the United States should lift many of the sanctions that are in place against Iran, retaining only those that apply to military or dual use technologies. Sanctions historically only punish the people in a country and have no effect on the behavior of the governing regime. The lifting of sanctions would have great symbolic value and would signal clearly that the United States truly wants to establish a new basis for its dealings with the Iranian people. It would also strengthen the hand of the moderates in the upcoming presidential elections, perhaps decisively so and leading to a genuine regime change that could be accomplished without dropping bombs or putting American soldiers at risk. The Obama administration should also encourage more civilian exchanges while recognizing that there will be bumps in the road because Iranian hardliners will do their best to block humanitarian groups and charities who seek to operate inside the country. A primary mission of the Embassy should be to establish the mechanisms that would make more people-to-people contact possible. The effort to enable those visits should be a high priority and the areas of interaction should be broadened to include as diverse a range of American groups as possible, encompassing everything from athletic teams to aspiring Persian chefs to art historians wanting to visit Isfahan. The American government should avoid open interference in Iran but should be willing to support Iranians who seek to develop the non-government institutions that will eventually bring about change in their own society. Currently, due to the Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control restrictions, US citizens must first obtain a license and then can only contribute $100 annually to support human rights groups in Iran. That limit should be raised to something closer to the $1200 annually permitted to supporters of Cuban human rights groups. The money would be well spent. Contrary to the popular impression in the US, Iranians are among the most pro-American Muslims. Iran was the only Muslim country where there were demonstrations protesting 9/11. A recent opinion poll conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow indicated that Iranians overwhelmingly favor better relations with the United States, want full democracy, and would like their government to make concessions on the nuclear issue. They think very positively of the American people, in spite of what they see as the essentially hostile policies of the Bush Administration. That favorable disposition could be exploited and should become a component of American statecraft. Finally, the Obama administration should make the decision to pursue a purely realist policy when dealing with Iran, one that is based on respective national interests while recognizing the limitations of American power. It should also concede that there might be some issues that cannot be resolved. It must accept that Iran and other players in the Persian Gulf region have legitimate concerns that must be respected by Washington, replacing the former policy of coercion with one that is inclusive and based on cooperation. |
Also by Philip Giraldi:
National Insecurity 01/29/10
Yemen and the War of the Worlds 01/07/10
Obama's New Years Resolutions 01/01/10
Changing the Narrative for War 12/29/09
Five Good Reasons to Avoid a War with Iran 12/07/09
View all 18 articles by Philip Giraldi
Discuss this article (18 comments)
