[Peace-discuss] Talking points on Iran

[Robert Naiman]

This is drawn from a memo produced by the Peace and Security
Initiative. It's about a page in MS Word. This could be used as the basis
for a flyer if anyone is interested. The original memo was designed to
appeal to the "persuadable middle."


*There is Time for a Peaceful Resolution of the Conflict with Iran*



We have time to pursue a peaceful resolution of the conflict over Iran's
nuclear capability and to have a fully informed national debate. No drastic
or immediate action is needed. There is broad consensus among experts that
Iran would not be able to build a nuclear weapon before sometime in the next
decade. No credible experts have said that Iran's nuclear program poses an
imminent threat to U.S. or regional security. The conflict with Iran is not
a crisis, unless the U.S. makes it one. If we want to ensure that Iran's
nuclear program is only devoted to peaceful purposes, the way to do that is
through proven strategies like diplomacy and rigorous international
monitoring – not through the rash, counterproductive use of force.

Since Iran's nuclear activities do not present an imminent threat to the U.S
., military action should not even be considered as an option -- the
"military option" should be "taken off the table."



The situation in Iraq reminds us of the disastrous consequences of reckless
military action.  The U.S. should learn from its experience in Iraq:
military force has limitations, it's important to think ahead, and it's
critical to work with international and regional partners. Our actions can
have unintended and unforeseen consequences. Senior military and
intelligence officials agree that military action against Iran, whether air
strikes or an invasion, would carry enormous risks, such as jeopardizing U.S
. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, while having very uncertain prospects of
reducing Iran's nuclear capability, especially over the long term. There are
no good or effective military solutions to this problem, and there is no
reason to contemplate a military strategy now.



Vigorous diplomacy is far more likely than force to produce a satisfactory
resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue and to protect international
security.  Escalating rhetoric has exacerbated this situation unnecessarily.
Past experience indicates that this kind of challenge can be managed in the
short term while we work steadily toward a long-term resolution.



Effective diplomacy requires a willingness to engage in the give-and-take of
negotiation.  Strongly held positions, tough bargaining, even the threat of
punitive measures can sometimes be features of effective diplomacy – but
only when they are balanced with a willingness to offer meaningful
incentives and with treating the other party with respect.  The U.S.
approach to dealing with Iran has too often put threats, talk of regime
change, insulting rhetoric, and arbitrary preconditions in the foreground,
which has predictably resulted in the hardening Iran's position and has
undermined international support for the U.S. position. An effective
resolution of the confrontation will require both sides to demonstrate
commitment to serious negotiations, in which neither side gets exactly what
it wants but both sides come away with a solution they can live with.  We
need to ensure that diplomacy is not just a public relations exercise whose
failure provides an excuse to pursue preexisting agendas.



The Iranian government includes many different perspectives and factions.  A
smart U.S. policy would reinforce the arguments of those Iranian officials
who would prefer to work toward a better relationship with the U.S. If we do
not take diplomacy seriously and engage in an escalating war of words, we
make it harder for moderate leaders in Iran to get a hearing – just as angry
and threatening Iranian rhetoric makes it harder for moderates and
pragmatists in our country to be heard. The same is true for the Iranian
public more generally, many of whom have a sympathetic disposition towards
U.S. society and would strongly prefer not to be isolated internationally.
We reinforce these positive attitudes when we make serious efforts to
resolve the confrontation with Iran peacefully, but when the U.S. threatens
and insults Iran, we risk driving more Iranians into the camp of
confrontation.  The president of Iran doesn't have the same power as the
president of the United States, and in foreign policy, he is not the final
decision maker. Other Iranian leaders with greater influence over nuclear
policy have made more positive statements in recent weeks. Let's not let the
rhetoric of Iran's president distract us from the real task of diplomacy.


-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060629/8275b428/attachment.html