[Peace-discuss] Talking points on Iran

[Morton K. Brussel]

This may be appropriate for the "persuadable middle", but as an AWARE  
statement it has, to my mind, some faults:

1) It assumes that Iran should not have a nuclear capability without  
qualifying that assertion with statements regarding the nuclear  and  
other threats to Iran (Israel!, Pakistan?, the USA!). For it is only  
natural that Iran seek to have a deterrent to those palpable threats,  
despite Iran's disclaimers.

2) It neglects history--that of the US involvement in Iran. It  
neglects the determination of the Administration for regime change in  
Iran. That is, is gives the flavor that the U.S. wants only good  
things for the world, and Iran is an obstacle.

3) I'm not sure that it would be a good thing (for the world) if  
those friendly to the US in Iran were to win out. Those friendly to  
the U.S. are a mixed bag: Secularists, Monarchists—nostalgic for  
another Shah—, those who want the U.S. to crush the Sunni forces in  
Iraq, etc..

On the other hand, it presents rational reasons why we ought not  
attack Iran—why diplomacy must take precedence over threats and war,  
and that is all to the the good.

My 2€,

--mkb

On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060629/9267804c/attachment.html