[Peace-discuss] Talking points on Iran

[Robert Naiman]

On 6/29/06, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> This may be appropriate for the "persuadable middle", but as an AWARE statement it has, to my mind, some faults:

I take your points -- it is what it is advertised to be, an outreach
tool to recruit people to the position that the U.S. should not attack
Iran nor threaten to do so, not a principled statement of a
progressive position on the merits of the underlying dispute.

> 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.

I agree with you that it would be natural for Iran to seek a
deterrent. However, we should be careful not to assume that U.S.
charges that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon are correct, simply
because the motivation to do so is understandable. For all we know,
Iran's disclaimers are accurate. The IAEA said they had no evidence
that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon.


> 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.

Nolo contendere. Well, it doesn't neglect the regime change issue,
although this could be more emphasized. It argues that US talk of
regime change undermines a diplomatic solution.

> 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..

I don't think this was the meaning intended. The assertion, which I
think is correct, was that many Iranian citizens are favorably
disposed to the U.S. in a cultural sense, not in terms of promoting
the agenda of the Pentagon.

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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
>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org