[Peace-discuss] Talking to Iran

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Liberals praised Obama during the campaign for his "willingness to talk to 
Iran." Now he makes it clear what he's going to say by appointing this idiot to 
do it.  --CGE]

	Iran: Talk Tough With Tehran
	By Dennis Ross | NEWSWEEK
	From the magazine issue dated Dec 8, 2008

Everywhere you look in the Middle East today, Iran is threatening U.S. interests 
and the political order. One Arab ambassador told me recently that the Iranians 
are reminding Arab leaders that America didn't help Fuad Siniora, the prime 
minister of Lebanon, or Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, when they 
got into trouble—that in fact Washington left them high and dry. Iran, by 
contrast, is close by and not going anywhere. If the Iranians are throwing their 
weight around now, imagine what will happen if they go nuclear.

It's not too late to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Tehran clearly wants nukes 
for both defensive and offensive purposes. But it's not clear the Supreme 
Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would sacrifice anything to get nuclear weapons. 
In fact, history shows that his government responds to outside pressure, 
restricting its actions when it feels threatened and taking advantage when it 
judges it can.

In 2003, for example, after the U.S. military made short work of the Iraqi 
Army—something Iran hadn't managed in eight years of war—Tehran quickly reached 
out to Washington, sending a proposal through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran 
that sought to allay U.S. concerns about Iran's weapons program and its support 
for Hizbullah and Hamas. (Sadegh Kharrazi, the main drafter of the proposal, 
said last year that fear among the Iranian elite led to the overture.) By 
contrast, when the U.S. government released a National Intelligence Estimate a 
year ago concluding that Iran had suspended its weaponization program, President 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quickly crowed that confrontation had worked and the 
Americans had backed down.

Iran has continued to pursue nuclear weapons because the Bush administration 
hasn't applied enough pressure—or offered Iran enough rewards for reversing 
course. The U.N. sanctions adopted in the past three years primarily target 
Iran's nuclear and missile industries, not the broader economy. Hitting the 
economy more directly would force the mullahs to make a choice. Iran has 
profound economic vulnerabilities: it imports 43 percent of its gas. Its oil and 
natural-gas industries—the government's key source of revenue, which it uses to 
buy off its population—desperately require new investment and technology. Smart 
sanctions would force Iran's leaders to see the high costs of not changing their 
behavior.

The way to achieve such pressure is to focus less on the United Nations and more 
on getting the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese and Saudis to cooperate. The more 
Washington shows it's willing to engage Iran directly, the more these other 
parties, will feel comfortable ratcheting up the pressure. Europeans have also 
complained that if they reduce their business with Iran, the Chinese will pick 
up the slack. But having the Chinese onboard will allay that fear.

Sharp sticks, of course, must be balanced by appetizing carrots. We need to 
offer political, economic and security benefits to Tehran, on the condition that 
Iran change its behavior not just on nukes but on terrorism as well. Sticks will 
show Iran what it stands to lose by going nuclear; carrots will show its leaders 
what they would gain by moderating their behavior. Smart statecraft involves 
wielding them together. It's needed now to avoid two terrible outcomes: living 
with a nuclear Iran, or acting militarily to try to prevent it.

[Ross, A former U.S. Middle East envoy, is a Distinguished Fellow at the 
Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the author of “Statecraft: And How 
to Restore America’s Standing in the World.”]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/171256