IRAN Pressuring Iran The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently released a report that indicated troubling activity involving Iran's nuclear program. While the IAEA noted that Iran was experiencing significant technical problems and setbacks, it also said that Iran was not cooperating with the international organization and had taken actions that call into question the claim that its nuclear program is only for civilian use. Furthermore, international engagement with Iran over its nuclear program has clarified Iran's intransigence and prompted the Obama administration to push the U.N. for stronger international sanctions. Many media pundits and conservative foreign policy hands have wrongly interpreted this move as evidence of the failure of the Obama administration's engagement policy. But while the best case for engagement was a resolution of Iran's nuclear activity and improved relations, the policy was also about laying the groundwork for a coordinated international response should Iran continue to stonewall over its nuclear program. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, recently stated that extensive U.S. efforts to engage Iran has put " us on a solid foundation to go on what is termed the pressure track."
BUILDING AN INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE: The administration appears to be closing in on the votes needed for strong U.N.-backed sanctions at the Security Council. Over the past year, the administration, while engaging Iran, has also sought to build international support for sanctions should talks not yield a positive result. This diplomatic outreach appears to be paying dividends as the U.S. and European powers are on the same page -- something that wasn't the case during the Bush administration -- and there are growing signs that Russia will support U.N. sanctions. While China's stance remains uncertain, there is speculation that China, fearing international isolation, will not block U.N. sanctions. As one administration official put it, "an abstention is better than a veto." The Center for American Progress' Matt Duss explains, "Obama's outreach has placed the onus squarely on the Iranian government, and put them in a more difficult position both in regard to Iranian domestic politics and the international community's demands on Iran's nuclear program." Former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns added that because of the administration's engagement, "the reality is that Iran is more isolated today because of this strategy, and because of their own behavior, than they were a year ago."
THE PRESSURE TRACK: The Obama administration is seeking to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, developing a smart sanctions approach that targets the worst elements of the Iranian regime, namely the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Alireza Nader, an Iran analyst at the Rand Corp., said, "The idea is to apply pressure on the Revolutionary Guard in order to force a wedge between the opposition movement and the guards, and to affect the guards' decision-making on the nuclear program." Roger Cohen of the New York Times argues that, on some sanctions, the administration "has things upside down," as it should be doing more to undercut the regime by removing sanctions that block the spread of technology that enables the Iranian public from communicating with one another, such as instant messaging software. "With the Islamic Republic weaker than at any time in its 31-year history, fractured by regime divisions and confronted by a Green movement it has tried to quash through force, U.S. sanctions are abetting the regime's communications blackouts." The administration is also working to assure allies in the Persian Gulf. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to the region and reaffirmed protection in the face of possible Iranian aggression under a U.S. "security umbrella." The New York Times reported on the "diplomatic barnstorming" by Clinton, writing, "In public meetings and private talks, she carried her message about the Revolutionary Guards into the heart of the Middle East, trying to win over ambivalent neighbors like Qatar, and fire up Iran's critics, chiefly Saudi Arabia." Fearing a potential cascade of nuclear proliferation from Iran's neighbors, Clinton warned on her trip of the dangers of a Mideast nuclear arms race.
POLICIES THAT BACKFIRE: The Iranian ruling elite, facing a vibrant opposition movement, has been desperate to rally the nationalist sentiments of the Iranian people in support of the regime. While no options should be taken off the table in dealing with Iran, both the House and the Senate are moving on legislation to sanction Iranian gasoline imports -- a move opposed by the administration -- that would bluntly hammer the Iranian population. In response to the regime's crack down, the administration has been too cautious in advocating for human rights, but Reuters reports that "analysts predict that sanctions targeting Iran's energy sector would be counterproductive, causing such disruption as to rally the people around the government and weakening dissidents." Even more troubling are the growing cries for military action from the same neoconservatives that got the U.S. mired in Iraq. Claims that the U.S. could simply eliminate Iran's nuclear program through airstrikes are naively misplaced. The covert nature of Iran's nuclear program, as well as the fact that nuclear facilities are buried within hardened tunnels, means bombing could quite possibly yield nothing. Nuclear expert David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said in an interview that Iran's once secret nuclear facility "can't be destroyed by bombing," and boots would need to be put on the ground to ensure its destruction. David Sanger reported in the New York Times that there is speculation that the regime may even be baiting Israel to launch an airstrike by flaunting its nuclear fuel out in the open, as the regime knows that an airstrike would rally the nationalist sympathies among the Iranian public and would undercut the Green Movement. As Petraeus explained, a strike "could be used to play to nationalist tendencies." Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria explained that following a strike, "the regime would gain support as ordinary Iranians rally around the flag. The opposition would be forced to support a government under attack from abroad." Additionally, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Michael Mullen concluded, any attack on Iran would result in significant "unintended consequences." The Brookings Institution recently conducted an Iran war-game, simulating the effects if Iran were attacked. The participants concluded that events could quite easily spiral out of control, leading to broader regional war and disruption of world oil markets leading to further global economic turmoil. The lesson is "once you start this, it's really hard to stop it," said Brookings' Kenneth Pollack, who ran the simulation. | |
