| Washington Report Archives (2006-2010) - 2009 July |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2009, page 64
Waging Peace
Capitol Hill Conference on U.S.-Iranian Prospects for Engagement
 |
|
|
|
AN EXPERT panel discussed “The United States and Iran: What Are the Prospects for Engagement?” on April 16 at the Middle East Policy Council’s (MEPC) 56th Capitol Hill Conference Series on U.S. Middle East Policy.
MEPC’s new president, William Nash, began by paying tribute to his predecessor, Ambassador Chas Freeman, noting that “to step into his big shoes is going to be a challenge, but I’m very happy to be joining the council.” In his introduction of the event’s topic, Nash explained that the U.S. and Iran have a history of overwhelmingly “bad” bilateral relations. Currently “the hard issues facing the two countries are much more than bilateral,” he said, with “invested participants” regionally, political and security concerns globally, as well as cultural and economic factors.
Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a former undersecretary of state, described the shifts from uni- to multi-lateral relations and from military options to diplomatic ones. Those shifts were catalyzed by changes in the “world situation,” he said, leaving the bulk of issues our administration faces “defined in global terms” that have to be considered in “clusters rather than narrow stovepipes.”
Pickering went on to identify several key clusters, including: the international financial crisis; a diplomatic role in the Middle East with regard to achieving stability in Iraq; the combined issue of stability in “Afpak” (Afghanistan and Pakistan); the role of Iran in the region, and in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the mission for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation; and the role of rivals or partners like Japan, Brazil, Russia and China.
In Pickering’s view, “the United States needs to have specific policies of finding common national interests with these potential rivals, so in fact we build partnerships rather than stronger rival relationships with them as we go ahead.”
Americans will never tune into a clear picture of internal Iranian politics, Pickering observed, and Washington hasn’t stepped “in an ayatollah’s slippers” to view how Iran may perceive regime change, the use of force, and the U.S. as a “nuclear armed behemoth.” Thus, he concluded, the objective is to find a normalized relationship with Iran over time, establishing the ability for people to meet, talk and work with one another.
National Iranian American Council (NIAC) president Trita Parsi encouraged the audience to “take a look at Iranian actions rather than to try to constantly decipher what they are trying to signal through their very many contradictory signs.” Iran relies on a policy Parsi dubbed “simulated irrationality,” wherein contradictory signals are exported and reactions to rhetoric are tracked. The thought process behind this, Parsi explained, is to keep the outside world confused and prevent Iran from being predictable in order to heighten security—but it achieves the opposite, the speaker said.
Analyzing the U.S.-Iran-Israel conglomerate, Parsi pointed out that Israel fears a U.S.-Iranian dialogue that could lead to rapprochement. While noting that Israel is not monolithic, the majority view is still that a U.S.-Iran relationship would decrease Israeli maneuverability in the region, or possibly result in the U.S. abandoning its support of Israel altogether. Still, he reiterated, one “cannot untangle U.S.-Iran relations from Iranian-Israeli relations.”
According to Kenneth Katzman, Middle East specialist for the Congressional Research Service, the Pentagon told Israel “no” to a military attack on Iran, but rumblings of such a possibility are still loudly heard. Katzman reminded the audience that former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami suspended its nuclear program development twice. However, the Middle East specialist elucidated, President Ahmadinejad’s challenger, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, is unlikely to suspend Iran’s current program under any circumstances.
The fundamental difference between the U.S. and Iran, Katzman argued, is a diametrically opposed view of what the Middle East should be. Iran, he said, wants a reduction of U.S. influence in the region, a weaker Israel, and regional policies that coincide with Iranian national interests. Ultimately, Katzman believes Iran will “not acquiesce to U.S.-Israel hegemony in the Middle East.”
Thomas Mattair, author of Global Security Watch—Iran: A Reference Handbook, and a consultant to the government, media and businesses, views Iran and the U.S. as moving toward pragmatism in their search for win-win formulas in Afghanistan and Iraq which would yield global, regional and domestic benefits for both countries. Another opportunity for pragmatic solutions, Mattair said, includes cooperation in border areas, which Iran does not fully control and where “drug running” is common. But, Mattair pointed out, Iran asked NATO for aid in the Baluchi zone in 2006 and was turned down.
—Nina Hamedani
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|