In Iran, Outcomes or Outcry?
Reporting that Israel is considering military strikes against Iran this spring, and continued calls from some conservatives for the U.S. to take military action have brought strong responses, including from former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rogers and even Iranian opposition figures. These diverse figures – along with a range of bipartisan national security experts – agree that we have time for diplomacy and that it best serves the interests of the United States, our allies and our long-term goals for the Middle East.
Top bipartisan leaders urge more diplomacy, less rhetoric.
Robert Gates, secretary of defense for George W. Bush and Barack Obama: CNN reports, “Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on Thursday cautioned against some of the foreign policy rhetoric on the campaign trail, particularly words used by the top two Republican presidential frontrunners. Asked about Newt Gingrich, who calls for a regime change in Iran to prevent the development of a nuclear weapons program, Gates stressed the complexity of the situation in an interview with CNN’s ‘John King, USA.’ ‘This is one of the toughest foreign policy problems I have ever seen since entering the government 45 years ago, and I think to talk about it loosely or as though these are easy choices in some way, or sort of self-proclaim obvious alternatives, I just think is irresponsible,’ Gates said.” [Robert Gates via CNN, 2/2/12]
Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: When asked about the possibility of an Israeli military strike on Iran, Chairman Rogers said, “My argument is this is too important for us not to get this right. If Israel does a unilateral strike this could be a real problem for the national security interests of the United States.” When host Candy Crowley followed up, “Well it lights the Middle East on fire basically,” Rogers responded, “Absolutely.” [Mike Rogers, 2/5/12]
Senior veterans of U.S. toughest negotiations point to road ahead. Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski described a strategy: “We have said, you have a choice. Here are our lines, what we regard as impermissible. If you are prepared to negotiate seriously a limit that keeps your program this side of being a weapons program, we’re prepared to sit down and talk about it. I think there’s some evidence that’s getting through to Iran. Will they follow through and go with real negotiations, we don’t know that. They’re sending signals that suggest the policy is working out about right.”
In their most recent in a series of op-eds, Ambassadors William H. Luers, who served as United States ambassador to Czechoslovakia and Venezuela, and Thomas R. Pickering, who served as undersecretary of state for political affairs and ambassador to Russia, Israel, Jordan and the United Nations, outline a comprehensive diplomatic approach towards Iran:
“Before traveling to Beijing in 1972, Nixon outlined on his ubiquitous yellow pad three analytical pillars of his strategy: What do they want, what do we want and what do we both want? … In the Shanghai Communiqué, issued at the culmination of the meeting in Beijing, the continuing differences were highlighted, but both sides agreed to expand the common ground between them. In developing a diplomatic strategy toward Iran, President Obama might respond to Nixon’s three questions as follows: Iran wants recognition of its revolution; an accepted role in its region; a nuclear program; the departure of the United States from the Middle East; and the lifting of sanctions. The United States wants Iran not to have nuclear weapons; security for Israel; a democratic evolution of Arab countries; the end of terrorism; and world access to the region’s oil and gas. Both Iran and the United States want stability in the region — particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan; the end of terrorism from Al Qaeda and the Taliban; the reincorporation of Iran into the international community; and no war. With those assumptions as a skeleton, the shape of a final agreement with Iran is imaginable.” [Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1/18/12. William Luers and Thomas Pickering, 2/2/12]
Americans, Israelis, Iranian opposition concerned with heated rhetoric, fueled by domestic politics. Israeli intelligence journalist Ronen Bergman commented: “most of the Israeli statements are not meant for Israeli ears. There’s an expression in Hebrew, ‘Hold me back. So I won’t hit him.’ What [Ehud] Barak is doing with these statements—what Israel is now doing with the aerial drill—and other issues: they are trying to tell Europe—hold me back, you know, crazy Israel, because otherwise Israel will take the initiative. The problem with this sort of statement is that it is coming back to some extent to the Israeli public and it is creating fear in the population here.” Meanwhile, a majority of Iranian opposition figures in Stockholm “felt an attack would directly or indirectly harm the population, empower the regime and cause severe instability in the region when Iran retaliates.” [Ronen Bergman via Yahoo! News, 1/30/12. Geneive Abdo, 2/6/12]
What We’re Reading
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Damascus to meet Syrian President Bashar al Assad following international criticism of Russia for helping the Syrian government crack down on civilians.
Iranian lawmakers vowed to ban oil exports to Europe ahead of an oil embargo set to begin in June 2012.
China’s foreign ministry posted a statement on its website that said “a trust deficit” exists between China and the U.S. ahead of Vice President Xi Jinping’s visit to the U.S.
General James N. Mattis, head of Central Command, will travel to Pakistan this month in an attempt to improve U.S.-Pakistan relations.
The president of the Maldives resigned amid clashes between civilians, police and the military.
Workers across Greece participated in a general strike to protest the government’s latest austerity measures.
President Obama will host Iraq War veterans for a state dinner at the White House.
Chinese workers kidnapped by rebels in Sudan were freed and flown to Kenya.
Soldiers clashed with Brazilian police, who have been on strike demanding higher wages and better working conditions.
Blasts targeting a military base rocked the northern Nigerian city of Kaduna.
Commentary of the Day
Bloomberg’s editorial board believes arming the Syrian opposition is the wrong way to go about bringing down the Assad regime.
Jonathan Moore thinks the Republican primaries reveal a “chaotic mix” of attitudes toward international issues.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board urges the U.S. and UN to set standards for drones and targeted assassinations.
