Many in recent weeks have expressed concerns over the escalation in both rhetoric and action regarding Iran. These escalatory moves from the people who glibly led us into Iraq are ominous and troubling.

What is needed now is a reasoned discussion about Iranian intentions and capabilities and American policy toward the country and the region. The mistake-ridden march into conflict with Iraq starkly demonstrates the need for a balanced and deliberate dialogue about our future regarding Iran. Thorough Congressional inquiry, reality-based analysis of administration claims, and recognition of Iran’s actual capabilities are vital to our policies.

Iranian meddling is not a major source of the violence in Iraq

The Nation’s 16 intelligence agencies agree. “Iraq’s neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics. Nonetheless, Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq.” While the recently highlighted Iranian-sourced IEDs are clearly a problem, it is important to remember that the large majority of American casualties are still being caused by Sunni insurgents and that the Sunnis receive little, if any, support from Iran. Moreover, the recent focus on these IEDs and the debate over who authorized their transfer is really a diversion from the central issue that the source of the violence in Iraq is principally internal. [NIE, 02/02/2007]

Chaos in Iraq does not benefit Iran

A complete breakdown in Iraq would have dangerous spillover effects for Iran and could destabilize the region. The Iranians are interested in undermining our influence in the region and seeing U.S. forces leave Iraq, but Iran is not working to unleash total chaos in Iraq. The Iranian government’s ideal outcome is a stable Iraq dominated by an Iran-friendly Shiite majority. This scenario would ensure a government relatively friendly to Iran that is too weak to contain the expansion of Iranian influence into the Persian Gulf. Inciting chaos would undermine Iran’s interests. [CFR, 02/2007]

Time remains

There is now widespread agreement that Iran is at least three and probably more like 5-10 years from being able to produce nuclear weapons. The Iranian nuclear program is a top national security issue, and the U.S. has the time and leeway to pursue a variety of “carrot and stick” strategies that do not involve military action. [Bloomberg, 1/25/07]

Military action against Iran is unwise

There is widespread agreement that although some within the administration may be pushing for war, a strike on Iran would run significantly counter to U.S. interests in the current environment. Military action would spark even greater anti-US violence in Iraq. Iran might also escalate violence in the wider region and attack American targets using its own agents or Hezbollah. There would almost certainly be a negative public reaction from the Islamic world, and that reaction would circumscribe the ability of Arab governments to work with us on issues of common interest such as Iraq or the Middle East peace process. Further, we cannot guarantee that an air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would effectively set back the nuclear program. Based on the current state of that program, even a successful military operation sustained over many days might only set back the program by as little as two to four years.

Tough, no-nonsense diplomacy with Iran is working

This administration’s choices have often been more about posturing and rhetoric than effective engagement. Sadly, these actions are also inadvertently or consciously escalatory, possibly pushing America down a path toward a conflict that we neither want nor need. Following Ahmedinejad’s humiliating defeat in the Iranian elections in December, he was ferociously attacked (including in newspapers associated with Supreme Leader Khamenei) for having brought down sanctions on Iran. There is now a vigorous debate in Tehran over whether Iran’s nuclear program is worth the risk of additional international opprobrium. The diplomatic “carrots and sticks” seem to be working. Unfortunately, the administration’s ham-handed military posturing and rhetoric risk torpedoing these efforts and offering Ahmedinejad a reprieve. We should be fostering this debate with a mix of sanctions and diplomacy, not undermining it.