Britain's
Guardian newspaper is reporting that
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
Now, I find this conclusion rather dubious at this point and would have a great time pointing out the flaws in the article's argument, my time is better spent asking the following question: Why do the solutions to foreign policy issues have to be viewed through a prism of either diplomacy or military action? Why can't problems like this be viewed through a both/and prism instead (much like President Clinton's bombings of Yugoslavia to bring the Serbs back to the negotiating table in the mid-1990's)?
In this instance, there is tension on several fronts between the United States and Iran, from Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program, to Iranian interference in Iraq and Afghanistan. It goes without saying that given the military position of the United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a full scale war with the mullahs is undesirable, though it may become necessary if a negotiated settlement of the issues cannot be reached (color me highly skeptical at best).
Now, in order for a diplomatic settlement to be efficacious in bringing these U.S.-Iran crises to an end which secures the interests of the United States and her allies, Iran has to see such a settlement as being in its best interests, and the United States needs to be able to
trust the Iranians. Given how things have progressed so far, neither of those conditions is present. Ali Larijani continues to stall the Europeans while the Iranian nuclear program continues unabated (while Russia and China give their tacit approval), and Iran continues to support both Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Shiite militias there, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan (never mind their alliance with Syria and their support for the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah).
This is where the military element comes into play. If the United Sates were to declare the right of hot pursuit into Iran (including tracing supply lines to their source an eliminating them), Iran would be paying a price for their interference in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, Iran could either escalate or capitulate (neither a very attractive option), unless the United States offers them the out of a negotiated settlement whereby Iran ceases its interference in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the United States ceases its incursions into Iran (reserving the right to resume them should Iran's interference in Iraq and/or Afghanistan resume, of course).
Two effects should result from this: Iran's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan would cease (or at least be severely curtailed), and the United States will have shown the will to use her power to secure her interests, giving her a newfound credibility on the international stage. This can then be brought to bear in the Iranian nuclear crisis, where the threat of military action (unilateral, if necessary) can be used to buy breathing room to reach a diplomatic settlement (i.e. either Iran ceases its uranium enrichment immediately and verifiably, or the United States does it for them, even if that means Israel hitting Syria). Furthermore, if the United States makes it clear that any breach of a resulting agreement by Iran will be viewed as an act of war, Iran will have a rather powerful incentive to abide by any agreement reached.
Of course, diplomacy isn't just about beating people over the head with sticks (or threatening to do so), it's also about offering them benefits. In this case, it seems reasonable to me that the United States should publicly announce its desire to reach a solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis, preferably diplomatically and offer direct negotiations with the Iranians with the understanding that a refusal by Tehran to negotiate will indicate that they are not willing to resolve this diplomatically, which will be viewed by Washington as a
causus belli. And because a relationship of trust must be established between the parties, the United States, as a gesture of goodwill, will reestablish its embassy in Tehran (with adequate security, of course), provided Tehran reciprocates by immediately suspending uranium enrichment in a verifiable manner.
The major objection to this move would be that it does too much to prop up, the oppressive, hostile, tottering mullahcracy in Tehran and would lead to greater oppression of the Iranian people. What's more, even if Tehran shuts down what we know about, they surely have more we don't know about. The second point is almost certainly true, and the second one could very well be, but it doesn't have to be in the long run or even the medium run. The United States should use her embassy for diplomatic purposes, yes, but she should also use it to broadcast Voice of America to the Iranian people and as a base to establish a human intelligence network within the Iranian government. Also, as negotiations progress, the United States should borrow from President Reagan's playbook and insist upon human rights provisions (e.g. the release of political prisoners) as a prerequisite to any deal. If done effectively, these should give us better knowledge of what the mullahs are doing and help undermine their grip on the Iranian people.
Would something like this work? I don't know. It's easy to lay out something like this on a blog, it's another thing entirely to have to make it happen. Still, I don't see why an effectively integrated military/diplomatic approach focused on results over process can't succeed.
Powered by ScribeFire.
