U. S. Policy Options and Iran: Realists Can Be Diplomats Too!

The comments posted about the previous article by a colleague of mine raised some interesting questions that deserve further consideration. 

Make no mistake about it. Iran will, sooner or later, possess nuclear capability. The capacity to reach U.S. soil with that capability remains to be seen and is currently, many years away. 

This conclusion is a simple one and not a stretch of the imagination when past behavior is looked at as the best predictor of future behavior. In this case, past Presidents were adamant about North Korea not acquiring nuclear weapons. Sanctions were useless and current estimates suggest the rogue state has between 7 and 11 nukes.Therefore, Washington needs to approach Iran's nuclear ambitions from a more realist perspective. 

The following are three possible policy options that take a diplomatic, but hard stance toward curbing Iran's ambitions.

Motivating  Moscow

The current tension between Washington and Moscow over Russia vetoing the U.N. Resolution requiring Syria's Assad Regime to step down could be an opportunity for the Obama Administration to win Russian support on the Iranian issue. 

Currently, Russia is in disagreement with how the U.S. is handling both Syria and Iran. Washington should make it clear to Moscow that they can't have their cake and eat it too. The U.S. should give Russia an ultimatum stating that the U.S. will militarily support a coup in Syria unless Moscow gives their full support of Iranian sanctions. Both the United States and Russia need to realize that diplomacy is not a zero sum game. You have to give a little to get a little.


Take Advantage of the Arab Spring

The overall importance of the Arab Spring has been under valued by the Obama Administration. While a return to the days of Pan-Arabism would be a concern for Israel, what is often over looked is the fact that it would be a concern for Tehran as well.

This was evidenced by President Ahmadinejad's failed attempt to tie the Arab Spring to the same embers that sparked the Iranian Revolution. 

Washington should capitalize on this by offering economic intensives and diplomatic relations with those states that back lashed against this claim.

Israel may object to this, but it should be noted that these states are not the ones pursuing nuclear capability.

 Focus on the Next Four Years

A defining feature of the presidential race is the strong rhetoric each of the candidates are putting forth as to how they would handle the Iranian problem. Most have disregarded diplomatic talks completely, assuring that nothing short of a military strike is the key to stopping Tehran. From the Iranian perspective, that means a 50-50 chance of a U.S. military strike within a year from now. This knowledge may increase Iran's desire to speed up the refinement process and foster less cooperation with inspectors.

A key attribute of Obama's Foreign Policy is that it is more multilaterally focused than the Bush Administration or those currently in the presidential running. While President Obama has not taken the military option off of the table, it is not the central idea. 

The Obama Administration, through open diplomatic talks, needs to address the problem in a way that shows Tehran they still have time to ease the economic sanctions by meeting diplomatic requests. Diplomatic time can be bought by increasing the frequency of statements assuring Tehran that the Obama Administration will be around for four more years. 

Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge J. O'Day for his insight into the not so effective influence of Pan-Arabism on Israel.