How to Engage Iran (If You Must)

Tehran has mastered the dark arts of deception and delay. Here’s how Obama can cut through the diplomatic fog and get results.

BY ILAN BERMAN | SEPTEMBER 8, 2009

After months of dithering and delay, the Iranian government appears to have grudgingly accepted the U.S. president's diplomatic overtures. Just shy of the deadline for dialogue set by the White House, the Islamic Republic has announced its readiness to offer new "proposals" for talks over its nuclear program.

The move is a political victory of sorts for Obama, who has made "engagement" with Iran a centerpiece of his Middle East policy. But it might end up being a Pyrrhic victory. If true to form, Iran will likely try to use the upcoming talks with Washington the same way it did previous ones with Europe -- as a way to play for time and add permanence to its nuclear project. For Obama to convince Iran's rulers that the costs of their nuclear effort will far outweigh the perceived benefits, talking alone won't be enough; the White House will need real leverage over Tehran.

This begins with economic pressure. Contrary to conventional wisdom about the inefficacy of sanctions, U.S. measures against Iranian banks and institutions have had a real impact on Tehran's ability to engage in international commerce in recent years. So much so that Iran's former finance minister, Davoud Danesh Jafari, warned his staff last spring before leaving office that the Iranian government had "embarked on a serious and breathtaking game of chess with America's Treasury Department." Such measures should be strengthened, and their potential scope expanded, as a way of preventing Iran's trading partners from concluding that the onset of negotiations represents a green light to return to "business as usual."

Also on the table is a gasoline embargo. Systematically targeting Iran's deep dependence on foreign refined petroleum may not be a silver bullet for changing Iran's behavior. But, given the latent vulnerabilities in Iran's energy sector (including a refining shortfall projected to continue until at least 2013 and flagging foreign direct investment), there is real reason to think that a gas embargo can be effective, if only in the near term. The same is true of steps that target Iran's ability to physically import and export energy, all of which are under consideration by the U.S. Congress.

But economic pressure alone will not suffice, particularly if Tehran thinks, as it appears to, that such pressure is Washington's only weapon. A credible threat of force is also necessary. As military professionals have stressed, a range of military options -- even if politically unpalatable -- is technically feasible. They are also essential to the success of U.S. diplomacy. Without such a coercive component, the Iranian regime will remain convinced that there are no consequences to its failure to change course. Iran's leaders need to know that the United States is aware of their strategic intentions and prepared to use force to stop them if necessary.

ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images

 

Ilan Berman is vice president for policy at the Washington-based American Foreign Policy Council and author of Winning the Long War: Retaking the Offensive Against Radical Islam.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

JAY GETTY

6:15 AM ET

September 9, 2009

Obama feels closer, ideologically, to Iran than Christian USA.

Obama feels Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. If Israel has nuclear weapons, surely Iran could have them!

That is reality. Deal with it or deal with the consequences of being in denial.

That explains Obama's iranian game plan: exactly.

 

HASS

1:01 AM ET

September 10, 2009

The REAL conflict being ignored

This conflict has nothing to do with nuclear weapons -- that's just misdirection. THe Iranians have offered to allow US and foreign governments to participate fully in their nuclear program, thus making it impossible for Iran to secretly develop nukes. The "weapons" scaremongering is intended to cover up something else: a long-standing conflict between developing and developed states over the control of nuclear fule production technology, the sole source of energy in the near future. Iran is simply being used as a sample to send the message that the developed nations will not allow other countries to obtain the know-how. They want to monopolize it for themselves. This conflict predates the controversy over Iran, and is why most of the countries of the world (developing nations) support Iran.

 

ABU DIS

12:19 AM ET

September 14, 2009

 

HASS

12:58 AM ET

September 10, 2009

Accept Iran's offers

Some people (partisans of Israel, mostly) want to see any engagement of Iran to fail, and so they insists on placing such burdens on talks in order to doom any opening to Iran. The fact is that Iran's nuclear program is massively popular among Iranians, regardless of their views of the regime, because Iranians resent foreign powers pushing them around and denying them their rights. There is zero evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and accusing Iran of stalling or playing for time is laughable when in 2003 they offered negotiations and the Bush administration ignored them. The Iranians have consistently offered to place additional voluntary restrictions on their nuclear program that go well beyong their legal obligations or what other nuclear-capable countries have accepted -- such as opening their program to multinational participation, an idea endorsed by international experts and the IAEA -- and yet the US ignored those offers and insists on depriving Iran of a legal right to enrich uranium, which is a non-starter in any negotiations.

 

JAY GETTY

6:46 PM ET

September 12, 2009

HASS is an Iranian Intelligence agent; talk about a tough sell!

HASS is an Iranian Intelligence agent; talk about a tough sell! G-d curse his/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mustache! achmatjihad