The first speaker, Mr. Michael Singh discussed the argument that Regional players in the Middle East/Persian Gulf are going to be key in working with Iran due to the mistrust Iran has with the West. He quickly followed that statement noting his personal skepticism that Iran’s neighbors will probably be just as lacking in influence as the West because it appears that Iran’s attention is on the West and has little regard for its neighbors.
Two basic statements that Singh laid out that the international community agrees on: Iran is undoubtedly seeking nuclear weapons; and a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to the region and to the world. Both of these statements have been made by the past few U.S. Presidents as well as countless policy experts. The U.S in cooperation with other nations has been using the characteristic carrot-and-stick approach. The carrot, to Singh, is the U.S. stating that Iran would benefit from greater regional cooperation if it gave up its aggressive behavior and nuclear weapon-seeking. The stick is just the opposite: continued lack of cooperation in the region and continual isolation from the world. Sanctions are clearly part of the stick.
Singh went on to state that Iran and other countries in the region are well aware of their own best interests and while the U.S. and others in the West have expressed that it would be in Iran and the region’s best interests if Iran ceased working to obtain nuclear weapons, Iran has just the opposite feeling. With U.S. troops already stationed strategically close to its borders in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and a consistent American policy that military action remains on the table, combined with the major upheaval last year after the fraudulent Iranian election, the Iranian regime is utterly apprehensive and sees the nuclear weapon as, really, their only security answer to perceived U.S./Western threats. Thus, nuclear weapons fit the Iranian regime’s security fears. Singh mentioned that Iran wants to join the nuclear club and its leaders have already publicly referred to Iran as a nuclear state and that it’s counting on the international community forgiving or adapting to Iran having nuclear weapons without much fuss; case in point, Pakistan.
The last thing this regime wants to do is sit down at the table-it rebuffed Obama’s (albeit brief) attempt at diplomacy last year. And, it has consistently preached against the West for decades. So, Singh proposed that the West start focusing on using time against the Iranian regime—since it is loath to use military might, although he acknowledged that it must be kept on the table. The past 7 years have been an example of impeding and delaying Iran’s nuclear program and the current administration is stepping up that tactic. The latest sanctions are meant to keep Iran on its back foot and give the U.S. a chance to cripple Iran’s economy while building regional cohesion. One of Iran’s biggest economic outputs-oil-is quickly depleting and the regime’s “gross economic mismanagement” has only caused further economic distress.
Finally, Singh stated that the U.S. should continue to support human rights and democracy within Iran in order to remain connected to the cause of many of the Iranian people.
Mr. Trita Parsi then took the floor and began with addressing the question: What went wrong in Iran last year? Just after Obama extended diplomatic gestures and a few letters were exchanged, fraudulent elections occurred and Iran was thrown into internal chaos for several months. Although many in the West admired the protestors marching for democracy and freedom, this chaotic time, said Parsi, was actually the worst thing that could have happened for U.S.-Iran policy. The regime felt threatened not only from without, but also from within and took drastic, murderous action to ensure its own longevity. Iran shrank from engaging with the West and the distrust of the West only increased. He stated that “in the absence of trust and confidence, no matter what the mutual benefits may be for two countries to get along, it is incredibly difficult to get them to sit down together and agree on anything.” He stated that the imminent sanctions have only increased Iran’s talk about taking military action. The international community has expressed exhaustion with the Iranian regime and thus, political will has faltered. Parsi argued for convincing Iran rather than coercing Iran; yet, he acknowledged that it is impossible to convince anyone if there is no trust. Thus, he urged that diplomacy continue in the form of promoting human rights in Iran. Rather than focusing on the nuclear issue, the West should turn to human rights issues, a topic much more important to and welcomed by the Iranian people and who have shown they are ready for regime change. Finally, he noted that because of massive distrust on both sides, both sides are left to guess what the final intentions and end goals are: Iran and the U.S./West have never stated what specifically they want in an agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment