Talk to Iran

By: Cyrus Bina and Sam Gardiner

Saturday, July 5, 2008

The Washington Times

Markets have been watching every move of President Bush and the Israeli government to decipher whether war with Iran is in the making. Few expected, however, that the equivalent of a green light for war would come from our Democratic-controlled Congress. That is what Congress is preparing to do through a resolution calling for a de facto naval blockade in the Persian Gulf to prohibit Iran from importing refined petroleum products.

The last time the United States imposed a blockade on another country was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy labeled the move “quarantine” because he understood a blockade to be universally regarded as an act of war. Yet, a blockade is exactly what many politicians are considering in Washington and elsewhere.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly suggested the idea to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during a recent meeting, and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain alluded to the same during his speech at the America Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington. With hardly a word of opposition, Congress is poised to pass a resolution calling on the president to enact such a blockade, possibly as early as next week. This is a de facto capitulation of the legislative body to the Bush administration.

If they choose to pass this resolution, Congress will make a bad situation worse not only for the American economy, but also for stability in Middle East.

Among factors contributing to short-term oil prices are supply and demand, market speculation and the value of the dollar. Risk of a natural or political catastrophe jeopardizes the production and flow of oil which also plays a major role in the price Americans will have to pay at the pump.

Take, for example, the market´s reaction to Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz´s statement last month that an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites may be “unavoidable.” That statement has been blamed for the largest single-day rise in the price of oil in history - $11 a barrel.

For each instance of tough talk, money is grabbed directly out of the pockets of American taxpayers and sent to oil-producing states - including, of course, Iran.

A declaration from Congress calling on the president to take such drastic action before direct diplomacy even begins would likely fuel even greater uncertainty in the oil sector. And, why shouldn’t it? The Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf is the strategic chokepoint for nearly 40 percent of the world’s oil exports. By recommending a naval blockade in the Persian Gulf, Congress could likely be responsible for oil prices approaching $200 a barrel, which translates to nearly $7.50 a gallon of gas.

Even more significant is the impact such a move would have on the region´s stability. The mere mention of another war in the Middle East sets nerves on edge, and blockading Iran would create a tinderbox where even a small incident could erupt into a conflagration. To say nothing of the fact that a blockade is a prima facie act of war under international law.

Proponents of the naval blockade resolution argue that sanctions and diplomacy have failed, and that the naval blockade is the next step short of war.

They are wrong on both counts: Proper diplomacy - direct talks between the U.S. and Iran - has neither failed nor succeeded, because it has yet to be tried. And the blockade is not a step short of war; it is war. It virtually guarantees military confrontation causing unnecessary casualties on both sides.

The solution to the impasse over Iran’s nuclear program will be found not by creating a situation that ensures military confrontation, but through direct diplomacy.

Negotiations are the only way for the international community to guarantee that Iran maintains its nuclear program for civilian use while also preventing another disastrous war that will undoubtedly further destabilize the Middle East.

Time is not neutral in this equation. Nor is it on the side of America or Iran. Time is on the side of war. This scenario, as disastrous as it sounds, assumes that bullying Iran will cause Tehran to stop enrichment altogether. The likely scenario, however - and according to keen observers - is that it is a preamble to war.

For each day that passes without dialogue, the world is brought closer to another war in the Middle East - paid first by Americans at the gas pumps, and eventually, American lives and treasure.

Cyrus Bina, distinguished research professor of Economics at the University of Minnesota, is the author of “The Economics of the Oil Crisis.” Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel, has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College.

From all of us here at NIAC, happy Independence Day!

If you haven’t read it yet, take the time to read Seymour Hersh’s blockbuster article in The New Yorker about US covert activities in Iran. 

This article is important for a number of reasons.  At the very least, it should be read because Seymour Hersh is an investigative journalist in a class by himself–he received a Pulitzer Prize during Vietnam for breaking the story of the My Lai massacre, he uncovered much of what we know about the Abu Ghraib scandal, he broke the story of last year’s Israeli strike on a Syrian nuclear site, and most recently he has revealed valuable information about US covert activities in Iran. 

And his current article, “Preparing the Battlefield,” makes a few surprising and significant observations.  The first and most striking for many of us is a number: 400 million.  That’s how much money the US has authorized for covert operations in Iran.  The purpose — and here Hersh cites what’s called a Presidential Finding signed by President Bush – is to destabilize Iran’s religious leadership and gather intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program. 

NIAC has long opposed a proposal for $60 million for these purposes; now we hear that Congress authorized over 6.5 times that much through classified procedures.  And it might surprise you (or not) to hear where this money is going: to covert activities supporting Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups, with the chance that some could also go to three known terrorist entities, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), PJAK, and Jundallah. 

For expert commentary on Hersh’s article, check out Laura Rozen’s blog War and Piece, particularly this post. 

This news is tragic enough by itself, but it comes at exactly the time when it appears a major breakthrough on Iran’s nuclear program is drawing near.  Former Iranian foreign minister and foreign policy advisor to the Supreme Leader Ali Akbar Velayati has hinted that Iran might accept the most recent offer by the P5+1 to suspend its uranium enrichment program.  This would pave the way for a diplomatic solution to the current standoff.  Check out Trita’s analysis of the latest news here.  And also read the comments by the eminent Iran scholar Gary Sick here. 

This also follows news that the Bush administration has been considering creating a US interest section in Iran, which would open up the first diplomatic channel between the US and Iran in nearly three decades. 

In all, it’s been a pretty busy week, and that’s not even including news of the plans for a blockade (up to 224 cosponsors now…), Trita’s newest op-ed with former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami in the Christian Science Monitor, or NIAC’s fund-raising efforts. 

Anyway, there’s a lot going on, but we’re not too busy to say one last thing: Happy 4th of July!

Yesterday I posted a blog entry praising Rep. Waxman’s (D-CA-30) constituency for making the Congressman aware of their views on the current Iran situation. In an interview, the Congressman seemed to have a good grip on the thoughts of his constituency. His recent actions, however, make me question whether or not the opinions of his Iranian American constituents actually play a role in his cognition.

Rep. Waxman recently became a co-sponsor (one of about 220) of H.Con.Res. 362, made infamous for its ‘demand’ of the President to, in not so many words, create a naval blockade in the Persian Gulf. In a meeting yesterday between NIAC’s Assistant Legislative Director Patrick Disney and Rep. Waxman’s Senior Legislative Associate, it was revealed to us that the Congressman intends to remain a cosponsor of the bill. Apparently, Rep. Waxman and other cosponsors – including Reps. Ackerman and Pence who introduced the bill – don’t see it as an act of war.

Waxman’s LA echoed Ackerman and Pence’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letter, re-affirming their belief that the bill does not call for a blockade of Iran. They point to a caveat in the bill that states ‘Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.’ It’s likely that the US’s ‘prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products’ would be seen by the Iranians at the very least as an illegal act of aggression, most likely an act of war. This is because enforcing the prohibition of petroleum shipments to Iran would require imposing a naval blockade.

Other troubling elements of the bill include ‘imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran’ (note to the small number of tourists and ex-pats that travel to Iran regularly: this includes you). This plan targets ordinary Iranian people more than the Iranian government, and will empower the hardline elements of the regime. The US would lose the hearts and minds of the Iranian people, one of our greatest strategic assets and a bulwark against anti-Americanism in the region.

Furthermore, ‘prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program’ is completely illegal, as the bill provides for no exceptions, including diplomats not on the nuclear negotiating team.

This is quite disappointing, to say the least. Rep. Waxman is an ally of the Iranian American community, but it seems like – certainly on this one – he has fallen prey to the influence of the war-hawks.

The Congressman’s staffer hinted that Rep. Waxman might be making a floor speech clarifying his beliefs about the bill in the near future.

The mark-up session for the bill is scheduled for next week. Changes to the language and/or content are possible either before or during the mark-up.  Time will tell the outcome. What is certain is that the story of H.Con.Res. 362 is not over yet.

This video was created by justforeignpolicy.org as part of All the Shah’s Men author Stephen Kinzer’s ‘The Folly of Attacking Iran: Time for Real Diplomacy’ tour, and was co-sponsored by 30 coalition partners, including NIAC. Though it was produced in February, it maintains relevancy as Congress continues to debate Iran policy. The video includes commentary by Iran expert Barbara Slavin, retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and NIAC President Dr. Trita Parsi.

Ever heard of a couple choosing to vacation at nuclear energy sites? Your answer is probably no but that is exactly what husband and wife, Nathan Hodge and Sharon Weinberger, decided to do when writing their book A Nuclear Family Vacation: Travels in the World of Atomic Weaponry. In addition to visiting sites in America and Russia, they traveled to Iran in 2007 after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s 2006 invitation when he welcomed students, tourists and other visitors to see Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to display his country’s peaceful intentions.

The couple, both of who are defense analysts – Hodge writes for Jane’s Defence Weekly and Weinberger writes for Wired’s national security blog, Danger Room – spoke about their trip to the Esfahan Uranium Conversion Facility at an event hosted by the Center for National Policy last Thursday.

When they considered traveling to Iran Weinberger and Hodge knew they would not be given free reign. Weinberger recognized that Iranian officials would “show you the things they want you to see…(and) point out the things they want to point out.” However, they wanted to view nuclear facilities in states perceived by the West as national security threats; the level of access they could gain in Iran was greater than was available in India or Pakistan.

In Iran they were taken on a two-day tour of Esfahan. They travelled in a group, the majority of which was diplomats from other Middle Eastern countries. They spent one day at the Esfahan Conversion Facility and the second touring the city. Weinberger and Hodge said Esfahan was rich in culture and the tour served to display what would be destroyed if the US decided to bomb the area.

It was clear to them that on an official state level “there were people who most definitely didn’t want us to be there.” However, this attitude was not present on the ground. They felt there was “a great deal of happiness” shown by Iranian civilians when they saw Americans. Weinberger said that she sensed a “frustration (amongst Iranians) with their own government for being cut off from the rest of the world.”

Whilst in Tehran the couple wanted to visit the US Embassy, the site of the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. Upon hearing this, Iranian people tried to dissuade them. This was not due to anti-Americanism but because Iranians felt ashamed of what had happened. Weinberger said that the American Embassy evoked “embarrassment for a great deal of – especially educated – Iranians.”

In addition to visiting Esfahan they met various Iranian politicians and representatives from non-profit organizations. As Americans, they were constantly asked about potential airstrikes on Iran. It was emphasized that Iran would not give into US demands to stop enrichment and that an airstrike would result in a deterioration of oil transportation, regional instability and an Iranian withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The abandonment of the NPT would end IAEA oversight and Hodge argued this would, “only lead to a worsening of the situation.”

Such observations are extremely pertinent given recent reports expressing the likelihood of Israeli airstrikes on Iran between the upcoming US election and January, when the new President will be sworn in.

The couple seemed pessimistic about the chances of stemming Iran’s nuclear development. On a popular level they recognized that the government had “drummed up a lot of public support” for nuclear energy and banners in the streets read “Nuclear Energy is a Right.” They also commented there was a strong feeling that the Iranian government “has the right…to develop their own indigenous capability,” because it is provided for in the NPT.

However, they expressed doubt about how receptive the Iranian public would be to a nuclear weapons program, as opposed to the development of nuclear energy. Weinberger said, “there is probably not a lot of public support for a nuclear program” after people fell victim to chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). She indicated this sentiment might change if there were airstrikes on Iran.

They also saw the costs of Iran’s economic isolation from the West. Hodge said, “sanctions certainly are effective in slowing down Iran’s nuclear program” but he did not see them as successfully discouraging Iran’s progress in this field. He noted that uranium enrichment has become “too important an issue of national pride for the Iranian government to give up.” Weinberger added that the nuclear program also provides a useful way for the government to distract attention from its own economic mismanagement and corruption.

Addressing what America’s next move should be in relation to Iran, the nuclear tourists said that “destroying Iran’s nuclear capability is impossible.” Its nuclear facilities are spread throughout the country and Iranian officials told them that airstrikes would only set them back a couple of years. Therefore, Weinberger argued, unless the US wants to bomb Iran every few years a bombing strategy is not the best way forward and America must “think of the long term consequences.”

In an interview published last Monday, US Congressman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA30), whose district boasts a very large number of Iranian Americans, stated that he’s getting “mixed messages” from our community on how to deal with the Iran situation, but recent polling has shown that on the whole there is very minimal support for military action in the Iranian American community.

It is important for our community to recognize the power it does have in changing and influencing the opinions of their members of Congress. This interview is just the latest clear example that they are listening to us and making judgements, in part, based on our opinions.

Rep. Waxman stressed that it is important to ‘pursue direct discussions,’ but he noted that it would be ‘wishful thinking’ to expect positive results. The threat of war, the Representative stated, must never be taken off the table, because it is ‘something you want on their minds’. He stated that ‘the next administration would need the full range of talks, sanctions, coalitions with the other countries, and the threat of war to resist Iran’s nuclear ambitions.’

The Congressman has endorsed presumptive Democratic Presidential Candidate Sen. Barack Obama and has said a future Democratic administration might try to re-open the 2003 ‘Grand Bargain’ proposal from Iran that the United States flatly rejected. When asked why American politicians rejected the offer, Rep. Waxman only stated Democrats would re-visit the proposal, having seen it as a ‘missed opportunity’.

In the interview he was also directly asked about his Iranian American constituency.

IPS: What is the message that you’re getting from the Iranian-American community in your constituency?

HW: I get very mixed messages from my constituents became some say don’t even talk to these guys, we don’t want to work out anything with them — we want a regime change. And then more often than that, I get ‘don’t go to war, don’t use military against Iran, that would be the worst thing to do’. [On the other hand], my Jewish constituents do not like the fact that he [Obama] wants to talk [to Iran].

It is refreshing to see a representative who recognizes the complexity of our community (his constituents) and has taken note of where the majority opinion is.  What is important to recognize is that he is listening and he is and can be influenced by what his constituents tell him.  Although Rep. Waxman’s constituency includes some of the more ‘hawkish’ Iranian Americans, most still prefer a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff.

In January, UC Berkeley professor Dr. Dariush Zahedi published ‘Political Attitudes and Patterns of Political Participation of Iranian Americans in California’, a scientific poll, which showed that there is minimal support for military action on Iran, and 66% of Iranian Americans favor diplomacy. One can conclude that the views of Iranian Americans across the country is even more anti-war because California’s Iranian American population is seen as relatively more hawkish than the community as a whole.

Indeed, at a NIAC fundraiser in Los Angeles in early March, many Iranian Americans – including a handful from Rep. Waxman’s district - stressed the need for talks between the US and Iran.

With respect to all Americans, a recent Gallup poll shows that 59% of Americans support the US President meeting with the President of Iran, and 67% of Americans support the US engaging with its enemies. This clearly demonstrates the American people’s support of solving the Iranian nuclear puzzle diplomatically rather than militarily.

It is crucial that the silent majority drown out the vocal minority. Iranian Americans must take action and engage in order to make their voices heard. Apathy is not an option. We all live now in a place where we CAN speak out on issues that affect and concern us, and we should not take that for granted. Citizens can easily call or email their representative’s offices to make their views known. Organizations like NIAC are here to serve their communities by expressing these views to members of Congress and their staff.

_________

California’s 30^th District includes Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Westlake Village, Westwood, Bel-Air, Pacific Palisades, Topanga, Malibu, and Woodland Hills.

On June 23, panelists at the Partnership for a Secure America discussion on “Bipartisan Foreign Policy for January 2009” demanded bipartisan national security policy in the next presidential administration.

The panel, which featured Ambassador Tom Pickering, Undersecretary of State, 1997-2000; Robert McFarlane, National Security Advisor, 1983-85; and Frederick Barton, senior adviser in the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ International Security Program, called for U.S. national security reform that clearly defines U.S. strategic interests, abandons party lines, and builds consensus between and among policymakers and the American public.

“Paralysis” cripples Democrats and Republicans when they solely pursue partisan goals, McFarlane said. He argued that bipartisanship has historically yielded considerable progress, pointing to cross-party efforts against communism during the Cold War era as an example. “There are no fundamental philosophical differences between the two parties,” McFarlane noted, but on certain issues, there apparently remains “a certain political advantage to taking the opposing view.”

Pickering and Barton agreed on the need for a shift in national security policy development. Calling for major policy reform, Pickering argued that one important step is the creation of a bipartisan commission to consult with the president on national security issues.

Barton focused on the coming administration’s obligation to re-engage the American people: “Unless the population thinks we are doing good [things], they will pull back [from public life],” he warned, calling on Washington to shape a “fresh narrative” that “balance[s] fear and opportunity.”

The conversation quickly turned to an issue that often thwarts such bipartisan initiatives: U.S. policy in Iraq and the greater Middle East. The panelists argued that the U.S.’s Middle East approach must involve what McFarlane called “sustained, full-time, consultative planning” to overcome oversights that resulted from poor policy development in the past.

“Consensus starts with the American and Iraqi people,” Barton said of U.S.-Iraq policy. He called for a target date for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, and looked to non-political exchanges as avenues for bipartisan regional progress, observing that various elements of American society, such as American-style university education and U.S.-produced technology, are taking hold in the Middle East.

“It would be profoundly wrong to set a date,” McFarlane said of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, disagreeing with Barton. He argued that the U.S. needs to define its own interests in the Middle East, but realize that a U.S. presence in Iraq is still vital to regional security. “There is a uniquely strong animus to foreign presence,” he said of Middle Eastern sentiment, “but neither can there be a vacuum,” which he argued rushed withdrawal would create.

With Iraq’s neighbor Iran, McFarlane said that the next president cannot make diplomatic engagement of Iran his first action. “The U.S. ability to engage is much better after disciplined planning,” which he said the next administration needs before engagement in order to fully understand U.S. goals. McFarlane noted the importance of soft power initiatives similar to those Barton endorsed in the greater Middle East. He called for better U.S. broadcasting efforts, exchange programs, and other similar initiatives to solidify U.S. cultural leverage among the younger, pro-Western generations in Iran.

Championing immediate diplomacy in both countries was Pickering. “Absent part of the equation in Iraq has been a sustained diplomatic effort,” Pickering said. He underscored the need for major regional players Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, other key UN countries, and the U.S. to join in consensus-building and solution formation in the Middle East. “The U.S. is not strong enough to put things back on track alone,” he cautioned.

Regarding Iran, Pickering continued his calls for robust diplomatic action. Calling for substantive, direct talks between the U.S. and Iran, he acknowledged the ideological appeal but practical counter-productivity of keeping Iran’s uranium suspension as a precondition for talks.

“Preconditions, as laudable as they are as a context,” he said, “are standing in the way of diplomacy.” Pickering contended that “to ensure permanence” of U.S. policy proposals and international solutions in the Middle East, diplomacy is indispensable.

Despite their differing views on some of the issues discussed, the panelists overwhelmingly agreed that to uphold U.S. national security interests the next administration must facilitate consensus in Washington. Whether Democrat or Republican, their message to the next administration was, “You can’t do it alone.”

The “Opposing Military Intervention in Iran” Resolution passed through the International Affairs Committee, 7-5, at the US Conference of Mayors last Friday. This event is currently being held in Miami, Florida and the resolution needed to be voted out of committee in order to reach the Conference floor. The full floor vote was scheduled for this morning at 10am E.S.T. but the results have yet to be released.

The committee’s passage of the resolution was an important development in the case against war with Iran. It is another indication that the public do not want military action to be taken against Iran. The members of the International Affairs Committee who argued against this resolution did not base their logic on national interest. Instead their objections rested more on the desire not to divide the Conference. It has been reported that they did not want to create debate and disruption among the mayors gathered in Miami and cause a repeat of the “Iraq: Bring the Troops Home” resolution which led to a two hour debate during last year’s meeting.

However, I cannot see how these arguments hold any validity. Should there always be consensus? Is it better to ignore an issue that has the potentiality of war rather than addressing it head on? I would argue no on both counts. It should not matter if the Conference splits because this is representative of the US, which as a democracy embraces a multiplicity of worldviews. Moreover, if by debating the resolution, a two hour discussion ensues then I would see this as a positive occurrence. There can be nothing better than for all outlooks, ideas and alternatives to war to be put out into the open. Even if talking is slow-moving and tedious, it will allow all options to be considered. Thus one hopes that final decision will be well-informed and the best course of action will be selected. Therefore the mayors should not shy away from addressing the issue of war with Iran; instead such robust debate should be encouraged. The same goes for the rest of our politicians as well as us, the public.

Even more important, it is possible that, by not talking about the possibility of war with Iran, it could appear that America is implicitly agreeing with the warmongering cries for military action to be taken against Iran. By staying quiet, nobody will ever know how you feel. By allowing the Conference of Mayors to discuss the Iran resolution, the International Affairs Committee has given mayors from all over the country the opportunity to voice their opinions and the opinions of their constituents. Twenty City Councils have already passed resolutions promoting diplomacy rather than war with Iran. This gives these cities’ mayors the chance to lend further weight to their actions and highlight the fact that this is a nation-wide feeling, not simply one that exists in isolated pockets of the country.

By debating this resolution in the general conference I hope that the momentum for diplomacy rather than war will continue to grow. Already we have seen grassroots campaigns, such as the Coalition for a New American Policy in Iran, promoting peaceful relations and I have heard esteemed academics advise against conflict between the US and Iran. If the Conference of Mayors addresses this resolution it will move the effort for diplomacy past civil society and into the sphere of elected politics. The next level to take the debate would be onto the floors of Congress.

There is still time to let your mayor know your views – it is never too late. Click here to contact him/her now.