I strongly agree with this op-ed by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett. Essentially, what the Leveretts -- Flynt is a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council; Hillary is a former director for Iran and Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council -- are calling for is a comprensive "grand bargain" with Iran. The gist of it is this:
*"Washington would promise that it would not use force to change Iran's borders or form of government."
*"...assuming that American concerns about Iran's nuclear activities, provision of military equipment and training to terrorist organizations, and opposition to a negotiated Arab-Israeli settlement were satisfactorily addressed, Washington would also pledge to end unilateral sanctions against Iran, re-establish diplomatic relations and terminate Tehran's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism."
*Iran would "disclos[e] all information relating to its atomic program, past and present, now being sought by the atomic energy agency, and [agree] to an intrusive inspections regime of any fuel cycle activities on Iranian soil."
*"Tehran would also have to issue a statement supporting a just and lasting settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on current United Nations Security Council resolutions."
*"Iran would also have to pledge to stop providing military supplies and training to terrorist organizations and to support the transformation of Hamas and Hezbollah into exclusively political and social-welfare organizations."
The consequences if we don't pursue intensive diplomacy along these lines? From Flynt Leverett's paper, "Dealing with Tehran: Assessing U.S. Diplomatic Options toward Iran:"
If Washington does not begin to pursue such an arrangement vigorously and soon, the window for this kind of strategic understanding between the United States and the Islamic Republic is likely to close. Under these circumstances, Iran's development of at least a nuclear weapons option in the next few years is highly likely.Thus, if it does not pursue a grand bargain with Tehran, the United States almost certainly will have to take up the more daunting and less potentially satisfying challenges of coping with a nuclear-capable Iran. And the standing of the United States in the world's most strategically critical region will continue its already disturbing decline.
I just hope the Bush Administration and 2008 White House contenders are listening to the Leveretts -- they know what they're talking about. Oh, one more point: this "grand bargain" strategy should not be subject to the vicissitudes of one (highly dubious) intelligence report or the other. Improved Iranian-U.S. relations along the lines the Leveretts lay out should be a long-term strategic goal for both countries, not a subject for scoring political points.
The one thing that gives me a modicum of hope is that Amadinejad is not in fact the Great Decider for Iran, he is subject to control by some cautious religious leaders; and Dubya is finding out that his own top military oppose him on the question of provoking a war with Iran. Thus, from these two limiting factors maybe we can slow the rush to war for 13 months until a new American President arrives in office.... of course, if that President is any of the current crop of Republican candidates, all bets are off. Everyone of them is on a macho tear, bellicose as ever, and even McCain cannot be relied upon to choose diplomacy and a change in Grand Strategy, I mean Strata-gery.