 |
|
As I noted in some earlier posts, part of what seems to make the issue of US foreign policy towards Iran so contentious is that it is largely conducted in secret, by back channel, and many of the players involved on the American side have staked out their positions so long ago, that their camps are now so hardened. But the issue is becoming very ripe again. Several events over the next few weeks are blowing some of the opacity away from the topic and renewing questions about if and how the US should deal with Iran, and bringing these questions to the fore for more open debate. The Center for American Progress held a small meeting on the topic of the security implications of a nuclear Iran today that I attended and will try to write more on later. But the one many in the city are anticipating is Monday's release of the report by the Council on Foreign Relations task force on Iran, led by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The NY Sun's Eli Lake runs down the issues the report raises in a piece today, that is worth reading:
The Council on Foreign Relations will recommend Monday that America negotiate with Iran in an effort to stabilize Iraq, end Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and capture members of Al Qaeda . . .
The report says America should pursue an offer Iran made last spring to American diplomats in Geneva to turn over some members of Al Qaeda to other countries, according to sources familiar with its contents.
In exchange, the report recommends that members of an anti-Iranian violent insurgency movement under custody of American forces in Iraq be sent to other countries to face prosecution for crimes against the Islamic republic.
Tehran originally asked for the 4,000 members of the Mujahadin e-Khalq to be rendered to their country, where State Department lawyers at the time feared they would be killed or tortured.
This advice comes as the State Department is negotiating the status of the MEK with the Iraqi interim government. A State Department spokeswoman Wednesday told The New York Sun,“We are working with interim Iraqi government and international organizations on the status of the MEK detainees. At these consultations we discuss methods to insure that the MEK members are treated in full accordance with international law and cannot pose a threat to individuals inside or outside Iraq.”
America’s support of a European initiative to entice Iran’s cooperation with nuclear inspectors through dialogue and trade has appeared to do nothing to blunt the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions.
Meanwhile, conditions for Iranians seeking a referendum on the powers of the Supreme Leader have worsened since February, when the country’s council of experts barred hundreds of reformist candidates from even running for office in the Majlis.
Last month, an interim report from the September 11 commission concluded that Al Qaeda sought and received training in Hezbollah training camps inside Iran and in southern Lebanon. The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, has also said his government has compiled recent evidence that Iranian agents have supported insurgents attacking American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
It is in this environment that the Council on Foreign Relations task force on Iran has called for increased engagement with the Islamic Republic and concluded that a counterrevolution ousting the mullahs from power is not likely, but recommends America invite more Iranian students and professionals to visit America through so-called people-to-people contacts . . .
Most of the members of the task force include foreign policy realists that have been longtime advocates for engaging rogue states. The task force includes President Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski; former defense secretary Frank Carlucci, who is also the chairman emeritus of the Carlyle Group; and the first President Bush’s director of central intelligence, Robert Gates . . .
The report’s recommendations for selective engagement echo in many ways the Clinton administration’s Iran policy in its last year in office. In 2000, Secretary of State Albright addressed a group of Iranian Americans and apologized for America’s clandestine efforts to catapult the Shah to power.
She then initiated a set of dialogues with Iran over their support for international terrorism; nuclear proliferation, and Afghanistan. The council’s report also recommends this approach . . .
The Iran hawks' position is skeptical (to put it kindly) of the realist-dominated CFR recommendation for more direct engagement with Iran. But there's at least two schools of Iran hawks. The Iran hawk realists, who think the US should offer Iran the threat of bigger sticks, and reward of bigger carrots, in focused negotiations on the nuclear issue. And then the "Faster, Please" school, who think we should further isolate the mullahs, and push for regime change, not by the threat of force, but through financial and moral support to opposition groups, independent broadcasters, etc. The irony of course is that the theory advocated by the "Faster" group borrows lock stock and barrel from the nonviolent revolution policy of Peter Ackerman pursued to great success by none other than Madeleine Albright (who the Iran hawks ridicule) and the Clinton administration against Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, who is now in the midst of his trial on war crimes at the Hague.
More on these issues later, but for now, go read the Lake piece.
MORE: Iran procuring dual use technology from Europe. This from Reuters today:
Western diplomats say recent intelligence reports show Iran has been attempting to buy items which could be used to build nuclear weapons -- a charge Tehran dismisses as baseless.The diplomats cited European customs information and intelligence gathered in the Middle East showing Tehran had tried to buy, among other things, high-speed switches that could potentially be used in a nuclear weapon and high-speed cameras the Iranians might use to test a nuclear explosion.
``They appear to be working on the planning for a high-speed nuclear implosion device,'' the diplomat said, adding that Iran had also been
experimenting with ``high explosive that would be appropriate for the core of a nuclear weapon.''A senior U.S. official told Reuters in Washington that these procurement efforts were part of an effort that has been going on for a long time. . .
The diplomats said their motivation for briefing Reuters was concern that France, Britain and Germany were enabling Iran to play for time while the trio struggle to find a way of enticing Tehran into fully suspending its uranium enrichment programme.
That last line is key. A battle between approaches is coming to the fore. But this "leak" is ammunition in a battle between the opposed American camps as much as one between the Europeans and Americans as far as I can tell. More on this soon.