WHY NOT PURSUE THE BEST AVAILABLE OPTION TO PREVENT AN IRANIAN NUCLEAR WEAPON AND A WAR WITH IRAN? 

In a nutshell:

   The mainstream media emphasize only sanctions or war as the way to deal with Iran, while the best available option receives almost no coverage. As explained below, sanctions will not work and could be a prelude to a disastrous and counterproductive war. So far, Western offers of negotiation, narrowly focused on the nuclear issue, have excluded any acknowledgement of Iran’s insistence on its NPT right to enrich Uranium. As far as Iran is concerned, this is a dead end, and it is no surprise that “negotiations” to date have failed. On the other hand, if we allowed Iran to enrich Uranium for peaceful purposes but only along with intrusive and vigorous inspections, we could have a deal that effectively eliminates the possibility of a clandestine nuclear weapon. Arms control experts say this would provide far more security for Israel and the US than we have now. The US could also offer incentives such as lifting of sanctions and security guarantees. This arrangement is best set in the context of an overall rapprochement between the US and Iran, including areas of mutually beneficial cooperation (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, and drug smuggling). This “grand bargain” would reinforce the nuclear agreements.

   Peace Action activists need to get this message into the media and to their national legislators, before it is too late.  We must not allow “sanctions or war” thinking to prevail, because war could be the result.  For those interested, further background reading is listed at the end.  

KEY POINTS FOR ACTIVISTS: 

1. What is Iran up to? No one knows for sure whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons, because uranium enrichment can be for energy or other nonmilitary purposes or for a nuclear weapon.  Numerous press reports and political statements mislead us by converting statements of real concern or lack of knowledge by intelligence agencies into assertions of a weapons program. Example: Fox News featured a report entitled “CIA: Iran moving closer to nuclear weapon” when the actual report (covering through Dec. 2009) says “Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so”.  The process of uranium enrichment is one of the more confusing terms being used in various IAEA reports and subsequently news sources. Uranium for peaceful use is usually less than 5% enriched (except 20% for medical isotopes). Uranium for weapons purposes needs to exceed 70%, enrichment, usually falling in the range of 80-90%. As noted below, the cure for uncertainty about Iran’s nuclear program is not hostile action, but rather intrusive inspections to insure against real nuclear weapon development. US intelligence now confirms that if the Iranian government decided to pursue a weapons program, it would likely take them 3-5 years to produce a workable bomb. There is ample time for serious diplomacy to work.    

Americans should have learned to avoid jumping to the wrong conclusions from the phony hype of Iraqi WMD that became accepted wisdom. As far as existential threats to Israel, many eminent Israeli leaders (e.g. Defense Minister Barak, former Mossad leader Halevy, and former Prime Minister Livni) openly dispute the assertion that Iran would be suicidal enough to launch a nuclear attack on Israel. Ahmadinejad himself said on CNN that he would accept any arrangement (with Israel) that Palestinians approved by vote, implying a reluctant acceptance of Israel under appropriate circumstances. 

2. Sanctions will not work. Sanctions have failed over 30 years to alter Iranian behavior and policy, and according to most Iran experts, more of the same are unlikely to do better. Iran always finds ways to diminish the effects, such as internal technologic development, deals with countries such as Turkey, China and Russia, or through smuggling or laundering of money.  The regime could actually benefit from a sanctions economy, while sanctions hurt regular Iranians.  Iranians, whether progressive or conservative, are united in insisting on their NPT right to enrich uranium. They are sensitive and resistant to foreign pressure after a long history of Western and Russian interference. Tensions with the United States date back to the well-documented CIA-supported overthrow of the democratically elected government in 1953. This anti-colonialialism bolsters popular resistance against what is seen as bullying by Western countries on the nuclear issue.  Sanctions provide an opportunity for an unpopular regime to rally the population against outside threats. Leaders of Iran’s Green Movement have spoken out strongly against broad sanctions, saying they will hurt common people and strengthen the hardliners. 

3. Military action won’t work and the consequences will be disastrous.

Military and intelligence experts point out that it would be difficult to knock out the known nuclear sites, and that there may be many unknown sites as well. At best, an attack might delay Iran’s nuclear efforts a few years, but at the same time, it would  encourage the Iranian government to pursue a crash weapons program. Just as before the Iraq war, the most ardent advocates of attacking Iran focus on the immediate effects of bombing but ignore the long term consequences. It is widely accepted, and has been stated by administration officials, that a military attack on Iran would be disastrous. If Israel attacks Iran alone, America would be quickly drawn in by Iranian counterattacks in Israel and possibly the Persian Gulf, so there is no such thing as an independent Israeli attack without dire consequences for the US.  

   Peace activists must continually raise the issue of long term consequences, exactly because most Americans are unaware of them. Military action against Iran may lead to attacks on American troops and sailors in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, and greater instability in these countries, deepening and prolonging America’s painful involvement. Other consequences are likely to include soaring oil prices, increased terrorist recruitment and activity, indefinite termination of any Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and instability of so-called “moderate” Arab allies by an outraged “street” population.  

4. There is a far better option than the above: realistic and broad-based negotiations (as opposed to those which make demands totally unacceptable to Iran). On the nuclear issue, this would include limitation of or international participation in Iranian uranium enrichment in return for intrusive inspections. Many arms control experts and Middle East diplomats favor this solution, which has received little media attention. Yet Iran has from time to time, in both formal and informal venues, expressed interest in this option. It would satisfy Iran’s insistence on its right to enrich uranium, at the same time as it would give inspectors greater transparency and access on short notice to suspected facilities.  Better yet, these negotiations should be part of a broader cooperative arrangement where Iran and the US have shared interests: in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, improving oil and natural gas supplies, interdicting the enormous opium trade from Afghanistan to Iran to Europe, countering jihadist extremists, and possibly in negotiating a sustainable Israel-Palestinian treaty. By wedding the nuclear negotiations to others in which Iran has a strong self-interest, there is a far greater chance that any agreements will be carried out and sustained. 

WHAT SHOULD ACTIVISTS DO?

1. Try to engage in productive discussion by first agreeing that no one wants Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Then ask what the other person thinks would effectively deal with Iran’s nuclear program. If they advocate sanctions or military attack, explain (see above) why sanctions have not worked andwon’t work, and lay out the long-term disasters of a military attack (including the possibility that it will actually drive Iran to build nuclear weapons). Then bring up item 4 as the “least bad” or “best available” option, which most people have not heard of.

2. Support negotiations truly without any preconditions (e.g. cessation of Uranium enrichment) but which include the security proposal above as well as a broad range of issues where there are common US and Iranian interests.

3. Write letters to the Editor or on blogs, especially in response to misleading information or to hype for sanctions or military action, again and again pointing out the utter failure of sanctions. the disasters of military action, and the practicality of the “best available” option. Also ask for more media coverage of this option.

4. Contact Congress and Senate members in your state – best of all, through personal contact, next best through your own letters. Go to meetings where your Congress or Senate representative is speaking, and, as appropriate, raise the points above.  

RECOMMENDED READING:

BACKGROUND AND SUPPORT FOR STATEMENTS ABOVE 

General Reference:

*Thinking About the Unthinkable: A U.S.-Iranian Deal

March 1, 2010 By George Friedman

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100301_thinking_about_unthinkable_usiranian_deal

{analysis by highly respected Stratfor intelligence agency expert outlining why sanctions won’t work, military action will be unsuccessful and have a terrible aftermath, and the need for a grand bargain between US and Iran on common interests}  

1. Why sanctions, including “crippling sanctions”, won’t work to change Iran’s policies. 

*Sanctioning Iran: if only it were so simple

by Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy The Washington Quarterly  Jan2010 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2010/01_iran_sanctions_maloney/01_iran_sanctions_maloney.pdf  {in particular, pages 138-146 detail why sanctions on Iran, though sometimes creating painful effects, have repeatedly failed to change Iran’s deeply held policy objectives} 

*Why Economic Sanctions on Iran will Fail

by Juan Cole, Professor History at the University Of Michigan, Middle East expert and author fluent in Arabic and Persian

April 19, 2010, http://www.juancole.com/2010/04/why-economic-sanctions-on-iran-will-fail.html  {focus on why proposed “crippling” sanctions on refined petroleum will fail} 

India rebuffs US call to shun Iran gas talks

April 3, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/16-india+rebuffs+us+call+to+shun+iran+gas+talks-hs-03

{An example of self-defeating aspects of our sanctions policy: US tries to squelch the so-called “Peace pipeline” between Iran, Pakistan and India even though it would help foster peaceful relations between those countries and promote stabilization of Pakistani tribal areas (which are in America’s interest)}  

2. Why a military attack on Iran will be both ineffective and disastrous

*War game shows how attacking Iran could backfire

By Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers

February 21, 2010 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/21/87061/war-game-shows-how-attacking-iran.html  {Brookings Institute simulation by experts shows potential disastrous outcomes}

By Patrick J. Buchanan

April 02, 2010, http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2010/04/01/what-war-with-iran-means/   {goes thru implications of how much military action would be needed to prevent an Iranian counterattack}

*Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran

by David E. Sanger, NY Times

March 26, 2010  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28sangerintro.html

{even David Sanger, who has been responsible for numerous overheated NY Times articles on the Iranian threat, acknowledges that the US will be sucked in if Israel launches a unilateral attack on Iran} 

*Options in Dealing with Iran’s Nuclear Program

by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony H. Cordesman

March 2010, http://csis.org/files/publication/100323_Options_todealwith_Iran.pdf

{esteemed military analyst Anthony Cordesman considers Israeli attack and its aftermath, and concludes it would be disastrous} 

Hezbollah official: Israel strike on Iran could ignite Mideast

March 18, 2010 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157440.html

{Hezbollah predicts that Israeli attack on Iran would have widespread repercussions} 

'Strike on Iran would not help Israel’

by Amir Mizroch

Feb. 5, 2010, http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=167870

{Swiss Ambassador to Israel discusses negative aftermath of an Israeli strike on Iran} 

3. Why so-called “diplomacy” with Iran has failed 

*The United States, Iran, and the middle east’s new “cold war”

Hillary Mann and Flynt Leverett (former Middle East CIA and State Department officials with Iran specialty}

April 1, 2010  http://www.raceforiran.com/the-united-states-iran-and-the-middle-east%e2%80%99s-new-%e2%80%9ccold-war%e2%80%9d-a-new-article-from-the-leveretts

{how the US would benefit from rapprochement with Iran in areas of mutual interest} 

*Can the Obama administration take a deal with Iran on the TRR?

Hillary Mann and Flynt Leverett (former Middle East CIA and State Department officials with Iran specialty}

April 15, 2010 http://www.raceforiran.com/can-the-obama-administration-take-a-deal-with-iran-on-the-trr

{explains why the deal to swap Iran’s low-enriched Uranium for 20% enriched Uranium for medical isotopes has been stymied by failure to negotiate mutually acceptable  terms} 

Is another Israel-Iran Proxy-War coming?

Feb 25, 2010, Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett

http://www.raceforiran.com/is-another-israel-iran-%e2%80%9cproxy-war%e2%80%9d-looming

{Argument that Israel, knowing sanctions will fail, is insisting on unattainable diplomatic options to prepare the political ground in America for a military attack on Iran} 

4. Why an alternative diplomatic approach, hardly mentioned in the media, has a far better chance of promoting American and Israeli security

*How to end the U.S.-Iran standoff

By William Luers, Thomas Pickering and James Walsh

Brief version: March 3, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opinion/03iht-edluers.3.10653346.html?_r=1

Full version: A Solution for the US–Iran Nuclear Standoff

March, 20, 2008 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/mar/20/a-solution-for-the-usiran-nuclear-standoff/

{Two highly experienced US Ambassadors and an MIT arms control expert lay out a proposal in which Iran continues enrichment in return for intrusive inspections}

*Bubble bursts on Iran nuclear options

by Kaveh L Afrasiabi, Asia Times

January 19, 2010   http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LA20Ak01.html

{report on Iran’s interest in accepting the Additional Protocol inspections in return for uranium enrichment}

Iran's nuclear file: Recommendations for the future

Abbas Maleki, Associate Prof of Engineering, Sharif University in Iran, and former deputy advisor to Iran's Foreign Minister and a former member of the Board of Trustees of the International Institute for Energy Studies (IIES). 
Daedalus, Winter 2010, Vol. 139, No. 1, Pages 105-116 http://www.iranaffairs.com/files/daed.pdf

{good and detailed review of past proposals and Iranian interest in multinational nuclear facility in Iran along with Iran’s sign-on to the Additional Protocol}