Gov. Richardson on Engaging Iran

At a speech before the Center for National Policy, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson called for engaging Iran without preconditions and without illusions.

According to Richardson:

"We need to stop threatening the Iranians and talking about regime change. Instead, we need to start applying meaningful pressure, while working with them to change their behavior. We also must dialogue with moderate and pragmatic elements in both the Iranian political class and in the broader society, including business people and students who have supported moderate politicians in the past, and may do so again in the future."

His prescription for proceeding:

"As you know, US government representatives have met recently with Iranian officials to discuss Iraq, and there have also been US-Iranian meetings to talk about Afghanistan and our shared interest in preventing a return to power by the Taliban. These are all steps in the right direction, but the US needs to go further and propose broad, bilateral, unconditional negotiations with Iran -- with all subjects open for discussion. Support for such talks has come from many figures in the US foreign policy establishment, including Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

We need to end the taboo on open-ended talks, so that we can begin serious, continuing, and senior-level negotiations on the full range of nuclear, Middle East security, and economic issues. Only in the context of intensifying dialogue can we start to communicate better with Iran, and to find ways to reconcile our differences.

Our message to Iran must always have two components:

1) We must respect their legitimate right to peaceful nuclear energy, and we must let them know that gestures toward peace and reconciliation will be reciprocated with meaningful economic benefits and security guarantees;

2) We must stand absolutely firm with our international partners in letting the Iranians know that we will never allow them to acquire nuclear weapons, and that they will pay a high price if they continue to support international terrorists.

In short the message to the Iranians must be clear: work with the international community and you will be safe and prosperous. Continue to defy the international community and you will suffer and economically- and politically-damaging international sanctions."

He also stressed the need for a "more intelligent and effective American policy towards the entire Middle East":

"I have said before that there is a civil war within Islam between extremists and moderates. We must open an ideological front in the war against violent Jihadism, which is the single biggest threat our country faces.

To do that, we must do everything we can to isolate the extremists and to strengthen moderates across the Islamic world. And a good place to begin is with Iran -- where pragmatists and moderates are waiting in the wings as hard-line policies fail and as President Amadenejad’s popularity continues to slide.

We need urgently to re-engage the Middle East peace process with a high-level permanent envoy tasked with building the bases for a just peace. Continued deadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process will only provide aid and comfort to our enemies in the Islamic world. We must use all our sticks and carrots to strengthen Palestinian moderates and to promote a two-state solution that guarantees Israel’s security.

In the Persian Gulf, we need to work constructively with both Sunni Arabs and Shia Iranians on a wide range of security, economic, and energy initiatives that will promote stability in that crucial part of the world.

In the Levant, we need to talk directly to Syria in order to foster political stability in Lebanon and to encourage an Israeli-Syrian agreement on the Golan Heights."

Realities of the Democracy Promotion Funding

The June 24, 2007 edition of the New York Times has a great piece on Iran democracy assistance funding.

One particularly interesting quote comes from Suzanne Maloney who was on the policy-planning staff at the State Department for two years. Regarding the democracy assistance funds, she says:

“I was worried about the safety of those on the receiving end of the funds. But I also just wondered if this was feasible. I don’t see how a U.S. government that has been absent from Tehran for 30 years is capable of formulating a program that will have a positive effect.” She continued: “You had to wonder where this money was going to go and what’s going to happen when you don’t have the time to sit down and sift through the more questionable proposals. There’s just not enough oversight. Of the 100 or more preliminary proposals I saw under the first call, it was an enormous challenge to find anything viable. This may have been a very high profile, sexy project, but the likelihood of real impact was minimal.”

Meanwhile, Hillary Mann Leverett, former director for Iran and Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council, "considers the democracy fund a concession to those who were keen on regime change but, for timing reasons — particularly with the U.S. bogged down in Iraq — couldn’t have their way. 'There was a strong push for policy toward U.S.-style democracy from the White House and the N.S.C. the entire time I was in the administration...'

“They were looking to undermine the Iranian government any way they could, from military strikes and sanctions to funding U.S.-style democracy activists. The compromise was among the regime-change advocates; some of them believed that all they could have gotten then was the democracy funding. But at least it would set the U.S. government on a course for regime change.”

H.R. 1400 Passes House Foreign Affairs Committee

On June 26, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed H.R. 1400 by a vote of 37-1. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) was the lone voice voting against the measure in committee, but Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) remained silent on the measure. Below are some of my thoughts about H.R. 1400 (and S. 970, the Senate companion bill).

A section in the bill essentially threatens Russia to end nuclear and missile cooperation with Iran or the US will not enter into any 123 Agreement with Russia, which it has long sought from the US. It has actually been the long-standing policy of both the Clinton and Bush administrations to withold the 123 Agreement as a bargaining chip to gain leverage with Russia regarding the issue of Iran.

A Section 123 Agreement is the necessary agreement for the US to enter into nuclear cooperation with another country, as stipulated originally in the US Atomic Energy Act. It provides and outlines the "terms, conditions, duration, nature, scope, and other requirements of proposed agreements for cooperation; Presidential exemptions; negotiations; Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement."

In July, 2006, Bush and Putin announced they were open to negotiations on an agreement that would permit full nuclear cooperation between the two countries. Russia has long sought a 123 Agreement with the US.

We need Russia’s support within the UN Security Council to maintain and increase international pressure on Iran, which is more meaningful and will have better results than US unilateral sanctions and pressure alone. If in fact this section of H.R. 1400/S. 970 becomes law, Russia could feel threatened and would not have any incentive to continue to help foster support for ramping up pressure in the Security Council. In addition, Russia could renege on its agreement to accept Iranian nuclear waste from Buhsher, but rather let the waste stay in Iran, a move that would provide more fissionable material for the Iranian nuclear program.

I also want to point out that Russian missile/air defenses supplied or to be supplied to Iran would not threaten U.S. security. This provision is a direct result of a perceived Israeli security threat.

H.R. 1400 & S. 970 are unlikely to come to a vote on the House or Senate floor before Fall, possibly even before October, simply because of everything facing Congress. S. 970 has been stalled in the Senate and H.R. 1400 still must go through Financial Services and Ways and Means. Leg. Affairs at State Department also does not approve of H.R. 1400 as is, though we could see it amended to administration liking as we did with the Iran Sanctions Act (Iran Freedom and Support Act) in the wee hours of the morning on the last day of the Senate session before October recess last year.

Meanwhile, another bill, H.R. 957 (expanding and clarifying sanctions from aforementioned bill) is moving rapidly and we could see a vote on it this summer.

Bolton Worries About Israel

Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said in a recent interview with the Jerusalem Post that sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran's drive to nuclear weapons.

According to Bolton in the interview with the Jerusalem Post:

"The current approach of the Europeans and the Americans is not just doomed to failure, but dangerous," he said. "Dealing with [the Iranians] just gives them what they want, which is more time...

"We have fiddled away four years, in which Europe tried to persuade Iran to give up voluntarily," he complained. "Iran in those four years mastered uranium conversion from solid to gas and now enrichment to weapons grade... We lost four years to feckless European diplomacy and our options are very limited."

Bolton said flatly that "diplomacy and sanctions have failed... [So] we have to look at: 1, overthrowing the regime and getting in a new one that won't pursue nuclear weapons; 2, a last-resort use of force."

However, he added a caution as to the viability of the first of those remaining options: While "the regime is more susceptible to overthrow from within than people think," he said, such a process "may take more time than we have."

State of the Student Movement in Iran

Roula Khalaf has a new article in the Finacial Times on the state of the student movement in Iran. This paragraph is good sum-up, but I suggest reading the whole article.

"Amini-Zadeh, the 'starred' former student leader, tells me such protests show students still have a voice. 'It’s the students who raise violations of human rights and defend the rights of political prisoners. Ahmadi-Nejad was told ’no’ in the most blatant way and it was the first direct challenge to him.' But Amini-Zadeh acknowledges that students need a new cause. 'During the Khatami period the strategy was clear: you have to win elections and try to reform parts of the system. But that turned into a failed strategy. The problem we have now is that we don’t have an alternative. Ahmadi-Nejad is rejected at Amir Kabir but no one says what the alternative is. It’s not just the problem of the student movement but the problem of the whole political system.'"

Freedom House Newly Created Position

Freedom House is seeking a Senior Program Manager for the Global Human Rights Defender Emergency Fund.

According to the job description, "it is a newly created position which will report to the Director of Rule of Law and Human Rights Programs. The Global Human Rights Defender Emergency Fund will provide assistance, including emergency funds and services, to human rights defenders who are under threat, attack, detention, prosecution, or otherwise at immediate risk due to government repression. As well, the project will seek to mobilize international, regional and local support for human rights defenders and support the development of strategic responses to on-going government repression of human rights defenders."

The job entails "establishing and maintaining strong relationships with select indigenous partners human rights organizations around the world, forming and maintaining close coordination with a referral group of international organizations and assistance providers, developing and overseeing strategic operational discussions related to fund recipients and mode of assistance, and troubleshooting all obstacles impeding the fund."

I find the announcement of the position quite interesting. The SPM will certainly have a challenging time, to say the least, trying to manage funds given to Freedom House through the State Department's Iran Democracy Assistance program and trying to get any credibility working with organizations on the ground in Iran for reasons cited in the INW post linked above.

Watch Republicans Go Boom

Here is a new video entitled "Watch Republicans Go Boom" from the Council for a Livable World on Republican Presidential candidates position on dealing with Iran.