OFAC Grants Permission to Iranian American Organization to Open Office in Tehran

In a significant departure from previous policy, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) at the Department of Treasury, has granted permission to the American Iranian Council (AIC) to open an office in Tehran. AIC says it does not receive funds from either the government of Iran or the U.S. AIC hopes to establish the office to promote better understanding and exchange between the U.S. and Iran. The Iranian government has not yet approved of the AIC office in Tehran.

A spokesman for the State Department told the BBC that the move did not signal any change in policy. However, it has been extremely difficult for American non-governmental organizations to obtain licenses to operate in Iran. Even following the Bam 6.6 earthquake in 2002, the humanitarian organization Mercy Corps was unable to renew its OFAC license after the first year of its relief efforts and was forced to pack up and leave despite much work to be done. One Iran expert tells me that the approval may be a feeler before the U.S. moves towards opening an Iranian interests section in Tehran.

Many non-governmental organizations, including the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, have been advocating for the last several years that the Bush administration should repeal Office of Foreign Assets Control restrictions that prohibit US non-governmental organizations from obtaining licenses to work inside Iran as a confidence building measure to demonstrate diplomatic sincerity. Hopefully, OFAC will grant licenses to additional non-governmental organizations in order increase civil society ties between the U.S. and Iran, and not just stop with one license to AIC. There are many organizations worthy of such a license.

What Kissinger Really Said About Diplomacy with Iran

KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

(CROSSTALK)

SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.

Report: Diplomacy Iran Key to Resolving U.S. Tensions with Muslim World

Search for Common Ground and Consensus Building Institute released a new report on September 24, 2008 entitled, “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World.” The report presents the consensus of the Leadership Group on U.S.-Muslim Engagement, comprised of 34 leaders including a former Secretary of State and a former Deputy Secretary of State, former members of Congress, a former U.S. envoy on the Middle East peace process, and leaders and experts from business, faith communities, foreign policy and social sciences.

As part of strategy for reversing extremism, the report recommends elevating diplomacy as a primary tool for resolving key conflicts among Muslim countries and engaging both allies and adversaries in dialogue. It specifically calls for engaging Iran “to explore the potential for agreements that could increase national security, while seeking Iran’s full compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation commitments.” (page 20)

Under a “Call for Action,” the report calls on the next President and Administration within the first three months to “initiate a major and sustained diplomatic effort to resolve regional conflicts and promote security cooperation in the Middle East, giving top priority to engagement with Iran and permanent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” (page 22)

The report cites that the majority of the American public wants the U.S. to make greater use of diplomacy and dialogue with adversaries, including Iran. “However, there is little support for advocating democracy or increasing foreign aid.” (page 45)

The report finds that heightened tensions with Iran is among five drivers of tension between the U.S. and the Muslim world. “The U.S. confrontation with Iran has added to the widespread perception that the U.S. intends to dominate the Middle East militarily for the foreseeable future.” (page 50) It does note, however, that all Muslims in the Middle oppose the U.S. confrontation with Iran.

The report expounds on the complex and competing interests between the U.S. and Iran. While the U.S. has done much to signal to Iran it is willing to force, this approach has not succeeded in limiting Iran’s influence in the region or in undermining those in Iran who are hostile towards the U.S. The report states, “It is unlikely that the U.S. and its allies (both Muslim and Western) could do substantially more to constrain Iran’s economic or military options, or undermine its government, without resorting to force. At this point, the U.S. should expand the contacts with Iran that the Bush administration has recently initiated.” The goal of such talks should be to pursue the potential for “mutually beneficial agreements on regional security, diplomatic and economic relations.” Simultaneously, the U.S. should continue seeking international verification of Iran’s nuclear program and compliance with its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty (page 56).

The report goes on to state that dialogue with Iran could be particularly important for resolving the conflict in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and gaining assistance in Afghanistan.

Americans for Peace Now and DeLee: U.S. Must Engage Iran

Debra DeLee has an Op-Ed in JTA this week in which she argues, that the United States does not have to like Iran's president to engage in real diplomacy with his country, and engaging Iran in order to safeguard vital U.S. national security interests is not appeasement. DeLee says that the American-led strategy to cajole, threaten and sanction Iran into submission hasn't stopped its nuclear program.

Americans for Peace Now also released a new statement on September 24, 2008 calling on the Presidential candidates to support diplomacy with Iran as part of its "Responsibility over Rhetoric" initiative aimed at the Obama and McCain campaigns. Below is the full statement from APN. Like the DeLee Op-Ed, the statement calls on the candidates to embrace a serious, success-oriented approach to the challenge of Iran, involving a strategy of sticks and carrots, and founded on direct, determined diplomacy with Iran.

APN to Presidential Candidates: Support Iran Diplomacy

For years Iran’s leaders have espoused virulently anti-U.S., anti-Israel positions, complemented by moral and financial support for extremists and terrorist organizations – including Hamas and Hezbollah. The rise to power of President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad – arguably the most anti-Western, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic Iranian leader in history – has heightened concerns about Iran’s intentions in the region and in the world. These concerns have grown over the past decade, as Iran has tenaciously pursued a nuclear program.

An Iran armed with nuclear weapons represents an alarming scenario that neither the U.S. nor Israel can afford to ignore, and one that the U.S. and the international community should be exerting all efforts to avoid. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a potential existential threat to Israel and is likely to trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. An unchecked rogue Iran will likely continue to use support for terrorist groups to further destabilize the region and threaten Israel and other vital U.S. interests, including in Iraq and Lebanon. Moreover, in the absence of an effective international strategy to deal with Iran, domestic pressure for Israel to take matters into its own hands will continue to grow.

Unfortunately, instead of an orchestrated international effort to engage Iran and address these very serious issues, the U.S. has worked to ensure that the world follows its lead in adopting a one-dimensional strategy toward Iran – a strategy that seeks to threaten, browbeat, and sanction Iran into submission.

This strategy has failed. It has not stopped Iran's nuclear program or Iran’s reckless meddling in the region. Perversely, it may even have had the opposite effect: Just as American politicians routinely bolster their patriotic credentials by talking tough about Iran, today Iranian hard-liners -- including Ahmadinejad -- burnish their own nationalist credentials with pledges to stand up to American “bullying.” Indeed, such nationalist rhetoric is one of the only planks Iranian hard-liners have left to run on, given the domestic economic and social challenges facing their country. It should surprise no one that pushed into a corner, many Iranians -- including those who don't support Ahmadinejad -- have come to view the nuclear program as a symbol of national honor and pride.

And while it is true that the United States has at times offered to engage Iran in a limited manner, such engagement has been preconditioned on Iran first freezing its nuclear program. This approach – in which, as a precondition to negotiations, Iran is required to take an action that from its perspective should be the outcome of negotiations – has been unsuccessful. Preconditioning negotiations in this manner does not constitute genuine diplomacy.

Ahmadinejad is a populist rabble-rouser whose anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric is repugnant. His country's support for terrorist groups throughout the region is abhorrent. Nobody is suggesting that America’s next President should embrace him.

But just as clearly, demonizing Ahmadinejad while constantly reminding him that "all options are on the table" does not constitute the basis for a responsible or effective Iran policy. Sanctions are indeed a potentially powerful tool for putting pressure on Iran, but they simply will not suffice as a replacement for diplomacy in resolving our differences. Clearly the option for military action is always available, but that option and even its threat must be reserved as the option of truly last resort.

Addressing the challenges posed by Iran requires a smarter strategy -- combining carrots and sticks, incentives and sanctions -- and strong U.S. direct engagement and leadership. The next U.S. President does not have to like Ahmadinejad to engage in real diplomacy with his country, and engaging Iran in order to safeguard vital U.S. national security interests is not appeasement. Rather, as the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran underscored, it is the kind of sensible and responsible foreign policy that is long overdue. A bipartisan group of five former Secretaries of State, speaking together at a September 15, 2008 forum, agrees:

Madeleine Albright (who served under President Bill Clinton): “I believe we need to engage with Iran. I think the whole point is you try to engage and deal with countries you have problems with…I think it’s one of the most important relationships that we need to work on. We are not gaining anything by this [current approach]…”

Gen. Colin Powell (who served under President George W. Bush): “…we should start to talk to them. Don’t wait for, you know, a letter coming from them. Start discussions.”

Warren Christopher (who served under President Bill Clinton): “…our relationship with Israel needs to be strong enough so we can say to them ‘Look, we want to have a comprehensive dialogue with the Iranians.’ We can’t be complacent about the nuclear possibilities in Iran, but nevertheless we cannot afford not to have a comprehensive dialogue to see if it can’t be stopped, because, frankly, the military options here are very, very poor…”

James Baker (who served under President George H.W. Bush): “We ought to engage. Yes… We’re all saying that you [the next U.S. President] ought to engage…”

Henry Kissinger (who served under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford): “…I am in favor of negotiating with Iran…”

Such a diplomatic effort will not be easy; indeed it will almost certainly be a long and arduous process. Nor is its success a foregone conclusion. But such an effort is indispensable if the United States is serious about dealing with serious challenges to U.S. foreign policy goals and to U.S. national security interests posed by Iran.

Americans for Peace Now urges the Presidential candidates to:

>>>> Enunciate a clear recognition that the current U.S. approach to Iran, consisting almost exclusively of sanctions and saber-rattling, has failed.

>>>> Embrace a serious, success-oriented approach to the challenge of Iran, involving a strategy of sticks and carrots – sanctions and meaningful incentives – and founded on direct, determined diplomacy with Iran, without preconditions.

>>>> Abandon casual rhetoric about U.S. or Israeli first-strike options, and discard the notion that the guiding policy of the U.S. must be that “all options are on the table.” Clearly, the option for military action is always available, but it must be reserved as the option of truly last resort.

CNN Transcript with Five Former Bipartisan Secretaries of State Agreeing on Talks with Iran

CNN has posted the transcript of the forum with the five former Secretaries of State at George Washington University, which aired on September 20, 2008. During the forum, the five former Secretaries of State, both Republican and Democrat, once again agreed that the next President of the United States should engage Iran in direct talks. Below is the excerpt of the transcript that includes the discussion on Iran.

AMANPOUR: Secretary Baker, you just talked about strategically, not tactically. Let's talk about Iran, which has been a strategic and tactical headache for the United States over the last 30 years.

Let's say, in the few weeks after the inauguration of the next president, a message comes from Iran that the Iranians are ready to do a deal, all conditions on the table. Is the advice to the next American president to once again put conditions to expect Iran to cry uncle or to engage?

Secretary Albright?

ALBRIGHT: I believe we need to engage with Iran. I think the whole point is you try to engage and deal with countries that you have problems with and take the Russians (ph)... AMANPOUR: So what do you advise the president when he gets this message across his desk or it comes to the State Department that the Iranians are seeking feelers?

ALBRIGHT: You begin to look at what level to talk at. And actually, something like that happened when we were in office. And you begin to find the right level.

And I think it's one of the most important relationships that we need to work on. We are not gaining anything by this. And I -- while there are many issues, ultimately, Iran has benefited the most from the war in Iraq. And I think that we need to deal with them.

AMANPOUR: The intelligence assessment that's going to be given to the next president says that Iran, they believe, will continue to seek to enrich uranium, but at the moment they don't see evidence of building a weapon.

Can the United States, despite all that's been said up to now, can the world live with a nuclear Iran?

POWELL: The Iranians are telling us that they are developing a nuclear program and they're doing it for civilian use and for power generation.

Once you know how to do that, that 5 percent enrichment, you can scale it up to 90 percent enrichment and make a weapon.

So I agree with Madeleine, and I suspect my other colleagues, that we should start to talk to them. Don't wait for, you know, a letter coming from them. Start discussions. We were talking to them up through the middle of 2003.

AMANPOUR: So take the initiative?

POWELL: Yes. Why shouldn't we?

(CROSSTALK)

POWELL: We did.

BAKER: We did. In our administration, way back in '91.

POWELL: We were talking to them through 2003 at a low level. And then it was stopped. And so find a way -- and don't make it, "Let's get together and talk just about nuclear weapons or just about this or just about that." Start a dialogue at a low level and let it grow over time.

SESNO: Might the next president have to have a showdown with his Israeli allies, to tell them to hold back?

CHRISTOPHER: I must say our relationship with Israel needs to be strong enough so we can say to them, "Look, we want to have a comprehensive dialogue with the Iranians. We can't be complacent about the nuclear possibilities in Iran, but nevertheless we cannot afford not to have a comprehensive dialogue to see if it can be stopped," because, frankly, the military options here are very, very poor.

And if that's what the Israelis are advocating, I think that we have to tell them that we think their military options are very poor and we don't want to go down that route.

SESNO: So neither candidate, neither of the men who would be president has taken the military option with respect to Iran off the table?

CHRISTOPHER: I didn't say to take them off the table.

(CROSSTALK)

BAKER: Can I just say one -- one more thing? When I was in office, we had a standing policy with the Iranians. We were ready to talk to them, provided it would be done at an official level, at the level of the secretary of state, and they did -- they wouldn't -- they didn't have enough domestic political support for that.

Having vilified us as the Great Satan for so long, they couldn't get the domestic political support necessary to meet with us. So it wasn't the case of our -- we hadn't been isolating Iran from that standpoint. We offered to meet with them at the level of secretary of state.

And I think a well-placed, quiet, private phone call to the Iranian leadership, if you can find out which leaders to talk to, to the effect, "Look, if you do so much as aim a missile or anything else toward Israel or toward anything else, toward Israel or toward us, our strategic nuclear deterrent can be re-aimed in 20 seconds," they would understand that, I think.

AMANPOUR: I'm sure they would.

(LAUGHTER)

But the question is, do you want to change the policy? And do you want to actually try to engage for strategic reasons?

BAKER: We ought to engage, yes.

AMANPOUR: To use them for help in...

POWELL: I think we're all saying yes.

BAKER: We're all saying you ought to engage, I think. I don't know. I haven't heard Henry. He may not.

(LAUGHTER)

KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

(CROSSTALK)

SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.

ALBRIGHT: I think also we need to make clear that what we're doing is not counterproductive. At the moment, I think we don't understand Iranian society. It is not monolithic. There are various aspects of the fact that Ahmadinejad is not particularly popular. There are economic issues.

And the more that we go around vilifying them, we create -- put him a stronger position. And so not only should we do these steps that the others have been talking about, but we have to make sure that we're not undercutting what we want to do by creating a bigger problem than we have.

AMANPOUR: So it looks like there's possibly some different advice to the next president.

Five Former Secretaries of State Once Again Urge Talks with Iran

Five former Secretaries of State, both Democrat and Republican, once again urged for the next U.S. president to talk with Iran during a forum at George Washington University on September 15, 2008. Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Warren Christopher, Henry A. Kissinger and James A. Baker III spoke about and took different positions on a number of issues, but the one on which they all agreed is that the U.S. should be talking to Iran. At a University of Georgia forum on March 15 this year, all five secretaries also agreed that the next president should open talks with Iran.

Senators Endorse U.S. Interests Section in Tehran

Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Kerry (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Patty Murray (D-WA) sent a letter to President Bush on July 24, 2008 endorsing the opening of an interests section in Tehran. Below is the full text of the letter.

Dear Mr. President:

We are encouraged by recent revelations that your Administration is actively reviewing the possibility of opening an interests section in Iran, and write to express our support for this limited but strategically significant U.S. diplomatic presence. By establishing direct contact with the people of Iran, facilitating their travel to America, and increasing our understanding of Iran's complicated domestic politics, this initiative will advance our national interests.

Along with your welcome decision to send Under Secretary of State William Burns to Geneva to join in talks with Iran over its nuclear program, this will send a positive message to the Iranian people and the international community about our intentions and enhance our ability to apply greater pressure on the Iranian government.

As you know, Iranians are among the most pro-American people in the Greater Middle East. Many hold the United States in high regard as a country that cherishes the values of freedom, tolerance, and human dignity. Despite our strong differences with their government over its nuclear ambitions, support for international terrorism, and hateful rhetoric towards Israel, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently said that "[w]e are determined to find ways to reach out to the Iranian people." Opening an interests section in Iran, as we have done in other countries such as Cuba, is a highly-visible way of accomplishing this important objective.

The United States has not had any diplomatic presence in Iran since the hostage crisis in 1979. As a result, Iranians who are interested in traveling to the United States must go to Dubai to obtain U.S. visas, impeding familial, cultural, and scientific exchanges that over time can begin to transform Iran. The more frequently that ordinary Iranians have an opportunity to interact with Americans, the more likely they are to ignore their government's propaganda demonizing our country.

At the same time, a limited diplomatic presence in Iran would improve our understanding of the competing political factions that influence Tehran's decision-making. As Under Secretary Burns recently acknowledged, our knowledge of Iran's political and policy-making processes is currently rather limited. Iran already operates an active interests section in Washington, DC, ostensibly for these types of reasons, so our own diplomats are at a relative information disadvantage.

While we recognize that this initiative alone will not resolve our profound disagreements with Iran's leaders, we believe it is a step in the right direction with the Iranian people. If it comes to pass, we look forward to working with your Administration to provide any necessary congressional support.

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your reply.

Global Pulse on Missiles and Diplomacy

Ambassador Pickering on Direct Talks with Iran & Multilateral Enrichment

Just Foreign Policy has posted an interview with Ambassador Thomas Pickering on You Tube.

The National: Activists Open Lines to Iran

The National, a new Abu Dhabi based media company, has an article on the "Time to Talk to Iran" event and the growing grassroots movement to prevent a military attack on Iran. Note: Nick Jehlen from Enough Fear is actually the mastermind behind the red phones and had previously set up actions in Boston and New York. We worked with him to bring the action to DC.

Diplomatic Courier: What Peace with Iran Could Look Like

The Diplomatic Courier has a feature story this week on "What Peace with Iran Could Look Like." The article focuses on the June 10, 2008 "Time to Talk with Iran" event and the importance of diplomacy to resolve to the U.S.-Iran standoff.

A Diplomatic Overture?

According to an article in the Washington Post published on June 23, 2008, officials in the State Department are debating a proposal to open an interests section in Tehran, similar to the one the United States has operated in Havana since 1977 to process visas and host dissidents during holiday festivities.

Under different circumstances, an effort to establish an interests section, which would be housed by the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, would be a very welcome gesture to expand cultural and social ties between Iranians and Americans. However, rather than being a truly diplomatic gesture, the motivation behind the proposed intersection under this administration is unclear, but appears more to bolster U.S. efforts to undermine the Iranian government. According to the Washington Post article one official said, "It's not a softening. It does allow us to reach out to youth groups, to talk to dissidents. It's something the regime wouldn't like." While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has neither confirmed nor denied the proposal, she also has said that the U.S. wants more contact with “ordinary Iranian citizens.”

By revealing to the media that the intersection would be used to reach out to dissidents, elements in the administration may be setting the proposal up for failure. Indeed, if the proposal shows any intention to undermine the Iranian government, it is likely to be rejected. If rejected, the administration could then accuse the Iranians of not being interested in diplomatic overtures.

According to a Los Angeles Times article, initial responses from Iran to the media reports of the proposal have been “frosty.” Musa Qorbani, a politician close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told The Times, “We do not trust the Americans. After a few days, we may figure out their motivations and what their intention is, then we will give our comment.” On June 26, Speaker of the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) Ali Larijani was quoted as saying that the proposal to establish a U.S. diplomatic interests section in Tehran is a “deceitful move.” According to Larijani, “I do not like to talk about rumors but it seems that some of these rumors are very sneaky.”

On the other hand, it is unlikely that if an interests section is approved staff would even realistically be able to woo Iranian students and dissidents given restrictions that would likely be placed on staff movement. Furthermore, credible dissidents and those working for democracy and reform in Iran are not at all interested in further undermining their own situation inside of Iran. Contrary to U.S. efforts to promote regime change, credible and prominent Iranian intellectuals, academics, dissidents and human rights defenders, many of whom have suffered increasing arrests and prosecutions, are ramping up their efforts to urge for a negotiated peaceful solution to the standoff between the U.S. and Iran.

Rather than pursuing counterproductive efforts aimed at undermining the Iranian government, the U.S. would do more for democracy and reform if it listened to what the people of Iran are saying – stop threatening military action and pursue a negotiated solution to the crisis.

In terms of the interests section, there may be a silver lining. If the U.S. does submit a proposal for an interests section and if the proposal is accepted, it could lay the groundwork for the next administration to expand credible diplomatic overtures to Iran.

Obama, McCain, Americans and Diplomacy

On June 4, Barack Obama told the audience at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Annual Policy Conference that as President of the United States, “We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests.” He also said that he “will always keep the threat of military action on the table.”

John McCain told the audience at the AIPAC annual policy conference that diplomacy with Iran would only produce a “spectacle” and said, “Even so we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before. [Laughs].” Instead of pursuing diplomacy without preconditions, McCain called for tougher sanctions and divestment instead.

However, a new CNN/Gallup poll conducted May 19-21 and released on June 2 found that majority of Americans favor diplomacy.

According to the poll’s findings, “Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even about half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea. Although separate Gallup polling shows that few Americans view Iran favorably, and that Iran leads Americans' list of top U.S. enemies in the world, the new Gallup survey also finds high public support for presidential-level meetings between the United States and Iran, specifically. About 6 in 10 Americans (59%) think it would be a good idea for the president of the United States to meet with the president of Iran. This includes about half of Republicans, a majority of independents, and most Democrats.”

Christian Century Magazine on Diplomacy with Iran

The Christian Century has an editorial in the June 17 edition that calls for diplomacy with Iran. According to the editorial:

"A report emerged from President Bush's visit to Israel saying that Bush told Israeli leaders he intends to launch a military strike against Iran before he leaves office. The president is reported to have said that Hezbollah's recent show of military strength in Lebanon proves that Iran's influence in the Middle East is growing and that 'the disease must be treated—not the symptoms.' …

"Diplomacy offers no assured outcome. But one thing the U.S. should have learned from its misadventure in Iraq is that military interventions don't have assured outcomes either. Military efforts can exact an enormous price in human life and national treasure while unleashing new, uncontrollable forces of chaos. Now is the time to send a clear and unequivocal message to political leaders regarding an attack on Iran: Don't do it. Not in our name, not with our tax dollars, and not with the lives of our men and women. "

Iran's Offer

On May 13, Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki delivered a letter and “Proposed Package for Constructive Negotiations” to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The letter and offer was delivered just before European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana is set to travel to Iran to deliver a “not-so-new package of incentives” from the so-called P5+1 (Britain, China, France, Germany, U.S. and Russia) meant to convince the country to abandon its nuclear enrichment activities.

The English translation of the Iranian offer available is unofficial and very crude and thus may accurately reflect what the offer is actually meant to convey. However, a few observations can still be made. Perhaps of most significance, the letter and offer delivered by Foreign Minister Mottaki stresses a long-standing issue for the Iranians of the need to approach negotiations with mutual respect.

The Iranian offer may also be viewed as a preemptive measure to the “new package of incentives” to be delivered by the P5+1. Though there are some additional incentives in the P5+1 offer, including enhanced nuclear cooperation, it does not include U.S.-backed security assurances that it will not attack Iran. Most importantly, the U.S. adamantly maintains the precondition that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment activities before negotiations can even begin, which Iran refuses to do.

The Iranian offer is likely a reflection of the view inside the government that they will just wait out the current U.S. administration because they do not see the possibility for real dialogue at present. In light of this, the Iranian government has perhaps made this offer mostly for media purposes.

In the offer, the Iranian government presents itself as a global player, equal to all of the members of the P5+1. Iran says it is willing to enter into talks with the P5+1 “on cooperation to strengthen a just peace and bolster the stability and the advancement of democracy in regions that suffer from instability, militarism, violence and terrorism. Such cooperation can take place in different parts of the world- more specifically in the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, and Latin America. Cooperation to assist the Palestinian people to find a comprehensive plan- one that is sustainable, democratic and fair- to resolve the 60-year old Palestinian issue can become a symbol of such collaboration.” There is no mention of security guarantees in the Iranian offer.

The offer also calls for talks between the P5+1 and Iran to include cooperation on Economic issues, including in the energy sector, trade and investment, common effort to help fight poverty in less developed countries and reducing the impact of sharp price fluctuations and retooling global monetary and financial arrangements.

In regards to the nuclear issue, the Iranian offer does not mention its own nuclear program and instead proposes discussing the nuclear issue in the global context and a focus on disarmament. The offer calls for talks to include:

• Obtaining a further assurance about the non-diversion of the nuclear activities of different countries.
• Establishing enrichment and nuclear fuel production consortiums in different parts of the world- including in Iran.
• Cooperation to access and utilize peaceful nuclear technology and facilitating its usage by all states.
• Nuclear disarmament and establishment of a follow up committee.
• Improved supervision by the IAEA over the nuclear activities of different states.
• Joint collaboration over nuclear safety and physical protection.
• An effort to encourage other states to control the export of nuclear material and equipment.

The failure of the P5+1 to produce a credible offer to Iran without preconditions and with security assurances has essentially ensured that substantive talks over Iran’s nuclear program are not going anywhere anytime soon. The Iranian position has only further hardened and as the Iranian offer demonstrates, it has only become more difficult to break the impasse. Tough-minded resolve from all parties to engage in difficult give-and-take of diplomacy, as well as creative diplomatic solutions are urgently needed to prevent the situation from further deterioriating.

Reliance on Military Force to Prevent Proliferation Is Risky Business

On April 29, President George W. Bush gave a full explanation for why the administration chose to reveal previously classified intelligence on the Syrian nuclear facility the U.S. claims was built by North Korea and destroyed by Israeli airstrikes on September 6, 2007. According to President Bush, the timing for the release of the information was meant to send a warning to Syria, North Korea and Iran to advance “certain policy objectives.”

President Bush said, “One would be to the North Koreans, to make it abundantly clear that we know more about them than they think. Then we have an interest in sending a message to Iran, and the world, for that matter, about just how destabilizing nuclear proliferation would be in the Middle East.” He said another objective was to send a message to Syria about “their intransigence in dealing with, you know, helping us in Iraq or destabilizing Lebanon or dealing with Hamas.”

President Bush said the information wasn’t released sooner for fear Syria would retaliate against Israel, but was released instead “at a time when, you know, we felt the risk of retaliation or, you know, confrontation in the Middle East was reduced.” Threatening Syria for not helping in Iraq, Lebanon or Gaza, in particular, is a counterproductive strategy for obtaining cooperation.

CIA Director Michael Hayden claimed on April 28 that the Syrian facility could have been used to make nuclear weapons. According to Hayden, “In the course of a year after they got full up they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons.”

Even if the facility could have been used to make nuclear weapons, which Syria denies, Israel’s military strikes on the facility, in violation of international law, was extremely risky and have furthered a very dangerous precedent for the preventive military option set by the U.S. invasion of Iraq under spurious claims Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction.

A far better approach to dealing with the Syrian facility would have been for Israel and the U.S. to reveal any intelligence on the facility to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The military strikes eliminated the possibility for the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify intelligence and collect any additional intelligence. Through their military demonstration and acting on their own, Israel and the U.S. have undermined established mechanisms for dealing with nuclear proliferation and the international nonproliferation regime in general.

Furthermore, military threats are unlikely to influence the countries whose behavior the U.S. and Israel seek to change. In the case of Iran, repeated threats of military attacks have failed to produce any change in the Iranian government’s behavior. Instead, threats have contributed to strengthening the hand of the hardliners in Iran and made life more difficult for those inside of Iran working for democracy and reform.

Indeed, reliance on military force to prevent proliferation will likely backfire and result in strengthening the resolve of countries seeking to develop nuclear weapons as a means of defense against military strikes. Threats of military attacks against nuclear facilities will only incentivize developing nuclear programs in secret rather than developing them under international safeguards and the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Rather than using military force or evening threatening the use of military force as a first resort, the U.S. and Israel should abide by international laws and work within international institutions. Both the U.S. and Israel should recommit to diplomacy as a weapon of first choice, rather than the last choice, for preventing proliferation. Finally, both countries should bolster the nonproliferation regime by establishing a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone as a one practical step on the road to verified global nuclear disarmament.

Public Support for Diplomacy with Iran Has Increased Dramatically

A new poll released today by The Public Agenda and in cooperation with Foreign Affairs entitled “Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index” states that “the public’s preference for diplomacy, always strong, has increased dramatically, particularly regarding Iran.”

According to the survey’s findings, “There’s been a 12-point jump in the last six months in those who favor using diplomacy to establish better relations with Iran, with 47% now saying that’s the best strategy. As in previous editions of the survey, very few want to use force or even threaten to do so with Iran (only 12 percent total.” Compared to the fall of 2007 survey, this demonstrates a 34% increase in the proportion of people saying that diplomacy is the best way for the U.S. to deal with Iran. In contrast, the support for taking military action as the best option dropped from 10 percent to seven percent. Support for threatening military action dropped from nine percent to five percent.

International economic sanctions comes in as the second preferred best option at 28%, a small decline from 30% in fall 2007.

Shirin Ebadi: 'Don't Attack Iran'

Robert Dreyfuss has a new article in The Nation concerning an interview he conducted with Shirin Ebadi on April 28.

In regards to ongoing death threats to her person, Dreyfuss writes, "Ebadi is not intimidated, and she continues to represent dissidents and others caught up in the labyrinthine Iranian court system. But she warns that threats and bellicose rhetoric from American leaders and politicians is not helping matters." According to Ebadi, "The most important thing is not to militarily attack Iran, or to threaten to attack Iran militarily. Even the language of some of the candidates in the United States threatens Iran."

Ebadi also addressed the regime change slush fund. "When the United States says that it has allocated $70 million for democracy in Iran, whoever speaks about democracy in Iran will be accused of having accepted part of that money, and of being on the US side," she says. "It gives Iran an excuse for what it does." According to Dreyfuss, she said that all credible Iranian activists have refused to accept American funding, and most of the money has been funneled into radio broadcasts and other US propaganda.

In regards to sanctions, Ebadi told Dreyfuss, "Sanctions damage the interests of the people, and they're not going to topple the government of Iran, because the government has a lot of income from the price of oil because the price is so high." According to Dreyfuss, "the only sort of sanctions she is willing to support are direct, political sanctions that target Iran's leaders, from those involved in the Iranian nuclear program to the country's highest officials. Such sanctions, she suggests, could restrict these officials' travel abroad and could order the seizure of privately held assets. In addition, Ebadi believes, the world's countries could collectively shun the Iranian state."

Ebadi says, "What I mean is that all the countries of the world should reduce or lower the level of their political relations with Iran, so that they convince Iran to improve the situation of human rights. This was you can isolate the government of Iran without really damaging the people."

Of course, she also believes political sanctions should only be used as a last resort. She believes the best course is dialogue. Ebadi says, "Dialogue has to take place at three levels: at the level of people and civil society, among members of parliament of both countries, and by heads of government of both countries. And negotiations have to be direct and public."

PSR Brings Iranian Docs and Chem Weapons Survivors to U.S.

When I said I heart Physicians for Social Responsibility on Valentines Day, I meant it. And they are proving again why everyone should heart them. From April 27-May 9, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) will host Iranian physicians Dr. Shahriar Khateri and Dr. Mohammadreza Soroush to discuss the impacts of war on the Iranian people and encourage diplomacy as a means toward better relations between the two countries.

Drs. Khateri and Soroush have worked for more than two decades with survivors of chemical weapons attacks in Iran. Joining them will be two of those survivors to discuss the aftermath of ongoing conflicts that have left entire families injured and killed thousands of other Iranians.

The group will participate in medical grand rounds and public forums in Cambridge, Boston, New York, Los Angeles and Washington, DC. An exhibit depicting the impacts of chemical weapons will accompany the tour and will be on public display in each of the tour cities. The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII, an American NGO) will join PSR in hosting the Iranian visitors.

A full schedule of events will be posted on the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran Calendar of Events by tomorrow.

Senator Specter Calls for Dialogue Without Preconditions Twice in the Same Month

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has twice called for the U.S. to drop preconditions and negotiate with Iran this month.

Sen. Specter blasted U.S. policy on Iran and called for more dialogue in the hearing today before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security.

During the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009 budget that was held on April 9, Senator Specter told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the Bush administration should drop its demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment as a condition for talks with the United States. Senator Specter said, “Frankly, I think it's insulting to go to another person, or another country, and say ‘we’re not going to talk to you unless you agree to something in advance.’ What we want them to do is to stop enriching uranium. That’s the object of the talks. How can we insist on their agreeing to the object that we want as a precondition for having the talks?”

Secretary Rice responded that halting enrichment is not just a U.S. condition but also a demand of other major powers trying to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran. Secretary Rice also said that Iran cannot be allowed to use negotiations as a “cover” while it continues perfecting techniques that might be used for nuclear weapons.

However, Secretary Rice failed to mention that it has been the Bush administration that has insisted the international community place the Iranian nuclear issue on the front burner. Yet the U.S. itself has not directly engaged Iran in negotiations, preferring to farm out direct contacts to European allies. It is unlikely that Iran would evoke so much international concern minus U.S. pressure.