How to silence that Iran war drumbeat
War is not inevitable. Bold, transparent diplomacy can work.
By John K. Cooley
from the June 18, 2008 edition
Athens - Increasing signs that either Israel or the US might attack Iran
before President Bush
leaves office have many people in Europe, the Middle East, and around the
world on edge.
Whether the rumblings are real or overinflated rumors, it's time to
reverse any momentum that
could unleash a potentially calamitous Middle East conflict, killing
thousands, sending oil
prices to $200 a barrel and beyond, and accentuating global recession.
After talks with Mr. Bush on his tour through Europe, British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown
didn't mention war explicitly, but did say that European states would
agree to impose new
financial sanctions on Tehran. Bush noted that "all options are on the
table," and that the
ball was in Tehran's court.
Tehran, meanwhile, seems to continue to ignore the threat of sanctions.
Beyond official statements, the latest clues to war parallel proposed and
actual sanctions
against Iran. Immediately after a high-profile visit to Wa****ngton earlier
this month, Israeli
cabinet minister Saul Mofaz publicly called an Israeli attack on Iran
"unavoidable" unless Iran
reined in its nuclear activities.
Members of a Bush delegation in mid-May re****tedly assured Israeli
officials in secret that a
US attack on Iran was planned, according to Israeli Army Radio and in The
Jerusalem Post as
well as in American blogs and websites.
Also last month, the Asia Times claimed that US Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D)
of California and
Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana were given classified briefings about a
planned US strike – not on
Iran's nuclear sites but on headquarters of its Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The purpose, the
paper claimed, was to "send a message" to halt Iranian sup****t for anti-US
militias in Iraq.
Offices for both senators vigorously denied the re****t.
To avoid further inflaming this kind of talk, the West must end Iran's
race to nuclear weapons
– not by force, but by bold transparent, and imaginative diplomacy.
This should include direct and comprehensive US-Iranian talks on the basic
issues that have
plagued Wa****ngton-Tehran relations since the Islamic Republic overthrew
the late Shah in 1979
and the ensuing hostage crisis.
One immediate step the Bush administration could (but most probably won't)
take is to make
absolutely clear its intensions regarding long term presence in Iraq. Both
Iraq – which is
worried about its sovereignty– and Iran – worried about military threats –
are anxious about
the possibility of permanent US bases there.
Wa****ngton has forsworn such bases, but further reassurances are needed.
More realistically, the most powerful and technologically advanced
nations, including the US,
Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and China, should join in
offering Iran much more
cooperation in peaceful nuclear and other energy fields that would finally
induce it to abandon
uncontrolled enrichment of uranium or plutonium production and any related
weapons programs.
Though such offers have been periodically on the table for years, they can
be effective now if
we repeat and improve them, and make them more detailed.
Although nearly unnoticed in Western media, Iran made an official offer to
UN Secretary General
Ban Ki Moon in May involving a package of "comprehensive negotiations" on
everything from the
nuclear issue to general disarmament and help toward a Palestinian-Israeli
settlement. If this
were taken seriously and acted on, the West could stymie Iran's dangerous
growing isolation.
To ease tensions, both US presidential candidates should specifically
renounce plans for
permanent US bases and presence in Iraq. As US historian William Pfaff
recently wrote in his
column, insisting on a permanent presence in Iraq would "turn Iraq into an
American satellite
state." This would force Tehran and other neighbors to regard Iraq as a
threat and provide
incentive to speed nuclear weapons activity.
The veracity of Iran's protestations about its purely peaceful goals has
been shadowed by the
most recent re****t from UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic
Energy Agency.
Years of US and UN sanctions haven't made Tehran change its policies. Why
would it do so now?
In fact, some of the big Western banks have acceded to US demands to curb
credits to Iran,
hitting im****ts of products from refrigerators to children's toys. But
Iranian im****ters have
now turned to Chinese and smaller Western banks. What Iran is discovering
is that it can deal
somewhat successfully regardless.
What's more, Iran is a major regional power. By defeating its enemies,
Saddam Hussein and the
Afghan Taliban, the US – helped by Iran in both cases – has greatly
strengthened this power.
By reopening a US diplomatic mission in Tehran, dropping sanctions except
those involving
military technology, and improving the old offers of Western and Russian
IAEA-supervised
peaceful nuclear technology, the US could help avert intensified tensions
or an actual war.
The wisest path to peace would be to encourage rather than discourage
Western investment in
Iran's oil – natural gas and other (nonmilitary) industries – and engage
immediately in direct,
top-level dialogue with Iran's leaders.
We don't have to further back ourselves into a corner, from which neither
the West nor Iran is
able to come out without a fight.
• John K. Cooley is a former Monitor correspondent who covered the Middle
East for more than 40
years. His latest book is "Currency Wars."
Find this article at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0618/p09s01-coop.html
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
