Iran Hearings

This week Senator John Kerry, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, has held hearings focusing on US policy toward Iran.  Yesterday two of us sat quietly as we were surrounded by a standing room only crowd to watch testimony from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft--my partner in pink had been to the hearing on nukes Tuesday and noted that it was sparsely attended, so presumably the star power of this "A-team" was the big draw.

Only Kerry and Ranking Member Dick Lugar made opening remarks and then they turned it over to the witnesses.  There was one other GOP member present for a little while--I couldn't see who before he left very early--so it was predominantly a Democratic affair with Senators Webb and Shaheen (the candidate I worked for!) there for prepared remarks and bailing before the Q&A.  Later Menendez, Casey and Kaufmann showed up to query the panel.

Both Zbig and Scowcroft gave reasonable, sober testimony about past and future interactions with Iran.  Even if I didn't agree entirely with some assessments or recommendations, they still reassured me that intelligent people who are interested in real dialog within our government and between our nations, can take feedback from the system and incorporate it, and will provide good advice as we handle a delicate relationship that's so important to US and global security.

I was especially heartened by the apparent lessons Zbig has learned from our dalliances with the mujahideen and attendent blowback in Afghanistan.  I was also pleased to hear his solid declaration when asked about having a military option on the table that "preventive war is not a good bargain in the nuclear age" and that any such "solution" would be a disaster for the nation, not to mention Obama's legacy.

Scowcroft fundamentally agreed with everything Zbig said, save a few details about when to start public rather than private discussions with Iranian interlocutors.  It's the former, though, who got my attention more so I have more notes about what he said than the General:

• Maybe we shouldn't approach Iran in a way that encourages intransigence.
• We require "sophisticated diplomacy"
• Recommends not an endless negotiating process, but there is no need set prior timetables before getting to table.  That is damaging to come in with preconditions.
• Noted that we are in a relationship with Iran, like it or not, and as in all relationships you must consider how the other party views what you say and do.
• Without saying it explicitly he described correspondent inference theory and even systems thinking.
• Don't meddle in the internal politics, Iran is more democratic than Russia and public opinion is important even in an autocracy (reciprocity between rulers and ruled).
• Scowcroft had mentioned the missile shield during his remarks and Zbig reiterated that it's a good idea to scrap that to get Russia on board to help with Iran--find our intersecting interests.
• We are extremely casual in our use of the word 'terrorism'.
• Iran does appear to want to be a "pro-nuclear power" but has publicly declared no intention to build weapons, which means statements from US giving lie to that are unhelpful.  Mentioned Bush from last year:

President Bush made [this] allegation toward the end of an interview with Radio Farda, the U.S. funded Persian-language radio station. It was on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian New Year:

[The Iranians have] declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people -- some -- in the Middle East. And that's unacceptable in the United States and it's unacceptable to the world.

The comment flies in the face of last year's U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran had probably stopped its clandestine nuclear weapons program in favor of pushing forward with its controversial enrichment of uranium, which could potentially become a building block for such a program. It also contradicts the findings of international nuclear inspectors who've scoured the country's complex of nuclear facilities with moderate success.

And it also ignores a simple fact: Iran has never "declared" it's trying to get weapons. Iranian leaders consistently deny they are seeking nuclear technology for anything other than power generation. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in 2005 issued a fatwa forbidding weapons of mass destruction as un-Islamic.

Our friend Manijeh showed up a bit late, having driven 5 hours from NJ, so didn't sit with us, but we debriefed with her from the moment she was done with an interview (with the guy who advocated for us when we were kicked out of the NPC in January, which he remembered) to the time she had to leave the Pink House to head back home for a meeting about immigration and detention.  She's Iranian so was willing to make the long haul because she is very interested in what posture Obama and Congress take toward her home country.

Her impression was very positive, though she pointed out something that jibed with my uninformed sense of some Senators' questions: Menendez, Casey and Kaufmann are pretty much in the pocket of AIPAC.  I could tell because their questions clearly were driving toward "Iran is scary and wants nukes so we should be ready to invade, right?"

Probably the biggest thing I came away with was that we really need to stop being so antagonistic toward Iran if we truly want a constructive relationship and peaceful solutions to manifest themselves.  I was thinking about the "act as ifs" I learned of Wednesday: we say we want peace but we act is if we don't, sabotaging what our alleged purposes are.

So if we want to get somewhere with Iran, let's accept their stated intention to not pursue nuclear weapons and then work to make that a reality.  Don't make them look like they're lying, because as Scowcroft said the doubt and fear can cause an "explosion of proliferation" as countries like Egypt run to acquire nuclear capabilities.  Instead, find the intersecting interest with Iran, say, "okay, we understand you don't want weapons and do want energy, so how can we help you with that?"  Make their claims true and you're halfway there. 

There have been abortive attempts to do such things in the past and now we need to follow through.  Same goes for North Korea, now that I think about it, and maybe a good example with Iran will help move that nut forward, too.

ntodd

PS--I've always had a difficult time remember Manijeh's name since it doesn't fit my template of European names, but I've since learned of the Persian legend it comes from, so hopefully it will be easier for me even if I don't get to see her for several more months.  She also told us about Nowruz, the Persian New Year, and how in the last 20 years of the Shah's reign as he tried to prop himself up as a Persian emperor of old, people refused to celebrate it.  Once the Islamic Revolution came around, however, and started trying to destroy the old cultural templates in favor of Islamic piety people started to get very into the holiday, publicly defying their leaders and celebrating it.  A form of nonviolent resistance where you might not have expected it...

Comments

[Saint Michael Traveler]

Nuclear State and Nuclear Bomb

In fact Iran is already a nuclear state. The states with this capacity are many; among them are Japan and Germany. But, there is a great difference between being a nuclear state, i.e., nuclear fuel cycle capacity, and a state with nuclear bomb, such as India, USA, Russia, England, France, China, Israel and Pakistan.

Iran already has provided a window for cooperation with USA. They have invited USA and other states such as Germany, Japan to participate as a member of an International consortium to enrich uranium in Iran. We must accept their invitation.

We must be very careful not to push Iranian people by our over aggressive posture. President Bush's aggressive posture changed the Iranian internal politics during their last Iranian election. Are we going to affect the Iranian election once more?