October 09, 2024
No matter who
wins the presidential election next month, US policy towards Iran seems likely
to remain extremely hostile and confrontational. Both campaigns seem determined
to out-hawk each other. The Iran policy debate in Washington, such as it is, is
focused entirely on the same bankrupt coercive measures of sanctions, threats,
and military action that are guaranteed to make things worse. There is no
serious discussion of reducing tensions or resuming negotiations in the new
year. The persistence of this failed hawkish consensus is dangerous for the US,
Iran, and the wider region, and it needs to end.
The failed
bipartisan hawkish consensus on Iran closes off paths for resolving
disagreements peacefully, and it paves the way for unnecessary wars. The
consensus embraces escalation as the solution to each new crisis, and it writes
off diplomacy as naïve and useless. It is the same kind of bankrupt, outdated
thinking that has dominated US foreign policy in the region for at least the
last thirty years, and it is why US Iran policy remains so destructive and
dangerous. We are desperately in need of some fresh and different policy ideas.
Unfortunately,
both presidential candidates are content to keep the US on a collision course
with Iran for the time being, and that means that the US will be stuck with the
same rotten foreign policy in the Middle East for at least another four years.
Donald Trump recently expressed support for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear
facilities. During the vice-presidential debate, Sen. Vance said that he would
support whatever Israel wanted to do. On the Democratic side, Vice President
Harris bizarrely claimed that Iran is America’s “greatest adversary” in
response to a question in her interview with 60 Minutes. Harris asserted that
Iran was an “obvious” candidate for being the greatest adversary because its
government “has American blood on its hands.”
Harris’ answer
that Iran is the greatest adversary of the United States is absurd on its face.
Iran is not and has never been that much of a threat to US interests, and it
has no ability to threaten the United States directly. Hawks have been
exaggerating the power and ambitions of the Iranian government for decades to
justify incessant US meddling in the region, but this is nothing but
propaganda. Maybe the vice president said this to pander to hardliners, or
maybe she believes it to be true, but either way it suggests that Iran policy
in a Harris administration will be every bit as bad as Biden’s and possibly
even worse.
The US is
already squandering an opportunity to reopen diplomatic talks with Iran. The
Iranian government has signaled its willingness to negotiate a new
nonproliferation agreement following the election of their new reformist
president, Masoud Pezeshkian. Pezeshkian campaigned and won on a platform of
diplomatic engagement and pursuing sanctions relief, and his agenda has
received a green light from Iran’s Supreme Leader. The problem is that
Pezeshkian has no credible negotiating partner in Washington or in any other
Western capital. If the US doesn’t take advantage of this opening to find a
compromise, it may not get another chance for many years.
It is clear that
US Iran policy needs a complete overhaul. Reviving nuclear negotiations would
be a good beginning for establishing better US-Iranian relations, but if there
is going to be real improvement in the relationship that lasts US diplomacy
with Iran cannot be limited to the nuclear issue. A new nonproliferation
agreement could clear the way for closer trade and diplomatic ties, and the US
and Iran should build on that foundation to create a constructive bilateral
relationship. The absence of normal diplomatic relations between our countries
for forty-five years has been detrimental to both. It is past time to remedy
the situation.
The US has
greatly improved relations with other states that it fought in major wars with
much higher American casualties. The United States normalized relations with
the same Vietnamese government that it had fought bitterly a quarter of a
century earlier. There is no compelling reason why past US-Iranian enmity must
endure after almost half a century. If the Iranian government has American
blood on its hands, the US government is responsible for spilling even more
Iranian blood between its support for Iraq’s invasion of Iran, shooting down
Iran Air flight 655, the Tanker War, and decades of crippling sanctions.
Instead of dwelling on the injuries that the US and Iran have done to each
other, US policymakers would be wise to work on burying the proverbial hatchet
and establishing normal ties.
No comments:
Post a Comment