Negotiation is the only solution for Iran — Mahsa Alimardani
The Obama administration came into office in 2009 with promises to negotiate effectively and to open dialogue with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Instead, they have increased sanctions and churned out militaristic rhetoric. All the while, the Iranian nuclear program has progressed and there seems to be no room for compromise. The pressure Obama has imposed on Iran has only brought the US and Iran closer to war. An effective solution must be found to avoid conflict.
First, sanctions will not work. New legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama makes it almost impossible for Iran to sell oil on the international market. As a result the Iranian currency, the rial, has lost 40 per cent of its value against the dollar. This does not pose a significant threat to the regime. Iran has withstood economic pressures since 1979 and has developed its defenses. From using third parties to purchase goods it cannot import directly to paying for jet fuel with suitcases full of cash, the Islamic Republic has found creative ways to overcome the effects of international sanctions.
The Obama administration argues that its initial policy towards diplomacy with Iran failed to secure a nuclear deal but instead brought about unprecedented International backing for sanctions on Iran. Rather than standing behind the 2009 policy of “extending a hand to Tehran,” Washington has given up on diplomatic efforts and has instead taken up the policy of increasing pressure and sanctions on Iran. Since the sanction regime is unlikely to work, the current US policy undermines the message that there can be a peaceful resolution to the issue.
A military strike in fact seems very likely considering that a “shadow war” has been in effect since 2007 between the US, Israel, and Iran. The murders of nuclear scientists, the most recent one being the motorbike assassination of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, deputy director of Iran’s main uranium enrichment plant, is propelling Iran towards confrontation. In addition, Israeli rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear capabilities and a possible military strike has further increased tensions. Fear of looking soft on Washington exists in Tehran, and it won’t be long before Iran decides to defend themselves and mobilize for a military strike.
Obama’s unwillingness to defend diplomacy is probably due to Iran’s nuclear advances, alongside pressure from Congress, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Initially there was a push against the skeptics of diplomacy to engage with Iran, but much of this motivation was lost after the fraudulent Iranian elections of 2009. The massive human rights abuses committed by the Iranian government shook the administration’s faith in dialogue with the Islamic regime. By the time negotiations began in October 2010, the policy was that it would either work right away or not at all. Once the October talks failed to win Iran’s acceptance of a nuclear fuel swap proposal, diplomacy was all but abandoned.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that overthrowing the regime will bring democracy to Iran. The Green Movement, which emerged during the 2009 elections, failed to create a challenge to the system. At the same time, the bulwark of the Iranian regime for the past 32 years has been anti-American rhetoric. The Iranian regime needs a US enemy for its survival, and US pressure on Iran is proving to further unite Iranians to the Islamic regime. Sustained offers of friendship by the US would place the Iranian regime’s domestic agenda at the forefront and incite domestic civil society pressure.
As such, Americans should revisit the notion of diplomacy. Decision-makers in Washington and Tehran should learn from Israel’s former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who once stated “one does not make peace with one’s friends. One makes peace with one’s enemy.” Diplomacy takes time and persistence, and it should be given a chance before war and bloodshed.
Regime change is the only solution for Iran — Cameron H. Becker
As Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, Western powers have been toying with the potential implications of a military strike. If an attack does occur, simply seeking an end to Iran’s nuclear capability will not be sufficient. Currently Iran represents an oppressive, undemocratic, and regionally destabilizing state. In the wake of a successfully coordinated campaign against the Gaddafi regime in Libya, any attack against Iran must be done in coordination with the Iranian opposition in order to ensure stability and democratization in its aftermath.
Recently, Western sanctions bent on coercing Iran to give up nuclear development have isolated the nation considerably. Most notably, the EU recently joined other Western nations in cutting off all oil imports from Iranian sources. Despite this, Russia and China have adamantly refused to take part in any moves intended to harm the Iranian regime. Thus, while sanctions on Iranian oil imports remain steadfast, massive Russian and Chinese markets remain open and ready to reap the benefits of an increased supply of low-priced oil.
Because of this, sanctions on Iran are not being felt by the regime itself. As food and other basic goods are rising dramatically in cost, those within the Iranian government structure are simply utilizing Iran’s vast resource wealth to transcend the economic difficulties being posed by sanctions. Consequently, while regular Iranians are feeling growing economic pressures as inflation increases, the sanctions’ inability to have an impact on those within the regime means they are not going to deter Iran from ending its nuclear program.
With sanctions presenting an ineffective deterrent, Western governments are beginning to see that a military strike may be their only option in bringing stability to Iran. However, if a military strike must happen, it must be done correctly. In light of recent disastrous military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Western powers must look to the oppositional elements within Iran as potential partners in coordinating an attack on the regime.
Iran’s Green Movement, a pro-reform oppositional group that formed out of the anger spawned by fraudulent elections in 2009, represents both a increasingly legitimate opposition movement and a group who’s members have been brutally repressed for their calls for democracy. As the Iranian regime continues to repress pro-democracy forces in Iran, while concurrently representing a threat to international security, a military campaign in coordination with pro-democracy opposition forces in Iran presents the most positive way forward. As most recently learned in Libya, popular regime change can occur in coordination with an international military force. Therefore, if – or perhaps more accurately, when – the current divide between Iran and the West divulges into military action, every necessary step should be taken to involve Iran’s oppositional elements, in order to coordinate regime change as a force for both regional stability and Iranian democracy.
