Negotiating Iran's nuclear program: diplomacy versus military action

Political Advisor to the President on Iran Policies

Defining the Issue

Over the last several years, the issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions has been continually facing a number of different starts and stops. Part of the reason for this, is because of the country's insistence, on developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Yet, the rhetoric from various leaders has called for the destruction of Israel and America. As the Secretary of State, the big challenge going forward is to offer Iran encouragement, to engage in constructive talks with the world about abandoning such ambitions. Where, various incentives have been offered to halt the enrichment of uranium. However, at some point later on, these activities continue, creating more uncertainty. As a result, the central questions that need to be addressed by the group include:

Is there a way of allowing Iran to have a peaceful program and satisfy the concerns of the world community?

Can direct negotiations and relations with the U.S. have an impact on improving communication?

Policy Options

If communication and the underlying relationship are not improving, it is a sign that Iran is not going into the negotiations with the intention of not resolving the issue. Once this occurs, it means that bridging any kind of differences and persuading Iran to change their behavior have been reduced. As diplomacy has failed to yield the desired results; setting the stage for alternative choices to be utilized.

An alternative course of actions that could be considered is the possibility of military action against the Islamic Republic. This should be the very last option that is used, only after all efforts of diplomacy have failed. The problem is: that it is difficult to tell when a change in strategies is needed. As various intelligence agencies believe that they are developing nuclear weapons, but they are unsure. A good example of this can be seen by looking no further than, comments from Dennis Blair (the Director of National Intelligence). Who said, "Although we do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons, we assess Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop them." ("2007 Iran National Intelligence Estimate ") This is significant, because it shows the challenges when using alternative policy options, as you do not know when diplomacy has failed. Where, the inability of intelligence agencies to understand the ambitions of the Islamic Republic, are making diplomacy more difficult. This is because no one can be able to confirm the intentions of the Iranians. If more specific information could be provided, it would help to establish a foundation, as to the overall scope and nature of their nuclear program. (Podherdtz)

Recommendations

The most logical options should be to exercise all avenues of diplomacy. This means having direct negations with Iran, about their nuclear issue and working with them to establish some kind of relationship (outside of the international community). During these meetings, negotiators should be focused on building trust and bridging any kind of differences that may exist. For example, if Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, then the country should allow inspectors to verify these facts. At the same time, the intelligence community needs to have more concrete information about the country's nuclear ambitions. Where, they can provide specific evidence to support or refute the facts about Iran's nuclear program. This is important, because having a secondary way of corroborating the information can help negotiators to understand the situation. At which point, they can determine if alternative courses of action may be necessary before it's too late. In this particular case, if Iran is failing to honor the agreements that they are making and continues with uranium enrichment, this could be a sign that negotiations may not be working. Instead of threatening the country, diplomats should continue to work with the regime to encourage a peaceful solution. At the same time, various military options should begin with the implementation of different strategies to support this objective. Where, planners and military officials will need time to set up any kind of possible actions against these facilities. The use of diplomacy and this method will help to ensure that communication remains open, while highlighting to the Iranians that some kind of change must take place. If this kind of scenario was developing, they might be inclined to engage in various peaceful overtures. The reason why, is because the current strategy that is being utilized, allows the Iranians to play the different members of the world community against each other (in an effort to achieve their nuclear ambitions). If you can take this away from them, you have a realistic possibility of coming to: a workable solution. This is because the Iranians realize that they are running out of options. (Podherdtz)