Sweeten the pot

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (WWICS) and the Iran Project this week presented a joint report on the strategic options available for dealing with Iran, compiled with input from former senior national security officials and experts on Iran. The event featured:

–Carla Hills: Chairman and chief executive officer of Hills & Company, International Consultants

–Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering: Career Ambassador; former ambassador to Israel, Russia, India, El Salvador, Nigeria and Jordan

–Dr. Jim Walsh: Research Associate as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program (SSP)

–Ambassador James Dobbins: Director of the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center

This is what they think needs to happen:

1. Time to recalibrate

The time has come for Washington to recalibrate its policy of simultaneously putting pressure on and engaging with Iran. The US should emphasize direct diplomatic engagement with Iran with the same fervor it has pursued its international alienation. Time is running out.  The more time passes, the less satisfactory a potential nuclear deal will be for both parties. The sooner a nuclear deal is reached the sooner the US and Iran can engage in a broader dialogue on regional issues. Use of military force would entail serious difficulties and implications, while upping the ante on negotiations carries new promise.

The US should pursue bilateral relations with Iran beyond the context of the multi-lateral P5+1 negotiations. Ambassador Pickering insisted on the importance of establishing respect and mutual trust between the two parties: Iran needs to stop perceiving all US policy as a ploy for regime change, while the US needs to stop viewing Iranian intentions solely through the lens of nuclear weapons. To reach a deal the Iranians should accept a peaceful and civil nuclear program monitored by the IAEA, while the US will have to relax the sanctions and allow Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

2. Towards a nuclear deal

The report does not propose a magic formula for the resolution of the nuclear problem. It eschews tactical considerations in favor of addressing the broader issue: a lack of emphasis on diplomacy. Walsh argued the overemphasis on details encourages incrementalism, stating the P5+1 “play small ball” when they  negotiate (unsuccessfully) on 20% enrichment. The difficulty the parties are encountering in overcoming small issues suggests progress cannot be made without greater trust and respect.

But how do two conflicting countries earn each other’s trust and respect?

Walsh suggests breaking the “cycle of expectations.” As a Bostonian, he had empathy on his mind. He felt Iran’s recent earthquakes offer an opportunity for more than just expressions of sympathy. Donating relief aid in an unexpected demonstration of empathy could help melt away some  of the mistrust.

3. Pursuing the diplomatic track

Ambassador Pickering believes the time for negotiations is ripe even for the Iranians. If Iran truly opposed negotiating on the nuclear issue, they would have stopped agreeing to P5+1 talks. But for real progress, Ambassador Dobbins suggested the US sweeten the offer on sanctions relief.  The sanctions regime would be difficult to reinstate should Iran not comply with a deal. However, offering a temporary suspension of (some, or all) sanctions would allow the US to easily and unilaterally reinstate them.

Although difficult, cooperation with Iran is possible. As Bruce Laingen, US Chargé d’affaires during the 1979 hostage crisis put it during Q&A: “if we can negotiate with Pyongyang, we can negotiate with Iran.”