Just as Nixon went to China, should Obama go to Iran?
World powers, and the US in particular, need a game-changer to move Iran to a cooperative stance concerning its nuclear program, a few analysts argue. Such an Obama overture to Iran is a provocative idea, they say, but the alternative may be military confrontation.
World powers began their fourth round of high-level talks with Iranian officials on Tuesday, aiming to stop Islamic regime's nuclear program from making atomic weapons despite widespread doubts that the stepping-stone meeting will yield a final deal.
Stanislav Filippov/AP
Washington
In the 34 years since its revolution, Iran has marked key gains in the Middle East and pursued a nuclear program that shows little signs of slowing, despite a barrage of Western economic sanctions. Is it time for the United States to switch course and make a Nixon-to-China move vis a vis the Islamic republic?
That provocative idea, at the center of a new book by two American experts on Iran, is raising eyebrows in Washington even as a new round of talks between world powers and Iran over Tehran鈥檚 advancing uranium-enrichment program began Tuesday.
The talks in Almaty, Kazakhstan, between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the US, Russia, China, Britain, France) plus Germany, offered few initial glimmers of progress toward defusing a crisis careening toward confrontation.
The world powers offered Iran limited sanctions relief if it ceases to enrich uranium to 20 percent 鈥� a level of purity that can quickly be further refined to produce weapons-grade fuel. Iran, in turn, pledged to make a counteroffer at Day 2 of talks on Wednesday.
But with optimism for the talks low, some experts say the world powers, and principally the US, must come up with a much bigger game-changer than a modest reduction of sanctions if they are to move Iran 鈥� and perhaps to avoid another Middle East war as early as this summer.
鈥淵ou could have a deal on the nuclear issue within weeks if the US accepted a certain level of safeguarded enrichment,鈥� says Flynt Leverett, a former director for Middle East affairs in the Bush administration National Security Council (NSC) and professor of international affairs at Pennsylvania State University. But that 鈥渨ould basically mean accepting the Islamic republic [of Iran]鈥� as a legitimate power, he adds 鈥� something Mr. Leverett advocates.
Leverett, who with his wife, Georgetown University professor Hillary Mann Leverett, recently published 鈥淕oing to Tehran,鈥� says the US president ultimately will have to pull off something that 鈥減arallels the Nixon-Kissinger opening to China鈥� in 1972 and 鈥渁ccept Iran and [it] having an independent foreign policy.鈥�
President Obama has vowed to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon, while ally Israel 鈥� which Mr. Obama will visit in March 鈥� insists that Iran on its current trajectory may well have assembled the stockpile of enriched uranium and other elements permitting a 鈥渂reak-out鈥� to a rapid assembly of a nuclear bomb by this summer.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week that Iran鈥檚 stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium is bringing it closer to the 鈥渞ed line鈥� that the Israeli leader has warned could trigger military strikes against Iranian nuclear installations.聽
Iran continues to say that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenai repeating that nuclear weapons are immoral. But Iran also vows never to bargain away its uranium enrichment program nor to bow to the West鈥檚 stiff economic sanctions.
US options in this context appear to be extremely limited. Earlier this month Vice President Joe Biden repeated Obama鈥檚 offer 鈥� first made in the president鈥檚 2009 inaugural address 鈥� of direct talks with Tehran. But Mr. Biden, speaking at an international security conference in Munich, said the Iranians would have to be prepared to address a specific agenda.
鈥淲e are not just prepared to do it for the exercise,鈥� Biden said, according to news reports.
The Iranian nuclear crisis will never be resolved without some resolution of the Washington-Tehran standoff, say some experts on the region. But others, including several Republican hawks, warn that the Iranians would likely drag out any talks with Washington even as they continue making nuclear progress.
Other forces in the US, including some Iranian opposition groups, would virulently oppose any American overture that appears to legitimize a regime they believe most Iranians do not support.
At the same Munich conference as Biden, Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona said he would not oppose direct talks but held out little hope they would produce anything. 鈥淲e鈥檝e seen this movie before,鈥� he said.
鈥淲e should learn the lessons of history, and that is that no matter what the talks are, if you still have the fundamental problem 鈥� and the fundamental problem is Iranians鈥� commitment to acquisition of a nuclear weapon 鈥� it doesn鈥檛 matter to a significant degree,鈥� Senator McCain said.
Ms. Leverett, speaking from her experience as part of the US team that met with Iranians in the early years of the Afghanistan war, says the US has learned that 鈥渨e can negotiate with Khamenai鈥� and the regime he heads.
The Leveretts answered questions recently at an event at the Center for the National Interest, a realist foreign-policy think tank in Washington.
Any opening to Iran will be more difficult now because of America鈥檚 damaged standing in the Middle East after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, says聽Mr. Leverett, adding that the NSC under Bush quashed his efforts to disseminate his views on engaging Iran.聽
鈥淎merica鈥檚 position in the region is in free fall,鈥� he says, adding that a third military intervention in the region would be 鈥渄isastrous鈥� for the US.
But 鈥渃oming to terms with Iran鈥檚 Islamic republic鈥� could mark the beginning of a turnaround for the US in the region, Mr. Leverett suggests. President Richard 鈥淣ixon鈥檚 realigning of the US approach to China saved the US position in Asia.鈥� A similar approach now by Onama toward Iran, he says, 鈥渃ould do the same.鈥�