Iran: Choosing the best of bad options
Many have asked me, “So, what is the bipartisan solution to the standoff with Iran?” Unfortunately, I’ve not had a good answer. We currently find ourselves in an exceedingly dangerous and tense situation with few good options to resolve it. Yes, frighteningly similar to our Iraq policy.
So, without any good policy options we are forced to choose the best of several undesirable alternatives. Greg Djerijan points out in a a blog post today that the a whole slew of well known Republicans have called for direct talks with Iran. These include Henry Kissinger, Richard Armitage, Richard Haas, Chuck Hagel, and Dick Lugar. Several well known Democrats have come out in support of this option including Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Sen. Chris Dodd. Considering the names behind this proposal on both sides of this aisle, I think that this idea should be able to gain broader bipartisan support.
I think that it’s important that we put this proposal in context. It’s not a “good” solution and it has many potentially negative consequences. However, it’s still better than the other “bad” solutions available.
First, it is true that the North Koreans were able to use similar negotiations to buy time to further strengthen their weapons development program. However, I would hope that our negotiations this time could learn from that experience and implement safeguards that would lessen such loopholes. Secondly, it also true that such talks do provide a certain sense of legitimacy to a regime that has supported terrorists and has also threatened to destroy Israel. However, the fact is that the world is not following the U.S. lead here and many countries already have significant ties with Iran and its oil resources will continue to strengthen those links.
So, it’s a given that the strategy of direct talks has plenty of faults. It’s far from an ideal solution. However, the alternatives are far worse.
Most military experts have determined that an attack on Iran would make Iraq look like a walk in the park. The idea of “surgical strikes” seems to be a relative fantasy and Iran has the ability to make our presence in Iraq into a real nightmare. If history is any indication, an attack on Iran would further strengthen the regime that we are so desperately trying to reign in.
Alternatively, we could continue on the path that we are on right now with the multilateral talks. However, this seems to be going nowhere fast. The U.S. holds many of the cards here, but is unwilling to directly discuss any quid pro quos directly with the Iranians. While I am hopeful that there will eventually be a breakthrough, past experience indicates that this is unlikely.
So, what will they talk about? What sort of offers should be made? Many others have written much more extensively about this than I will here. But I will say that we must be serious about security guarantees, providing enriched uranium appropriate for nuclear power, and economic engagement. Iran must allow intensive inspection of its facilities to guarantee that its programs are not weapons related. As I wrote in March, the US and Iran could both benefit from a bilateral discussion on the situation in Iraq. As anyone who knows negotiation tactics will tell you, the more variables on the table the better chance of a desirable resolution for both parties.
Direct talks are certainly not a cure-all, and it may not even work, but it’s certainly better than the other options on the table.
naturalist girls non young pictures nude freegrandmas pussy hairylabia asianvirgin underage teen sex blowjob raygold r(at)ygoldwhen women squirting cummingbeautiful girl nude asianscat lesbian girlpussies galleries cunt close-upchobits hentai comicstorrie naked wilson in playboy
Related posts: