Related Resources

The final panel of the “Iran on the Horizon” Conference addressed the United States’ relations with Iran and recommended future policy options. Ray Takeyh was the first to speak and he noted that United States foreign policy toward Iran both outside the region and within has not produced the desired results. For policy outside of the region, Takeyh identified that the most direct manifestations of policy have been the Security Council resolutions, which have not been particularly robust or coercive. These resolutions have not imposed economic pressure so much as providing international solidarity on the issue.

Takeyh continued to provide three critiques of economic sanctions and how they have generated undesired results within Iran. The first hope for the sanctions was that they would divide the Iranian elite, creating faults in the multifactional political arena. However just the opposite has happened — they’ve unified. His second criticism was the United States’ idea of sanctions and negotiations being compatible, when in fact this is contradictory. The sanctions create legislative barriers making it difficult to approach negotiation on the whole, lessening the possibility of offering economic concessions. The third problem he found with economic sanctions was on moral grounds. Sanctions only impair the everyday lives of the population. He concluded that there is no moral high ground in picking economic sanctions over force of arms because the effects on the general populous are no better.

Takeyh’s commentary then turned to a critique of the US policy within the region. He stated that there is no consensus on how to act with Iran, neither in the United States or Middle East. Gulf States, he reported, have acted with caution in trying to preserve a balance in the region, never embracing Iranian demands of a regional security system nor coercive US policy. He then commented on the containment of Iran in relation to the Cold War. Containment of the Soviet Union in that period led to capitalism and democracy. However, Islamic militancy is now the product of Iran’s containment, which is the complete opposite of wanted results. In conclusion, Takeyh suggested limited engagement with Iran and advised caution. The United States must be wary of their presence in Iran because Iranians are very adverse to what they regard as US cultural contamination. There are limits, such as this, but there are also similar interests, like the stabilization of Iraq. Hopefully, Takeyh concluded, slowly starting to interact with one another could lead to more understanding between the two regions and better relations in the future.

The second speaker was Patrick Clawson, who stated that it is easy to see problems in any alternative in dealing with Iran, since they are all limited and possibly hold great risks. He advised that until one has looked at all the options, it is impossible to rule out any of them. He went on to suggest that the Bush Administration has played the weakest hand possible in their actions towards Iran. Being preoccupied with other problems, their judgments have not always been the best. Clawson reminded the audience that in the 1990s, Clinton spent eight years strongly opposing construction of a nuclear power plant in Iran, however it is now the mantra of the Bush Administration that Iran has a right to build a nuclear program, which Clinton saw as an unacceptable risk to United States security. He detailed how the US and the European Union approach Iran has been on economic, security, and diplomatic levels. However, due to tremendous suspicion on both sides, Iran and the West lack a common ground, creating a pivotal problem. Clawson noted that fundamentally, the US is strong and Iran is weak. Iran’s economy is slipping compared to other countries in the region. He concluded that while Iran may pose a possible security threat, it will not become a dominating economic power anytime soon.

The final speaker of the day was Hillary Mann Leverett, who detailed how holding comprehensive, strategic talks with Iran is a key step toward working out the problems at hand. It is in the interest of national security to improve relations with Iran, she claimed, and only through talks is it possible to overcome differences and forge mutually beneficial relations for both parties. She discussed that in her own experiences in dealing with Iran, they have on the whole been very willing to negotiate until recently. This decline in willingness is a result of the United States repeatedly breaking off dialogue with Iran and continuing sanctions, reinforcing the idea that the US has no intention to negotiate with them.

To mend these damaged relations, Leverett suggested that the US take a grand bargain approach that puts all key issues on the table at the same time. If the United States were to deal on an item-by-item basis, nothing would be accomplished since one group would always have to surrender its position. The grand bargain scheme would play out over a long period of time, a key factor being that all commitments are agreed upon up front, allowing each party to know what it is getting into. Within these talks, she detailed, each side will have certain needs to be fulfilled. Iran will want the United States to commit to not use force to change its borders, end sanctions, reestablish diplomacy, work together to promote future prosperity, terminate Iran’s designation of a terrorist-supporting state, and commit to ongoing strategic dialogues with Iran to further mutual understanding. On the other side, the US needs Iran to commit to chemical and biological weapons control, issue statements supporting Israel/Palestine settlements, work with the US to stabilize Iraq, and enter talks with NGOs on humanitarian issues. In conclusion, Leverett expressed that there is no other plan for negotiation that actually seeks to resolve the differences between the two countries, and therefore a grand bargain approach is the most likely to improve relations.