[Mb-civic] FW: Another opinion on: 'The Iranian puzzle'

[Golsorkhi]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Samii Shahla <shahla at thesamiis.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:53:36 -0500
Subject: Another opinion on: 'The Iranian puzzle'

Chicago Tribune

The Iranian puzzle

  January 10, 2005

  In the summer of 2002, the Bush administration signaled that it had
abandoned hope that Iran President Mohammad Khatami and his supporters
in parliament could deliver promised democratic reforms. From that
point on, President Bush said, the United States would seek to support
in any way possible the "Iranian people"--meaning the student
protesters who had stormed the streets demanding reform.

  At the time, it seemed that the administration was giving up too
easily on Khatami. Now that shift in policy appears to have been
prophetic. Khatami proved to be an overly cautious politician who
reneged on his promises of increased freedom for Iranians.

  In recent weeks, Khatami has conceded that he failed to deliver on his
democratic reforms, claiming that he surrendered to the will of the
country's hard-line theocrats to avoid riots and preserve the ruling
Islamic establishment. "If I retreated, I retreated against the system
I believed in," Khatami said to Tehran University students. "I
considered it necessary to save the ruling establishment."

  To which some students chanted: "Khatami, Khatami, shame on you!"

  Shame, indeed. Saving the ruling establishment is a tragedy for
millions of Iranians seeking greater freedoms. These Iranians, many of
them under 35, overwhelmingly elected Khatami twice in hopes that he
would challenge the tyrannical mullahs, not kowtow to them.

  Meanwhile, the mullahs are far stronger now than in 2002. They've
crushed reformers in sham elections and consolidated their oppressive
grip on the country. They've shuttered newspapers and thrown political
opponents in prison. They've lied and cheated to fast-track their plans
to build a nuclear weapon, as the ultimate shield against a feared U.S.
attack.

  So the Bush administration was right on Khatami. But the
administration also promised an Iran policy that would foster freedom
by supporting the reform-minded students' crusade against the mullahs.
There's little evidence the administration has made good on that
promise--and if it has, it has not delivered results.

  That leaves everyone with a quandary: What should the U.S. be doing to
destabilize the mullahs and help the democratic movement?

  There's increasing urgency in this question, not only because Iran is
attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is also one of the world's
leading sponsors of terrorism; its hard-line government is a beacon of
support for some of the most vicious terrorist groups in the world.

  At the moment, the French, Germans and British are negotiating with
Iran over its nuclear programs. The Europeans, with billions in
economic ties to Iran, are playing the good cop in the current nuclear
talks. The U.S. is playing the bad cop, staying apart from the
negotiations, arguing that Iran can't be trusted.

  America's message to Iran: abandon nuclear ambitions or face possible
sanctions before the UN Security Council. But the U.S. hasn't convinced
the Europeans or most of the rest of the world to go along with that
blunt message.

  There are influential voices calling on the administration to change
course and find new ways to engage Iran. One example: The Committee on
the Present Danger, a group of former high-level political leaders and
diplomats, scholars and think-tankers who advocate for a strong
approach to the war on terror. It's a diverse group, including former
House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen. Joe Lieberman.

  The committee argued in a recent paper that the administration needs
to push regime change in peaceful ways and "reconnect with the Iranian
people, to help the vast majority of Iranians who want democracy to
achieve it. ..."

  Among their suggestions: reopen the American embassy in Tehran and
re-establish diplomatic relations; develop efforts by the U.S. military
and law-enforcement services to talk to their Iranian counterparts
about cooperating in a transition to democracy; step up information
outreach to the Iranian people via television, radio and the Internet;
organize cultural, academic and professional exchanges; collect
evidence of murder, torture, corruption and aiding terrorists that
could be used against supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a future
international tribunal; and develop "smart" sanctions that target
import-export businesses controlled by the corrupt, ruling mullahs.

  In other words, flood Iran with the message that its actions can
produce rewards ... and carry risks. These are provocative ideas that
deserve to be heard by the new administration.

  Engaging Iran, attempting to influence its politics and culture, is
filled with immense peril. Any group seen as embraced by the U.S. risks
a backlash in Iran.

  "It is worth remembering that in the 25 years since the taking of the
U.S. embassy in Tehran, the United States has tried every policy
imaginable, from undeclared warfare to unilateral concessions, and none
of them has solved our problems with Iran ..." wrote Kenneth Pollack in
his recent study of Iran, "The Persian Puzzle."

  Perhaps the approach by the U.S. toward re-establishing ties with
Libya provides some useful benchmarks. But Moammar Gadhafi decided to
cooperate only after years of economic sanctions and a nuclear shipment
was seized by authorities. Only then was he apparently convinced that
his quest for the bomb was not worth the cost. Iran won't be convinced
of that by European negotiators who offer carrots but no sticks.

  Iran is a puzzle, but it can be cracked. The regime is hugely
unpopular with its own people. There are ways to engage the Iranian
people and their leaders. But the best way to encourage reform in Iran
is to increase the economic pressure on Iran to cooperate with the
world.

  Bush spoke compellingly in the summer of 2002 about helping the
Iranian people send the mullahs back to the mosques, but he has little
to show for that vow. Now it's time to decide how the U.S. can engage
Iran's people and its leaders without backing down from U.S. demands on
nuclear weapons and terrorism.

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
---
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi
-0501100104jan10,1,2498205.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-
hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

------ End of Forwarded Message