[Mb-civic] The Hawks and the Doves Are Aflutter Over U.S. Iran Policy

[Michael Butler]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-pletka23jul23.story

COMMENTARY

The Hawks and the Doves Are Aflutter Over U.S. Iran Policy

Washington needs to turn up the heat on an evil regime.
 By Danielle Pletka

 July 23, 2004

 Every few years, with soothing regularity, a prominent research institution
comes along to recommend that the United States reengage with Iran. The gist
of such reports usually follows the same line: Isolation just isn't working;
reformists (or sometimes they're called moderates or pragmatists) need
Washington's help in the battle against hard-liners; the country is not (nor
will it ever be) on the verge of a new revolution; and only relations with
the U.S. will provide incentives for better behavior.

 This week, it was the Council on Foreign Relations that sounded the call in
a 79-page report from a task force chaired by former national security
advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA Director Robert M. Gates.

 Given the seriousness of the threat Iran poses, fresh ideas from the
Council on Foreign Relations and elsewhere are, of course, welcome. Iran,
after all, is Terror Central: It has become an operational headquarters for
parts of Al Qaeda, continues to sponsor Hezbollah and Hamas, and senior
officials remain under indictment in U.S. court for masterminding the 1996
bombing in Saudi Arabia of the Khobar Towers military housing complex, in
which 19 Americans died. According to U.S. and European officials, the
regime also remains bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and is well down the
road to doing so.

 Clearly, U.S. policy in Iran has been a failure. Its problems have
persisted notwithstanding four years of tough talk from the Bush
administration, a continued embargo on U.S. investment and virtual
diplomatic radio silence. It's time to try something new; on that much, we
can agree with the pro-engagement groups.

 But that's where our agreement ends. They insist, in the face of evidence
to the contrary, that dialogue and trade would succeed where a hard line has
failed. Yet dialogue and trade are the hallmarks of Europe's fruitless
engagement of Iran. Neither European diplomatic outreach nor cordial trading
relations have achieved results. Carrot-and-stick offers, like a proffered
"trade and cooperation agreement" in exchange for a stand-down on nuclear
proliferation, have also failed. Engagement is a proven bust.

 The fact is, neither tough love nor tough talk will achieve results in Iran
because decision-makers in the government ‹ not just the so-called
hard-liners but the "moderates" and "pragmatists" as well ‹ are committed to
supporting terrorism, developing nuclear weapons and annihilating Israel.
Any opening from the U.S. will only lend credibility to that government and
forever dash the hopes of a population that, according to reliable polls,
despises its own leadership.

 So what to do? President Bush has taken the first step by making clear that
the Iranian clerical regime is anathema to the U.S. national security. But
we're not likely to invade for a variety of practical reasons, among them a
shortage of troops and an absence of targeting information about Iran's
nuclear sites. Nor can we count on Iran's weary and miserable population to
rise up unaided and overthrow its oppressors; virtually all analysts agree
that's not about to happen.

 Instead, a new three-part policy is needed.

 First, the administration must ante up promised support for the Iranian
people. Just as we supported Soviet dissidents, we must use the diplomatic
and economic tools at our disposal to embarrass the regime for its abysmal
human rights abuses, rally behind dissident student groups and unions and
let them know that the U.S. supports their desire for a secular democratic
state in Iran.

 Second, the administration must persuade the European Union and the
International Atomic Energy Agency to stand firm in their confrontation over
Iran's nuclear program. Iran has made commitments to end the production and
assembly of nuclear centrifuges. It has reneged on those promises, and the
next step is for the IAEA to refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council.
There is quiet talk of economic sanctions in European capitals; the EU must
know that a failure to follow through would mean an Iranian nuclear weapon
within a few years.

 Finally, the U.S. must lead in the containment of Iran. Iranian weapons
imports and exports should be interdicted; financial transfers to terrorists
must be identified and confiscated; terrorists traveling into and out of
Iran should be aggressively pursued and eliminated.

 These steps would not deliver quick solutions, but they are the only
rational course available to the U.S. and its allies. We have seen that
engagement with the current leadership of Iran would not achieve policy
change; all it would do is buy an evil regime the time it needs to perfect
its nuclear weapons and to build a network of terrorists to deliver them.

 *


Danielle Pletka is vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at
the American Enterprise Institute.




If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options




 Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times