The Washington Institute's Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research, and David Makovsky, director of the Institute's Project on the Middle East Peace Process, participated in a Washington Post forum to evaluate the U.S. presidential candidates:
Patrick Clawson
Pre-Debate. Russia and China are on a different page from us about Iran (and are not that well disposed toward us in general). For all the fine words from our European allies, they have done little to step up the pressure on Iran outside the U.N. framework. The only way to get help from Europe and Russia may be to put Iran at the top of our agenda. Is Iran that important? Put another way: How important is the risk that an Iranian nuclear breakout will lead to many more nuclear states, not least in the Middle East?
Should the United States state clearly that if necessary it will use force to preempt Iran from getting nuclear weapons, or is deterrence a better policy than preemption?
What are U.S. priorities with Russia? Should we be willing to accommodate Moscow on issues like Georgia if the Kremlin agrees to be helpful on issues such as Iran?
How can we structure talks with Iran in such a way as to serve U.S. interests, rather than strengthening the hard-line regime?
Post-Debate. The candidates emphasized their differences on Iran when actually they have much in common. Both agreed "we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran." Both supported reinforced diplomacy as the solution, with strengthened sanctions as the central instrument.
Even regarding the issue on which they exchanged testy words -- namely, engaging Iran -- their differences were more about how to engage rather than whether to talk. For all his pounding McCain about direct talks, Obama agreed that meetings required preparation and would not start with a presidential summit. And for all his hammering Obama about meeting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, McCain agreed that Iran and the United States should be talking even while profound differences are unresolved.
Each made the same goof, mistaking Iran's Revolutionary Guards for Saddam's Republican Guards. More important, though, each ignored the fact that the policies they propose offer poor prospects of success. Only the true optimists, like me, still believe that sanctions and engagement can persuade Iran to postpone its nuclear ambitions, much less to abandon them. More likely, the day will come when a president will have to decide just how unacceptable is a nuclear Iran: is preemption the wiser option, or deterrence? For all the tough words, neither candidate even hinted that force was an option on the table. Until we convince Iran's leaders that America will act if need be, they will continue to believe that we will eventually tolerate the nuclear Iran we now declare to be unacceptable. That gives them little reason to change course.
David Makovsky
Pre-Debate. Israeli and Palestinian leaders have spent more time discussing the final contours of a peace plan since last November's Annapolis conference than ever before. Key territorial differences have been narrowed. Yet important gaps remain. How high of a priority is it to keep Annapolis alive? Is there a better approach? How could the United States persuade the Israeli and Palestinian publics not to be deterred by past setbacks and to believe again that diplomacy can produce results?
More broadly, how should the United States reach out to Arab states to support peace? The Arab states usually say that they endorsed an Arab initiative in 2002 that offers Israel diplomatic recognition once Israel yields all the territories it won in the 1967 war; many Israelis insist that is insufficient, as they are more vulnerable to rocket fire having already withdrawn from Gaza and Lebanon. How can we approach the Arab states to use their unique position to delegitimize the radicals who seek to torpedo peace?
Some say the Bush effort on Middle East democratization was futile because elections only bring into office Islamists who are hostile to the United States. Others say that the program should not be shelved but, perhaps, modified to focus more on establishing the foundation of liberal institutions. What's the best way to proceed?
Post-Debate. Both made clear that the United States could not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Both made clear that Iran was a rogue state, yet both said they would engage Tehran. (McCain on talks with Iran: "there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I've always encouraged them.") This is at odds with the policy that characterized much of the Bush administration.
With Obama seemingly backing off his interest in meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ("Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to"), this focus on engagement requires clarification by both candidates before Election Day. What leverage would the United States bring to the table to secure American interests? Both candidates mentioned prospects of heightened sanctions -- what would those be? Halting imports on refined gasoline to Iran, which is dependent on the world for more than 40 percent of its needs? What would be the relationship between sanctions and engagement? What would be the timetable for such engagement? In other words, how does one structure engagement so it would not be like a basketball game where Tehran plays out the clock until it possesses nuclear weapons?
Person | About | Day |
---|---|---|
نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
So who will lose Europe??
by Private Pilot on Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:00 PM PDTNo to Nuclear; Yes to Solar
by Shamse Vazir (not verified) on Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:02 PM PDTFolks, Iran does have a right to peaceful nuclear power according to the NPT as a legal matter. I do not question that.
I do question the wisdom of it. Many western nations have been weary of nuclear power for good reasons including operational safety and radioactive waste. An example of safety problems was shown by the Chernobyl disaster. Another was the Three Mile Island accident. Nuclear technology is over half century old and has little research value. It is dirty and environmentally unwise.
On the other hand, Solar energy is up and coming. There is great research potential, no waste and much lower danger. Iran has plenty of deserts with a ton of sunlight that makes it ideal for Solar energy generation. This is not a joke, it is happening in California; New Mexico; UAE and many other places.
Why not pass on nuclear and focus on Solar? With it Iran will be able to generate all the energy it needs as well as for export. Unlike oil it won't run out anytime soon.
Mr. Clawson informs us that
by Jaleho on Fri Oct 03, 2008 08:15 AM PDT"More likely, the day will come when a president will have to decide
just how unacceptable is a nuclear Iran: is preemption the wiser
option, or deterrence"
Sorry Mr. Clawson, but that did come in 2003. The president and all of the neo-cons DID decide that a nuclear Iran is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. Many red lines were drawn since then.
But, pretty much the president was FORCED TO ADMIT that he can not do shit about Iran. It is time for neocons to stop looking funnier by constantly re-defining THE red line, threatening and all the empty threats they do without having either the stomach militarily, the financial capability, or an iatoa of American people's support.
Here's the real thing Mr. Clawson should remember about his tough guy:
pre-debate: bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.
post-debate: Sorry for being a wishful thinking dolt. I'll talk to Iran.
Mr. Clawson double Standards and bullying others does not work!
by Ari (not verified) on Fri Oct 03, 2008 07:44 AM PDTMr. Clawson:
The U.S. and Israel cannot maintain double standards. Israel a non-signatory to the NPT, with 200 to 500 nuclear war heads, a country who is currently occupying Palestine and continues to invade the countries of the region, and claims it only wants the "BOMB" as a deterrant while at the same time deny the same right for other countries in the region. This is never going to work - the days of bullism are over!
No one cannot eliminate Iran's inalienable right by continusouly pointing fingers that such and such is unacceptable to Israel and the U.S. Put aside your double standards, if Israel does not want a nuclear Iran, which Iran does not yet possess unless both Israel and the U.S. continue to threaten it with an invasion, then why not accept a non-nuclear Middle East. This has been offered by Iran, why is Israel and the U.S. not accepting this? I also wonder if either the U.S. or Israel will allow any agency to inspect their military faciities? I am 100% sure no way!! But then Israel, the U.S., neocons, including yourself demand this from Iran.
It is very easy to solve any threat that you may feel that Iran posses to Israel, have Israel and any other country in the region dismantle their nuclear armaments an set this as a precondition for Iran.
Furthermore, ensure that the U.S. a nuclear weapons state not go around the NPT by assisting non-NPT signatories in their nuclear program.
So long as there are double standards, so long as the U.S. is the greatest violator of the NPT, I don't believe any country, any agency, nor the UNSC has a right to dictate anything to Iran.
We also know that Iran's entire peaceful nuclear program has been politicized, Iran is neither a threat to Israel who already possesses the most lethal weapons of mass destruction, 400 to 500 nuclear warheads, and the 4th largest army in the world nor to the U.S. who already has enough nuclear bombs to destroy Iran 100+ times over, plus the largest and most sophisticated military in the world.
So, let's stop repeating the same old, same old, these type of talks may fool the idiots but not the rest.
مهدی جنايات
Son (not verified)Fri Oct 03, 2008 06:30 AM PDT
مهدی
جنايات ملاها در يران ربطی به رابطه اوليا با فرزند ندارد بلکه رابطه جانی با قربای بی دفاع خود ا ست. شما همان نظر تعزيه امثال خلخالی, خمينی و لاجوردی را تبليغ ميکنيد که با خون و شکنجه و زندانی هزاران فرزند ايرانی توجيه شده است. امثال شما قادريد مليونها ايرانی را به اتهام هميشگی" جاسوس, کافر، منافق و سيونيست" مجازات کنيد و نام انرا رابطه پدر و فرزندی ميگذاريد...إ
....[we need to] remind
by ... (not verified) on Thu Oct 02, 2008 03:56 PM PDT....[we need to] remind ourselves that Americans don't think
like us. Their cognitive framework...informs their sense of 1)obeying the rule of law and not to set a percedent for the violaters of the law to go unpunished 2)their hatred of bullies who have not earned her respect.
This false equivalencey is maddening and laughable; tragically, it stems from the regime's severe congenital sense of insecurity. The US will never look at the Islamic Republic as an equal...
The nuclear issue in this fight is just an excuse and the hardliners know that better than anyone else.
Iran's program started under Shahanshah & should not be stopped
by Anonymous in the USA (not verified) on Thu Oct 02, 2008 02:59 PM PDTThe mollahs have no right to halt Iran's nuclear program, which was started by Shahanshah Aryamehr Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Under Khatami, the IRI was foolish enough to believe the lies of Uncle Sam's European puppets, and Iran stopped nuclear enrichment. After that, Iran only received more threats and more sanctions from the U.S. and Europe (i.e. the same states which helped Saddam invade Iran and use chemical weapons against Iranians). Iranian patriots should not allow the mollahs to stop Iran's nuclear program.
Clawson's schtick is getting ooooollllldd
by fiorangela on Thu Oct 02, 2008 02:50 PM PDTGet a job, Pat. Really. Find some honest line of work--MacDonald's may
be hiring.
You haven't had an original thought since you were in Pittsburgh and
threatened a deaf old man who presented facts that challenged your
rancid assertions.
A fancy PhD from New School and the best you can manage is high school
level report that McCain and Obama read from the same script? sheeesh.
Besides, Robert Baer's new book, "The Devil We Know, Dealing with the
New Iranian Superpower" will very soon eclipse your crabbed carping
about Iran. Baer starts out sounding like he's drunk Klawson KoolAid,
but his conclusions are doozies, and he ultimately displays an
understanding of the Iranian character that eluded your 30 year old
Marxian analysis. After devoting 200 pages, more or less, to
demonstrating how much Iran had learned about asymmetrical warfare as
well as Iran's abilities to win the hearts and minds of broad Middle
Eastern populations and government, mostly by pointing to Iran's
successes in Lebanon, particularly by vanquishing Israel, Baer wrote
(Obama, are you out there?):
If the United States were to go by the standard of what the Iranians do rather what they say,
there's no evidence they'll start World War III. With all the weapons
Iran has brought into Lebanon, it could have done that a long time ago.
What America needs to do is ask for a truce with Iran, deal with it as
an equal, reach a settlement one issue at a time, and continue along
the same course until Iran is ready for detente -- and maybe more.
With this introductory thought: There
is one more essential Iranian characteristic we need to
understand....[we need to] remind ourselves that Iranians don't think
like us. Their cognitive framework...informs their sense of justice and
fairness.
Baer then writes a lengthy explanation of how Zoroastrianism
ineluctibly shapes Iran's inner dynamics and entwines Iran's history
around that spiritual and ethical core. Clawson and his neocon coterie
chortle that both Obama and McCain slip into the same AIPAC-induced
trance and refer to Iran as a "rogue state." In his Epilogue, Baer
writes, "For too long now, the West has
looked at Iran through a prism that distorts the country beyond
recognition.... It's time we finally recognize Iran for what it is
today... It doesn't matter what we call Iran--a regional power a
hegemon, or a superpower--we have to do something about it."
Did you notice, Pat m'boy, Baer didn't say, "Let's call Iran a rogue
state?" Baer's book is stunning -- and welcome -- reading, an essential
for Americans who have been subjected to at least a dozen years of
propaganda and demonizing and mischaracterization of Iran and Iranians.
Take a look, Patrick; it might soften you up sufficiently to be able to
engage in conversation, rather than threats, the next time an old man
challenges your flawed assertions.
Parents and kids
by Mehdi on Thu Oct 02, 2008 03:17 PM PDTThe standoff between Iran and their opponents in some ways reminds me of the dilemma parents have with their kids. On the one hand they want to protect the kid from danger as well as the family, etc, and on the other hand they have to give some freedom to the kid otherwise the kid never grows up. It's a delicate balance. Of course this is not the only thing that is happening - there are other "individuals" involved who want something completely different (to sell weapons, etc).
won't tolerate Washington Institute
by Niki on Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:52 PM PDTAnd I hope that Iranians make it clear that they cannot tolerate the Washington Institute!