While the topic du jour continues to be getting Egypt right, I offer
observations derived from remarks I made today at a forum on U.S. policy
options for dealing with Iran. The forum was organized by the National
Security Network and the Center for American Progress. I was asked to
address possible and acceptable policy options, how we should go about
pursuing those options, and how steps taken toward one outcome would
rule out or empower other outcomes.
Much of the American public
discourse on Iran exhibits a couple of unfortunate characteristics. One
is a demonization of Iran that fosters emotion over analysis and that
encourages absolutism of the “must prevent through whatever means
necessary” sort while discouraging more sober assessment of costs and
benefits of different course of action. The other is a remarkably narrow
focus on one issue—Iran’s nuclear program—and even more narrowly on one
aspect of that program: the enrichment of uranium. This is a classic
case of goal substitution, as if spinning centrifuges were a surrogate
for everything that matters in the relationship of the United States and
Iran. If we could somehow rid the discourse of these unhelpful
attributes it would greatly improve the climate for arriving at a sound
policy toward the Islamic republic.
Probably no agreement with
Iran is attainable that rejects a conti… >>>
