Current: Iran

This week and next, I am participating in the Osgood Center's Foreign Policy Symposium in Washington. Numerous experts and diplomats have shared their insight and analysis with us on current international events and, not surprisingly, we are hearing a lot about Iran. Its alleged nuclear weapons program had some Washington observers talking of a potential strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, either by Israel or the United States, though such talk has diminished recently. Still, an Israeli official told us on Friday that Iran, not Palestine, is the number one issue for Israel right now. What strikes me is that the United States has played a key role in enabling the ascent of Iran both by defeating some of its key regional adversaries and refusing to negotiate with its leaders.

In late 2001, Iranian support for the Northern Alliance was central in bringing down the Taliban in Afghanistan. But instead of working together to secure Afghanistan and pursue al-Qaeda, Washington renounced Iran in January 2002 by including it in its "Axis of Evil." Then in 2003, the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein's government, a long-time Iranian adversary. In less than three years, the U.S. had eliminated the top two threats to Iran: the Taliban and Iraq's baathist government. It then rejected Iran's 2003 proposal now referred to as the Grand Bargain, in which Iran offered nuclear transparency, support in the war on terror and favorable pressure on Palestinians and Hizbollah in exchange for removal from the "Axis of Evil" and a little respect - essentially a "peace treaty." On paper, it was a bargain indeed. Unfortunately, we will never know how serious Iran was about the Khatami proposal was because it was flatly dismissed by the White House, which was riding high after invading Iraq and felt it could more easily force a desirable Tehran regime change.

But it was not to be. In the last five years, Iran has emerged as an imposing regional power trying to make it, according to Iranian expert Trita Parsi, as costly as possible for the U.S. not to negotiate. Washington's policy toward Iran has failed in almost every sense, which includes its efforts to bring about democratic and human rights changes. The current situation, as conveyed by several of the Osgood panelists this week, is dire: Iran seems poised to develop nuclear weapons and will not be swayed.

But some would argue, and I agree, that it is highly unlikely that Iran would use a nuclear weapon in a first-strike attack against Israel. To do so would ensure its own destruction. Though it may come across as irrational at times, it is not: the Iranian leadership is not a suicidal regime. Possessing a nuclear weapon would boost Iran's hard power, but it would never use it - even to "wipe Israel off the map." In fact, Parsi believes Iran does not intend to bring its program to completion, for doing so would set off a regional nuclear arms race in which a large country like Iran would have the most to lose. Possession of nuclear weapons is a great equalizer. Why would Iran encourage smaller countries in the region to pursue nuclear weapons when it already has a natural advantage?

While the Iranian nuclear possibility does not frighten me as much as it does some, nuclear proliferation of any kind is still dangerous. And it is painful to look back at how the Bush Administration closed the door on an opportunity with Iran that could have enabled cooperation and eased tensions at best, and opened the lines of communication with Tehran at worst.

A Nation Without a State

Aside from the Kurds, the Palestinians are the largest people group in the world without an official state. Israel says it favors the creation of Palestine (the "two-state solution"), but it continues building what the World Court claims are illegal settlements around Jerusalem. Today, the European Union has criticized the continuing construction.

I asked an Israeli official about this today while visiting the embassy in Washington with a group from the Osgood Center for International Studies. He denied the new settlements and took the opportunity to criticize Palestinian looting of donated greenhouses almost two years ago. Typical maneuvering by a diplomat and illustrative of the accusatory rhetoric that has so far hindered a final Middle East agreement.