Iran's secret nuclear sites and rumored warhead-development program have raised the stakes for tomorrow's talks in Geneva, but most pundits agree that reining in the country's nuclear ambitions will be difficult. (The Wire has covered the difficulty in imposing sanctions
, the challenges to Obama's leadership
, and the divide over whether Iran is building nukes
.) Yet there may be another path. A growing number of security experts argue that focusing on the regime's human rights abuses might be the best tactic for winning nuclear concessions. Here's why they think the talks could fail, and why threats to destabilize the regime might work:
- We've Talked Before Michael Ledeen
presents one of the most forceful cases for pessimism regarding the
upcoming Geneva talks. There is, he observes in the Wall Street
Journal, "an almost universally accepted
misconception: that previous American administrations refused to
negotiate with Iranian leaders." In fact, he argues, quoting Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates, "'every administration since 1979 has reached
out to the Iranians
in one way or another and all have failed.'"
- Iran Currently Constitutionally Bound to Violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty The Non-Proliferation Treaty, writes Matthias Küntzel
in the Wall Street Journal, was a bid to stabilize the international order, signed by Shah Mohammed Reza.
The Islamic Republic that replaced him, both by law and by political
will in the form of Ayatollah Khomenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has
declared it "wants to abolish this 'Satanic' secular world order and replace it with a Sharia-based
system of Islamic rule." Thus, Küntzel argues, although he does not explicitly advocate regime change, '[t]he opposition to the treaty's lofty
intentions is not just politically
affirmed but legally enshrined ... [a]s
long as Iran is ruled by Khomenei's doctrine."
- Lesson of the Summer: Ditch the Niceties "The post-election protests this summer," write Andrew Albertson and Ali Scotten
in the Washington Post, "and the regime's subsequent
crackdown have undermined whatever merit the administration may have
once seen in a realpolitik negotiations strategy." The administration
can't "pretend that the violence in the streets never happened."
Better, instead, "to raise the stakes by broadening the [Geneva] agenda
human rights." Washington hasn't succeeded on its own thus far, but "[b]y broadening ... support for the aspirations of ordinary
Iranians, the Obama administration can ... add pressure on the Iranian
regime, enhance domestic political support for talks and maximize the
opportunity for successful negotiations."
- What Iranian Leaders Truly Fear Washington Post's Anne Applebaum
thinks it's all about getting the right leverage, and sanctions just
aren't that scary. "[A] sustained and well-funded human rights
campaign," however, "must be a terrifying prospect." And never mind the
idea that the Iranian government would "cry 'foreign meddling' ... They
do that already."
what if we told the Iranian regime
that its insistence on pursuing nuclear weapons leaves us with no
choice but to increase funding for dissident exile groups, smuggle
money into the country, bombard Iranian airwaves with anti-regime
television and, above all, to publicize widely the myriad crimes of the
Islamic Republic? What if President Obama held up a photograph of Neda,
the young girl murdered by Iranian police last summer ... at every news conference?
- Regime Change Really Would Help Think-tanker Robert Kagan in the Washington Post doesn't just want the threat of regime change--he wants real regime change. "There
is good reason," he explains, "to believe that a democratic Iran might
forgo a nuclear weapon--just as a democratizing Russia abandoned
long-standing Soviet foreign and defense strategies--or at least be
more amenable to serious negotiations." Plus, he continues, "we have
much less to fear from a nuclear weapon in the hands of a democratic
Iran integrated into the liberal democratic world than from a weapon in
the hands of Ahmadinejad."
- Talk Only Buys Iran Time--Play Hardball American Spectator's Peter Ferrara is on board with Kagan: "The only way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is
through a policy of regime change." So strike the nuclear facilities and ship in arms to the rebels.
"Iran will retaliate, you say? Our diplomatic message should be that
such retaliation will be met with decapitation of the government,
including turning the Holy City of Qom housing the Grand Ayatollah
Khatami into an archeological site."
- What We Need, We're Not Likely to Get Without Serious Leverage Most of the calls for regime change assume that the United States is unlikely to get what it wants and needs through talk or through sanctions. Is that true? Think-tanker, academic, and arms control blogger Jeffrey Lewis argues that the international community "needs regular, intrusive access to Iran’s centrifuge workshops
and other suspect sites. And it needs access to Iran’s personnel,
including those who worked in what is believed to have been a
clandestine program at Lavizan-Shian in Tehran." Meanwhile, arms control and Iran specialists Gary Milhollin and Valerie Lincy
argue in the New York Times that the plant at Qum is doubtless only one of many such sites, and "[a]ll must be found." That means getting Iran to fork over "a complete map of its nuclear sites, together with a history [of them] ... that means getting access to scientists, records, equipment and sites." Is that likely? "It is a lot to ask," acknolwedge Milhollin and Lincy, "and we
may not have the leverage to get it. But anything less will provide no
protection against what we now know is Iran’s determination to build
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
hhorn at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.