Iranian Studies Expert: Diplomacy Toward Iran Only Option For US

Posted Jan 31, 2012 by Howard Altman

Updated Jan 30, 2012 at 09:06 PM

As inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency make another tour of Iranian nuclear facilities – with the promise of full access - Benedetta Berti, an expert in Iranian studies, argues that diplomacy is the only approach to the Islamic Republic.

The past few weeks have been incredibly eventful on the Iranian front: on the one hand, a tougher United States and European Union have been determined on increasing the pressure on the Islamic Republic through stronger and more pervasive economic sanctions, while “mysterious” covert operations have also targeted Iran’s nuclear sector. On the other hand, the Iranian regime—weakened by the ongoing regional upheaval and specifically by the severe crisis of one of the country’s main regional allies, Syria under Bashar al-Assad—has been also escalating the rhetoric by threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz. And to add fuel to the already precarious context, a recent New York Times Magazine report reiterated that the Israelis are still very much considering a military strike on Iran.

Given this inflammable and complex context, the United States finds itself in a particularly complicated position, as it should aim at both diffusing tensions and preventing a regional war, while also continuing to pressure Iran to commit to serious and good-faith negotiations on the nuclear issue.

To avoid a potentially counter-productive and devastating war, the resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis should come through a negotiated agreement. However, getting the Iranians to the negotiating table has proved an incredibly daunting and frustrating task. At the moment, the US (and EU) strategy seems focused on increasing the costs of non-negotiating through economic pressure, as well as by leaving the military option on the table. The US hopes to compel the regime to understand that it has to fully commit to negotiations. In order for this strategy to fully work, both the Americans and the Europeans are also investing on asking third countries to either reduce (or at least not to increase) their imports of Iranian oil. These efforts, which have insofar yielded some preliminary results, need to directly target China, the largest importer of Iranian oil.

However, when pressuring the Islamic Republic through sanctions, the United States and Europe are walking a very fine line: while prolonged and crippling economic sanctions have historically been an ineffective tool to induce internal regime change, an increasingly more isolated Iran may feel it has more, not less, incentives to speed-up its program to “go nuclear.” In other words, in addition to disproportionately affect the civilian population, prolonged and harsh sanctions have also the potential to backfire.

Does this mean the international community should then simply give up and call it a day? Certainly not; but it means that the international community, led by the United States should try to act quickly and match the pressure on the regime created by the economic sanctions with a clear diplomatic opening aimed at reaching a negotiated agreement. The combination of political dialogue, negotiations, and sanctions is—flawed as it may be—still the best policy tool to deal with the Iranian nuclear quest. 

Berti is an associate fellow at The Fletcher School, Tufts University and a lecturer at the Institute for National Security Studies Tel Aviv University.