Fw: [hoi] -- Re: Realpolitik for Iran

The suggested solution is reasonable and face saving for pretty much all parties.  Here is another article by BusinessWeek editor who is in Iran: <http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2009/gb20090413_335347.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily> Reporter's Notebook April 13, 2009, 11:58AM EST text size: TT Iran Diary: A Thawing with the U.S.? The tone of the Obama Administration's approach improves the chances for a better relationship between the two countries By Stanley Reed Editor's note: BusinessWeek London Bureau Chief Stanley Reed is traveling and reporting in Iran this week. This is the first in a series of dispatches about the country and its complex relationship with the outside world. Just about everyone I have talked to so far in Iran—with the exception of an immigration officer at the airport who fingerprinted me, as has been unpleasantly required for some years now—is optimistic about the chances for better relations with the U.S. and in favor of such a change. The main reason for the optimism is, of course, the change of Administrations in Washington, and, more specifically, President Obama's recent appeal to Iran on the occasion of the Iranian New Year, or Nowruz. See, for instance, this excerpt from the White House transcript of Obama's videotaped talk: "So in this season of new beginnings, I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My Administration is committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the U.S., Iran, and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect." More Conciliatory The tone and substance were a sea change from what Iranians became accustomed to hearing from George W. Bush, who notoriously included the Islamic Republic among his "Axis of Evil" nations. The answer to Obama from Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who will be the key decision-maker on this issue, was not especially gracious but also not as negative as portrayed in the media. In fact, many Iranians interpreted the leader's Mar. 21 remarks in Mashed as offering a dialogue with the U.S. Essentially, Khamenei said that Iran will look for deeds, not words, from the U.S. and even pointed toward steps that might help thaw the ice, such as easing of sanctions or the release of some of the Iranian assets that have been held in escrow in the U.S. for almost 30 years. Even hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sounded more conciliatory of late. Sayed Laylaz, an Iranian analyst, said there were small but important gestures that Obama could make, such as lifting sanctions on civil aircraft spare parts. Some Iranians consider their air fleet unsafe because of its reliance on ancient aircraft and the difficulty in obtaining spare parts. Aside from the prospect of a safer air fleet, there are several reasons Iranians would welcome a warming of relations with the U.S. First, U.S. sanctions are hurting the Iranian economy. They are preventing the oil industry, which is struggling to maintain production, from purchasing the state-of-the art equipment it needs to modernize oil fields and move into technologies such as liquefied natural gas. The rules also discourage investment by Western oil companies—although Iran's difficult terms may be an even bigger factor. Hossein Noghrehkar Shirazi, Iran's Deputy Oil Minister for International Affairs, recently said investment by U.S. oil companies would be welcome. Tired of All the Strain Sanctions also hobble Iran in information technology, and U.S. pressure on the financial-services industry means that the big European banks have pretty much stopped dealing with Iran. This forces the country to use lower-tier banks and pay higher rates for the financing of imports, analysts say. But above all, people are tired of the situation, which has damaged both countries, but especially Iran, over the past three decades. Iranian businesses think they could be a much bigger factor in the world economy if there were no stigma attached to doing business with them, and if they had access to better technology and, above all, management skills. It's almost a cliché to say that Iran with its big, youthful population of 74 million and fairly serious industrial base could be a huge opportunity for American companies—and, indeed, many others. None of this, of course, means that a thaw will happen soon. While the Obama Administration and some in the Iranian leadership see the benefits of change, hostility between the two nations is ingrained in the internal politics of both. Iran, in particular, is deeply suspicious of the U.S. Iranians recite a long list of grievances dating back to the CIA-aided coup of 1953 that ousted Iran's elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and led to the restoration of the Shah. More recently, the Iranian leadership believes that it has received the back of America's hand after being helpful to the U.S. in the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan earlier in this decade. Need to Think Hard Again Warming relations with the U.S. might be disorienting for some Iranian politicians, and the topic could become a big issue in what could be a highly charged June presidential vote, when Ahmadinejad will be challenged by one or more candidates from the so-called reform camp. As one businessman remarked to me with some exaggeration, roughly 60% of the content of political speeches in Iran is criticism of the U.S., so with normal relations, that 60% would need to be replaced with something else. The tensions in Iran between different factions and uncertainty over how to respond to Obama mean that the Islamic Republic is likely to continue doing things that are deeply disturbing to the U.S. Only two days ago, Ahmadinejad opened a nuclear fuel plant, proclaiming that Iran was pushing ahead with its energy program. The Iranians have thrown an Iranian American freelance journalist, Roxana Saberi, in jail, charging her with being a spy for Washington. But a patient approach by Obama might gradually produce some results. As one person said, Obama is in some ways making things tougher for the Iranian leadership, which did not have to think very hard about how to deal with Bush. By being respectful and reaching out, Obama is putting pressure on the Iranian leadership to justify continued hostility toward the U.S. Reed is London bureau chief for BusinessWeek. The New York Times April 13, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Realpolitik for Iran By ROGER COHEN VIENNA For Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, "a combination of ignorance and arrogance" under the Bush administration squandered countless diplomatic opportunities with Iran and so allowed it to forge ahead with its nuclear program. Referring twice to Dick Cheney as "Darth Vader," ElBaradei told me in an interview that "U.S. policy consisted of two mantras — Iran should not have the knowledge and should not spin one single centrifuge. They kept saying, wait, Iran is not North Korea, it will buckle. That was absolutely a mistake." Instead of building on Iran's Afghan help in 2001, exploring an Iranian "grand bargain" offer in 2003, or backing 2005 European mediation that hinged on the U.S. agreeing to sale of a French nuclear power reactor, "We got Darth Vader and company saying Iran was in the axis of evil and we have to change this regime." The result, ElBaradei said, was that instead of containing the program at a few dozen centrifuges, "Iran now has close to 5,500 centrifuges, and they have 1,000 kilos of low enriched uranium, and they have the know-how." Still, he dismissed the notion that Iran "could go to a weapon tomorrow" as "hype," putting the time frame for that at two to five years. Imagine if Roosevelt in 1942 had said to Stalin, sorry, Joe, we don't like your Communist ideology so we're not going to accept your help in crushing the Nazis. I know you're powerful, but we don't deal with evil. That's a rough equivalent on the stupidity scale of what Bush achieved by consigning Iran's theocracy to the axis of evil and failing to probe how the country might have helped in two wars and the wider Middle East when the conciliatory Mohammad Khatami was president. Seldom in the annals of American diplomacy has moral absolutism trumped realism to such devastating effect. Bush gifted Iran increased power without taking even a peek at how that might serve U.S. objectives. So here we are, several thousand centrifuges on, with Iran getting what it has long craved: recognition of the regime from the Obama administration, relegation of threats and renunciation of the demand that enrichment be suspended as a condition for America's joining other major powers in nuclear talks with Iran. That's salutary. American realism is now essential. It should heed ElBaradei's view: "I don't believe the Iranians have made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon, but they are absolutely determined to have the technology because they believe it brings you power, prestige and an insurance policy." I think it's almost certainly too late to stop Iran achieving virtual nuclear power status — something like Brazil's or Japan's mastery of the know-how without a weapon. Iran's advances of the past eight years cannot be undone. What can be transformed is the context Iran operates in; that in turn will determine how "virtual" Iran remains. One context changer was Obama's call for a nuclear-free world: it's hard to argue for nonproliferation without tackling disarmament. "You can't have nine countries telling the likes of Iran nuclear weapons are dangerous for you, but we need to go on refining our arsenals," said ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 and ends his term later this year. "It's a different world." He sees two years of U.S.-Iranian talks as needed, given the degree of mistrust, with "every grievance on the table." Here's one normalization scenario: Iran ceases military support for Hamas and Hezbollah; adopts a "Malaysian" approach to Israel (nonrecognition and noninterference); agrees to work for stability in Iraq and Afghanistan; accepts intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency verification of a limited nuclear program for peaceful ends only; promises to fight Qaeda terrorism; commits to improving its human rights record. The United States commits itself to the Islamic Republic's security and endorses its pivotal regional role; accepts Iran's right to operate a limited enrichment facility with several hundred centrifuges for research purposes; agrees to Iran's acquiring a new nuclear power reactor from the French; promises to back Iran's entry into the World Trade Organization; returns seized Iranian assets; lifts all sanctions; and notes past Iranian statements that it will endorse a two-state solution acceptable to the Palestinians. Any such deal is a game changer, transformative as Nixon to China (another repressive state with a poor human rights record). It can be derailed any time by an attack from Israel, which has made clear it won't accept virtual nuclear power status for Iran, despite its own nonvirtual nuclear warheads. "Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran," ElBaradei said. "I worry about it. If you bomb, you will turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world." To avoid that nightmare Obama will have to get tougher with Israel than any U.S. president in recent years. It's time. Source:   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion