Sensible Talk On Iran

There are a few very good pieces on Iran today. The first is from Ali Vaez and Charles Ferguson of the Federation of American Scientists, who write in the New York Times, "A nuclear research reactor in Tehran may hold the key to resolving the prolonged nuclear stalemate between Iran and the West":

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently proposed that Iran suspend production of some uranium-enrichment activities in exchange for fuel supplies from the United States. Whether the offer is an olive branch or an act of necessity, it is an unprecedented opportunity for Washington and its allies. [...]

The deal would increase Iran’s safeguarded stockpile of 20 percent-enriched uranium to 120 kilograms, an amount large enough to operate the Tehran Research Reactor for seven years at maximum capacity — and help the 850,000 Iranians who currently depend on the reactor’s radioactive isotopes for cancer treatment — but too small to produce even one nuclear bomb.

Such a move would be, above all, a humanitarian gesture, and it would buy Washington good will with the Iranian people and undermine the regime’s anti-American, nationalistic propaganda. But it would be a humanitarian gesture with strategic benefits: curtailing Iran’s enrichment activities and potentially cutting the Gordian knot that has stalled the West’s nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Ahmadinejad’s offer may or may not be genuine, and it may or may not be politically sustainable given the infighting among Iran’s ruling elite, which played a big part in scuttling the 2009 Vienna deal. But the opportunity presented here should, at the very least, be seriously explored by the U.S. As Meir Javedanfar and I argued in our piece published yesterday, the U.S.’s demonstrated willingness to seriously negotiate over the nuclear issue is an important force multiplier for U.S. diplomatic efforts.

Paul Pillar also referenced our piece in taking apart what he calls "One of the hoariest arguments about international diplomacy… that talk is a reward and that talking with another government somehow validates, supports or endorses the other regime."

Finally, the Brookings Institution’s Bruce Riedel has a reality check on the idea that Iran represents a formidable military threat. "Iran’s bombastic threats to send ships off our coasts and to build more missiles to strike Israel and American bases in the Persian Gulf are intended to hide the real balance of power in the region, which overwhelmingly favors Israel," Riedel writes. "That imbalance will continue even if and when Iran acquires nuclear capability":

Iran… has never fully rebuilt its conventional military from the damage suffered in the Iran-Iraq War. It still relies heavily for air and sea power on equipment purchased by the shah 40 years ago. Moreover, the June 2010 United Nations sanctions, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 (UNSCR 1929), impose a very stringent arms ban on Iran. Virtually all significant weapons systems—tanks, aircraft, naval vessels, missiles, etc.—are banned from being sold or transferred to Iran. Training and technical assistance for such systems is also banned.

In other words, even if Iran wants to try to improve its conventional military capability in the next few years and has the money to do so, the U.N. arms ban will make that close to impossible. Iran does not have the capability to produce state-of-the-art weapons on its own, despite its occasional claims to be self-sufficient. It certainly cannot build a modern air force to compete with the IDF on its own. [...]

So don’t let the hot air from Tehran confuse the reality on the ground. Iran is a dangerous country, but it is not an existential threat to either Israel or America.

So why are so many of our leaders so committed to the idea that it is?