Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein

National Iranian American Council

"BREAKING THE US-IRAN STALEMATE"

S-325 Russell Caucus Room

April 8, 2008

- Remarks as delivered -

Thank you very much. I'm delighted to be here to be able to speak with you and to share some of my views.

As has just been stated, California has a large and growing Iranian community - particularly in Los Angeles, which I believe is the largest Iranian community outside of Iran.

Yours is a new organization, founded just 6 years ago, and I understand that Ambassador Tom Pickering, Dr. Hans Blix, and Dr. David Albright have just addressed you. I am very pleased to follow them because I very much respect them.

For several years, I have been interested in trying to be a constructive force for peace and stability in this difficult part of the world, now the "powder keg," in which nations and values conflict and collide.

I have watched as the Iraq War continues, Israeli and Palestinian peace remains elusive, Iran begins to exert itself in the region, and Sunni nations grow more and more concerned.

There is no question that Iran, today - isolated and belligerent - constitutes both a present and future challenge to the stability and security of several concerned nations, as well as our own.

Last year, the U.S. indicated its alarm about Iran's supplying of weapons and tactical support to Shia militias and stated that, if this continued, the U.S. "would seek out and destroy weapons-supply networks used by Iranian agents."

Also Iran's support of terrorist organizations, particularly Hezbollah and Hamas, remains of deep concern and continues unabated.

And finally, the Government of Iran has had intransigent hatred of Israel and its willingness to deny Israel the right to exist remains unacceptable and a major hurdle to peace and security in the region.

So, it is in this context that we must understand the number one question of the day - does Iran seek nuclear weapons and for what purpose?

In November 2007, the U.S. Intelligence Community released a comprehensive assessment on Iran's nuclear program. That report, called a "National Intelligence Estimate" - which is a compilation of all of the Intelligence Community, some 16 agencies - was both an eye-opener and the source of major controversy.

The NIE's first conclusion, front and center, was that the Intelligence Community judges, "with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program...." This was a clear, declaratory statement. And it signified a major shift from the judgments of past intelligence reviews.

A footnote in the NIE made clear that a nuclear weapons program has three parts: (1) the enrichment of fissile material; (2) a "weaponization" program to make that material into a weapon; and (3) a means to deliver the weapon. The halt refers specifically to the weaponization part. The other two parts - the enrichment of fissile materials and the making of a delivery system -- remain serious concerns.

But equally as clear, the NIE judged - again with high confidence - that until the fall of 2003, Iran was pursuing an illegal, covert nuclear weapons program. This was the strongest intelligence statement to date - and it is backed up with evidence in the classified text of the NIE - that Iran did, in face, have a program. And that Iran's leaders in Tehran could turn that program back on at any time.

Finally, the NIE made a statement that speaks directly to the main issue of today's discussion - whether and how to approach Iran diplomatically. It said this: "Our assessment that the [nuclear] program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously."

The NIE, in essence, suggests a window of opportunity to begin to engage Iran in discussion, and with the help of European and other allies, to see if Iran can be moved toward positive engagement with the Western World - on this vital question, as well as other issues of concern.

So, this NIE represents the first opening for engagement. The question is: how should we proceed with Iran? I believe we should begin to pursue a robust, diplomatic initiative with Iran on all issues and without pre-conditions. Working with our European allies, the United Nations, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, we should put together a package of carrots and sticks that will serve as the basis for discussion with Iran.

The goal of those negotiations would be to convince Iran to:

• Permanently abandon any intention to re-start a nuclear weapons program;

• Allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors full access to all Iranian nuclear facilities and suspected nuclear facilities;

• Comply once again with the additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for intensified inspections by the IAEA. Iran had accepted this protocol in 2003 and suspended compliance in 2005;

• Provide a complete accounting for all past nuclear activities and allow full transparency to international inspectors.

• Cease its support for the terrorist activities of Hamas and Hezbollah worldwide; and

• Promote stability and cease lethal support to militias in Iraq.

The key is this: we can recognize that Iran has a right to a peaceful, civilian nuclear energy program, but not to nuclear weapons.

Offers have been made before and have gone nowhere. But these offers have been presented with pre-conditions and without the full engagement of the United States.

We need a fresh approach and fresh ideas.

There are some in the Bush Administration who disagree with the diplomatic approach. They see confrontation with Iran as all but inevitable.

Now, of course, there is no guarantee that these talks will succeed. But we are sure to fail if we do not at least try.

One proposal that deserves a closer look, I think, is one which was described to me by Iran's former ambassador to the United Nations. I traveled twice to New York and spent several hours in discussions with him.

At the time, some of the Iranian side thought that Iranian leadership - namely the Supreme Leader - might be open to the idea of an "on the ground 24/7 International Consortium" to manage and monitor all aspects of nuclear activity.

There was agreement that Iran might agree to this monitoring - as long as there was an openness on the part of the United States to discuss other issues as well. Participants could include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, Russia, the United Nations, and the IAEA.

This proposal is similar to one made by Ambassador Luers, Secretary Pickering, and Mr. Walsh, who spoke to you earlier this afternoon. I very much support and appreciate their efforts and believe the proposal still deserves serious consideration.

It could go a long ways toward building confidence on both sides. It would allow Iran to enjoy the benefits of peaceful nuclear power as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - while giving confidence to the international community that Iran's nuclear ambitions will not be diverted to a nuclear weapons program.

When U.S. Administrations have taken bold diplomatic initiatives in the past, the pay-off has been significant.

The decision of Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon to engage the People's Republic of China in the early 1970's was visionary. We embraced negotiations with the Soviet Union even in the darkest days of the Cold War.

I believe that an Iranian policy based on a military solution only makes little sense.

Iran recently proved helpful in brokering a ceasefire between Prime Minister al-Maliki and Muqtada al-Sadr's JAM militias in Basra. Clearly, a more positive relationship with Iran might be helpful in stabilizing Iraq.

Only by talking and bringing to bear the best efforts of diplomacy can real progress be made - and I believe this very deeply.

The next Administration must evaluate anew our nation's approach to this Middle-Eastern arena and evolve a new approach - one based on robust diplomacy, rather than threats of war. The process is likely to be difficult, but the results may well be significant. And one day, just think of it, it could lead to a more stable and peaceful Middle East.