| Pena: Pakistan, not Iran, is the real proliferation challenge of today |
| Written by Andrew Clayton | |
| Sunday, 24 June 2007 | |
|
Washington DC – “Washington may believe that it has numerous options in regards to Iran, but in reality, all strategies are likely to boil down to one out of two outcomes – comprehensive negotiations or comprehensive confrontation,” NIAC President, Trita Parsi, told an audience at the Independent Institute last week.
The Institute hosted a panel discussion entitled "Living with a Nuclear Iran and North Korea?" The panel also included Doug Bandow, vice president of policy for Citizen Outreach and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and Charles Pena, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute. It was moderated by Ivan Eland, director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Institute. According to Parsi, the demand that Iran suspend enrichment as a precondition for negotiations has backfired. Since this demand was formulated in May of last year, Iran's installation of 1,800 centrifuges has strengthened its position in any potential negotiations. The U.S.' refusal to negotiate has given Iran the necessary time to develop such a capacity, Parsi argued. Parsi suggested that a potential face-saving way out for all parties would be a "freeze for freeze" whereby Iran would halt installation of additional centrifuges and the West would halt any future actions at the Security Council. Parsi argued that the "freeze for freeze" would enable the parties to find the way to the negotiation table while preventing them from creating new facts on the ground that would improve their negotiation positions. Parsi acknowledged that many elements in Iran and the US, as well as in the region, are wary of US-Iran negotiations. Radicals in Iran fear that opening the country up will weaken their political power at home. Hawks in Washington believe that the US would have to give up too much in a negotiation with Iran, and U.S. allies in the Middle East, most notably Israel and the GCC states, fear that Washington might betray their security interests if it strikes a compromise with Iran. As a result, hardliners in the U.S. and Iran are trying to sabotage the negotiations, Parsi said. The arrest of four Iranian-Americans in Iran is likely the result of an attempt to "poison the atmosphere for diplomacy," he argued. Despite the difficulties with negotiations, the panelists acknowledged that military action against Iran and North Korea would be counter-productive and dangerous. Eland pointed to a dearth of intelligence and the dispersed nature of Iran's nuclear facilities as potential pitfalls of a military campaign, stating that "we don't have perfect intelligence on the location of these sites." Doug Bandow agreed and cited the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq as an example of how military action tends to have a lot of unintended consequences. For instance, the war had "created incentive for the other two Axis of Evil members to move ahead [with their nuclear programs]," Bandow said. The panel further discussed how the U.S. should react in the event that current policy initiatives toward Iran and North Korea fail. Charles Pena acknowledged that "we are unprepared for when we fail," suggesting that now is the time to develop a Plan-B. One such scenario would be a situation in which Iran or North Korea would transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations. Another would be the vulnerability of weapons facilities within the countries themselves to terrorist activity. Despite this concern, the speakers acknowledged that the likelihood of such a scenario is extremely low. Pena made it clear that none of the speakers were advocating the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But he also acknowledged that a nuclear armed Iran is becoming more likely. Still, Pakistan - and not or Iran - is the main proliferation problem of today. "We should worry more about the weapons Pakistan has than the weapons Iran doesn't have," Pena said. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|