Many have asked me, “So, what would you do in Iran?”
My focus has not been on that issue. My focus has been on how the US can successfully negotiate a peace with Iran, and how either side can trust the other to hold up its end of the deal.
That being said, here are two separate paths that might be productive.
1. The JCPOA was a landmark step forward in controlling Iranian nuclear ambitions. It was not perfect – no negotiated agreements ever are. But it did have several specific positives.
The first was that it contained the most detailed, intrusive, measurable, and verifiable inspection protocols ever agreed to by any country in the history of the world. It included expert international observers, electronic surveillance, and reporting. It included access to any site that the inspectors would choose to examine. And the terms were negotiated by world-class experts in both nuclear physics and inspections.
The second was that the agreement was made between the highest-level governmental officials in Iran on one side, and the U.S., Germany, France, the UK, Russia, and China on the other side. The globe-wide coalition that we created remains the strongest international coalition ever assembled for any purpose. It included Iran’s most ardent allies. The international sanction relief negotiated as part of the agreement had a “snapback” provision that ALL signatories on our side swore to uphold if Iran were found to have violated any of the clauses of the agreement. It was negotiated with world-class nuclear physicists on our side who fully understood all of the technical parts of the agreement.
That agreement had time frames for enrichment and development in several phases, 10 years, 25 years, and indefinite. The 10-year time frame provided a period for further negotiations to extend the agreement. Enrichment to 3.75% allows for peaceful use of nuclear material but is 20 times more dilute than enrichment needs to be to use in nuclear bombs. The agreement required the destruction of over 80% of the centrifuges in Iran, making the enrichment to arms levels impossible.
I would have used that agreement as a starting point for including other arrangements to further limit Iran in its internal and external politics.
We all know that when Mr. Trump took office, he let Iran off the hook for ALL their commitments by unilaterally cancelling the JCPOA. The inspectors were removed, the surveillance was removed, the coalition to force agreement was disbanded.
You cannot complete a journey without taking first steps. When you cancel those first steps, you have cancelled the journey.
I do not think one can ignore Mr. Trump’s disastrous decision when trying to analyze how to resolve this conflict. Nuclear development was controlled until it was annulled.
2. The other way forward, it would seem to me, would be a diplomatic, globalized strategy. I am not aware of any country or regime that has been brought to its knees by a bombing campaign. The only way to execute regime change is with large armies on the ground, taking control of buildings, institutions, police forces, etc., and by defeating armed forces in the country. I do not see this working in Iran as it did not work in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, or even Gaza.
Gaza, about the same size as Philadelphia, with a population of under 2 million, and with what was estimated to be 30,000 Hamas militants, was attacked with a ground army for 2 years, bombed extensively, and the population moved from one place to another. And having killed over 50,000 people, Gaza still has sizeable numbers of armed Hamas soldiers.
Iran is a mountainous country twice the size of Texas with a population of 93 million. It has over a half million permanent troops split between its standing army and the IRGC. It has an additional half million volunteers ready to enlist at a moment’s notice. Any invasion would be extremely difficult, deadly on both sides and would take years, if victory was even achievable, which is highly debatable.
The international plans that have worked in the past are the Marshall Plan in Europe after WWII, the reconstruction of Japan, again after WWII, and the international economic integration of Vietnam, even though it is one of the most communist regimes in the world.
There needs to be a multi-pronged approach to Iran, developed with the widest possible coalition of countries who would participate in the building of a new state and the policing of the agreement, that would include:
a. Development of economic ties between Iran and the rest of the world, integrating them into the global system so that they are tied to the economic success of all other countries, not just a select group of allies. It should include guarantees from the U.S. to purchase Urea, Sulphur, and phosphates from Iran as a demonstration of new economic partnerships. They already have international commitments for their oil exports. We need to have those customer countries integral to the settlement.
b. Opening of information sources inside Iran. Nothing promotes democracy like access to the culture, the opinions, the news, and the successes of the rest of the world. This would include things like guarantees to open the internet, phone service, newspapers, radio, and television to all the people in Iran.
c. An open commitment from Iran to allow international experts to visit, inspect, and report on all aspects of a nuclear weapons program. This would prevent the development of weapons but also would allow the production/purchase of material for nuclear medicine, nuclear power plants, and other peacetime uses of nuclear fuel.
d. Removal of international sanctions on the funds used to pay for the purchase of Iranian exports including fuel and fertilizer.
e. A statement from Iran that the U.S., Iran, and Israel have the inalienable right to exist in their own territories and govern themselves.
f. A statement from the U.S. that they understand the history of Iran and apologize for the actions of previous American administrations who actively undermined the Iranian peoples’ own choice for their rulers. Specifically, the CIA efforts to install the Shah and his secret police in autocratic power. This history has created enormous hatred of the U.S. in Iran, independent of the indoctrinations in their schools. It is critical in moving forward that both sides acknowledge their histories.
You may find some of these suggestions distasteful. I understand. But if the goal is truly long-term peace, then a solution must benefit BOTH sides. We must always remember the disastrous Treaty of Versailles which ended WWI. Its harsh terms, massive reparations, forced economic collapse, and strict military limitations are believed to have directly led to the rise of Naziism and was a direct cause of WWII.
I believe that any solution must acknowledge realities. One of those realities is that there is not and will never be a threat of “mutual nuclear destruction” from Iran. Iran will never have thousands of nuclear weapons or ICBMs.
We must admit that the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran is directed at Israel. This is an existential threat to the Jewish state. Without international integration, international inspections, and international commitments to peace, nothing, absolutely nothing, will protect Israel.
Another reality is that no country in this world has the same political or economic model as any other. Countries exist on a spectrum. Some are more capitalist, some more socialist. Some have a form of democracy; some have a more autocratic system. Singapore, Switzerland, and Ireland are considered MORE democratic than the U.S. We cannot allow the growing nativist feelings in our country to fool us into believing that we have the “best” political system. We have no monopoly on the “correct” system. For example, many people, even in this country, would prefer a parliamentary system over our political model.
Other countries argue that their systems are actually better, more fair to their population, or more successful. With that understanding, we cannot attack or force other countries to adopt our system. I believe that global economic integration is the single greatest force for peace in the world, and that this has been proven in the past 75 years. This is the rationale between the Abraham Accords and the peace between Israel and Egypt.
You may find fault with my approach. That is fair. I would hope that any response you make to this essay include your thoughts on how to end this conflict.Post text