Open Letter to Barack Obama-Iran

[What? Twice in one month? And no talk of sports? Crazy, I know. But I have some strong opinions, particularly when it comes to US foreign policy, and I decided someone should hear them. Then I decided someone with some power should hear them. (A better idea, n'est-ce pas?) So what you have in front of you is an open letter to President-Elect Obama regarding our policy towards Iran. I haven't sent it yet, mainly because I wanted some feedback first, so let me know what you think. (Really. Punctuation and everything.) If it goes well, I might write one about the situation in Georgia, too. Enjoy.]


Mr. President-Elect,

As we speak, the United States faces myriad foreign policy challenges. In order to adequately address those challenges, America must first regain its standing as a just and effective leader on the world stage. That standing has been diminished considerably over the last several years, primarily due to an escalation of the dualist, ‘if you’re not with us you’re against us’ stance which has pervaded American foreign policy over the last few decades. This stance has helped breed the idea that a country which disagrees with us, or whose interests are not identical with our own is necessarily an enemy. Similarly, we have treated other nations as tools of our own policies, and any refusal or dissension on their part has been met with hostility in Washington.

In order to improve our position on the world stage, this attitude must stop immediately. It serves no purpose other than to antagonize other countries and increase tension throughout the world. By making it more difficult to work with other governments, it ultimately makes it more difficult for the United States to pursue its interests internationally. We must understand that every nation has its own agenda and its own interests, and we must acknowledge and attempt to accommodate them before any fruitful compromise on any issue can be reached.

We must bear this in mind particularly in our dealings with Iran. Your statements during the campaign that you would allow meetings with other countries without preconditions go a long way towards the goal of a less self-involved foreign policy, but we cannot let them remain merely statements. The United States must engage with Iran as soon as possible. Whether that engagement takes place at high diplomatic levels or alongside our European allies, we must be committed to working with the Iranians, not against them.

While a hostile approach may be politically expedient here at home, any initial antagonism, or even disengagement on our part would weaken the United States’ position. Iran is allowed, under article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue civilian uses of nuclear energy, and it is within their rights – and potentially their power – to do so. Any attempt by the United States to curtail that right would be perceived both in Iran and in many parts of the world as rank hypocrisy; it would only carry the weight of any accompanying coercive measures – sanctions, a trade embargo, military action – none of which may work. These attempts to force Iran to abandon nuclear energy may well isolate the country and convince the government that nuclear power is an absolute necessity. To put it simply, if the Iranian government definitively decides to pursue a nuclear program, there is little America can do, short of force, to stop them, and any form of compulsion would be politically debilitating for the United States internationally.

The issue, of course, isn’t merely nuclear energy, but also nuclear weapons. While Iran does not have the right under the NPT to nuclear arms, the issue of their potential weapons program is not in reality different from the issue of their development of nuclear energy. Indeed, the same factors apply: if Iran decides to pursue it, only coercive action can dissuade them, though it would be less political strenuous than with nuclear power alone.

The answer, then, is one of political will. It is the United States’ will that Iran absolutely does not acquire nuclear weapons, and if it is indeed Iran’s will to acquire nuclear weapons, then conflict is unavoidable. It is not at all clear, however, that this is Iran’s will.

The best, and perhaps only, possible solution to the matter is one where it is Iran’s will not to pursue nuclear development. For that to happen, we would have to show Iran how that would be in their interest. We must first understand, however, why Iran would want to pursue nuclear weapons at all. It is not, as some believe, to attack the United States or Israel. Any such action would assure Iran’s own destruction. The real reasons are much simpler, and have more to do with Iran itself than with any other country.

Most importantly, there is the matter of prestige, both regionally and internationally. Iran is currently in conflict for regional hegemony with Saudi Arabia on one side and Pakistan on the other. Nuclear weapons would bring Iran level with Pakistan – already a nuclear power – and help it counter Saudi Arabia’s economic advantages. Outside the region, countries with nuclear weapons are a select group worldwide, and developing them would potentially give Iran more clout on the world stage. The recently concluded nuclear deal between India and the United States no doubt caught the Iranians’ attention, and is an example of the advantages nuclear weapons can bring to a country.

Secondly, nuclear weapons would act as a deterrent, particularly towards the United States, against military intervention. As with Pakistan, India and North Korea, the threat of nuclear attack would prevent any other nation from invading, and in turn bolster their national defense.

Thirdly, nuclear energy would help Iran economically. We have already seen over the last several months wild fluctuations in the price of oil, and those fluctuations have wreaked havoc with the Iranian economy. The oil subsidies currently in use domestically have only worsened the situation. Nuclear power would allow Iran to primarily export oil while addressing their own energy needs. And like most other countries on earth, Iran is aware of the limitations of oil and is looking to diversify its energy sources.

All of these reasons – prestige, defense, energy – speak to Iran’s national interests, and as such are things to be addressed if any compromise is to be reached. When engaging with the Iranians, we must bear in mind that while we may disagree seriously with their government, the interests of our two countries are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, we must find a way to accommodate their interests if we hope to change their will regarding nuclear power. As with any compromise, this requires concessions on both sides. There are things the United States could do for Iran and vice-versa, and we should be open to negotiating. It may come to pass then that an agreement ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program would include allowances and even assistance by the United States for an Iranian nuclear energy program. Such an agreement should be more than acceptable for the simple reason that it would involve the engagement of both countries, and it would address Iran’s needs while not running totally counter to America’s interests.

Such an agreement should not be seen as akin to negotiating with terrorists. The potential of a nuclear-armed Iran is not a bargaining chip or an attempt to blackmail the world community; it is a fact, despite the NPT, which is politically and diplomatically advantageous to Iran, and as such requires a political and diplomatic solution (i.e. a compromise). Iran is a sovereign nation, acting in their interests, and the United States should treat them diplomatically and engage with them in an equitable manner. To do so would be doubtlessly beneficial to achieving America’s foreign policy goals. Likewise, we shouldn’t let conflict with Iran over their nuclear program adversely affect possible cooperation in other areas. As noted, our respective interests are not mutually exclusive, and there are issues on which the needs of the two countries are parallel. Stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, the elimination of al-Qaeda, and security in former Soviet republics are all examples of areas where the United States and Iran could productively cooperate in mutually beneficial ways. To preclude cooperation on these or other issues because of separate disagreements would be little more than cutting off our nose to spite our face. Iran is a large country in an important strategic location; it cannot effectively be ignored, isolated or intimidated. But American policy towards them can be improved. We must work with the Iranians to find real, long-term, politically acceptable solutions. Doing so would in itself reinforce America’s standing as an equitable leader on the world stage, while at the same time helping us towards our foreign policy goals in the region.