The House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on “U.S. Policy Toward Iran” yesterday. The opening statement by Chairman Howard L. Berman (D-CA) is worth reading, because Berman is perhaps the most intelligent and thoughtful Democrat on foreign policy matters, and his statement ably catalogs the consequences of a nuclear Iran.
But his statement also provides a depressing preview of how an Obama administration would handle “our most urgent strategic challenge.”
Berman began with the observation that “[i]f Iran were to acquire nuclear arms, the world would be forever changed.” Iran’s “mere possession of a nuclear capability would be transformative in the Middle East and beyond.” Sunni states will be “intimidated” and “more likely to follow Iran’s lead.” Nuclear status would “exponentially increase Iran’s influence” and increase the appeal of fundamentalism “throughout the Islamic world.” The international nuclear arms control regime “would be effectively dead.” For Israel, the threat “would be existential.” Etc.
Berman also clearly summarizes the time frame facing the United States and its allies:
The deadline for solving this looming problem is fast upon us, as Iran daily inches closer to the point where it can produce enough weapons-grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb. No one knows precisely when that will happen, but most experts say it will be soon. Some predict as early as the end of this year. The NIE published earlier this year said it would be sometime in the 2010-2015 time-frame and possibly as early as the end of next year. . . .
Stopping Iran’s nuclear quest is our most urgent strategic challenge. The United States should give this threat the priority it deserves. . . .
But Berman follows this clear-eyed assessment of the consequences and the urgency with the following strategy:
Last month our country again joined the “EU-3” — Britain, France, Germany — along with Russia and China, in offering Iran generous trade and even certain types of assistance. . . . Nevertheless, my understanding is that our offer has once again followed our tradition of making dialogue with Iran conditional on Iran’s suspension of its uranium enrichment program.
Perhaps Iran is determined to go nuclear, but we need to make a direct, unconditional effort to engage them and to dissuade them from that course, as the international community has demanded. Moreover, I’m convinced we won’t be able to rally world opinion to our side if we don’t make clear our willingness for unconditional engagement with Iran, and I reject those who believe that talking is tantamount to surrender.
So we should agree to join the “EU-3”, Russia, and China in an unconditional dialogue with Iran — or, if our partners prefer, we should meet with Iran bilaterally — on the understanding that our partners would fully support crippling sanctions if Iran rejects our dialogue offer or ultimately refuses to cease enriching uranium.
The chances that Iran will reject our unconditional “dialogue offer” are nil. On the contrary, it is exactly what they want, since it will (by definition) not be conditioned on suspending uranium enrichment, or on a time limit (consider how long the North Korean “dialogue” has been going on), or on anything else. And “soon” (in the view of “most experts”) the question will be moot.
It is good to know that once Iran “ultimately” refuses to cease enriching uranium — and how many more refusals will be necessary to reach the “ultimate” one? — there may be “crippling” sanctions. Those are the best kind — although they have yet to cripple Cuba or North Korea, and they didn’t cripple Saddam Hussein.
It is now unlikely Iran will stop its nuclear program this year, since they know that in January they may inherit an administration that will sponsor “unconditional dialogue” while the centrifuges continue to spin. And yesterday they heard the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee endorse it. Welcome to the foreign policy version of hope and change.