Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: US should engage Iran

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3251493,00.html
US should engage Iran
Bush administration policy towards Iran has been misguided and  
unproductive. It's time for a change in thinking
Alon Ben-Meir
For the past five years the Bush administration has followed a failed  
policy toward Iran, leading to the current dangerous impasse. It is time  
for the administration to reassess its strategy, think out of the box, and  
enter into direct talks with Tehran. The goal would not simply be to  
defuse the present conflict but to reach a more comprehensive regional  
security arrangement that includes Iraq as well as other Gulf states.
With the continuing turmoil in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, the  
administration must take every conceivable measure to deescalate the  
potentially explosive situation with Iran, which, if it escalates, has the  
potential to engulf other nations in the region.
Counterproductive measures
The administration’s belief that Tehran responds only to coercive measures  
has proven baseless and counterproductive. In fact, Tehran has won the  
game of brinkmanship with Washington. The more the US administration has  
bullied them, the more intransigent the Iranians have become. Their  
national consciousness has been raised, and their “right” to attain  
nuclear power has become a symbol of national pride.
But having successfully enriched uranium, Tehran may also feel that it has  
secured a face-saving way out of the impasse, which can, at least partly,  
explain President Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush. Although the  
letter is not worthy of a detailed response, it does represent a  
diplomatic overture. This impression was reinforced during Mr.  
Ahmadinejad’s trip to Indonesia, when he expressed his willingness to talk  
directly with American officials.
Thus, although his letter did not address the nuclear issue, it was  
clearly meant as an opening, and only by directly engaging the Iranians,  
can Washington establish its own agenda for discussion. If it chooses not  
to, the administration, to the utter dismay of its friends and allies,  
will forfeit the chance afforded by a great opening to deescalate tensions  
in the Middle East.
Rethinking policy
There are many other reasons why the Bush administration should engage  
with the Iranians directly and thereby shape the agenda and greatly  
influence the outcome.
First, in view of Washington’s stated policy of regime change in Iran,  
Tehran has every reason to suspect its intentions and to accuse the  
administration of duplicity. By refusing to participate in direct  
negotiations, Washington is demonstrating a complete lack of sincerity and  
so only reinforcing such suspicions. Iranian suspicions are also fueled by  
the absence of a coherent U.S. policy, which contradicts President Bush’s  
insistence that America seeks a diplomatic solution.
Therefore, as long as the administration’s stated policy is regime change,  
Iran wants security guarantees from the United States that it will not be  
attacked. Having witnessed close up what happened to Iraq, another member  
of Mr. Bush’s axis of evil, Tehran has no reason to feel sanguine about  
the administration’s designs. For this reason the Iranians feel that  
direct negotiation, leading to an agreement with Washington, is crucial to  
their national security.
Multilateral talks
The second reason the administration must enter into direct negotiation  
with Iran has to do with ongoing negotiations between Iran and Germany,  
France, and Britain. This negotiating framework will help persuade two  
major powers—Russia and China- that the United States is sincerely willing  
to exhaust all diplomatic options before considering more coercive  
measures.
As long as the United States needs the support of China and Russia, it has  
to view direct negotiations with Iran as a strategic option, and then to  
make every effort for them to succeed so, in the event that talks  
collapse, Iran will bear the blame.
Thirdly, direct negotiations with Tehran would allow the United States to  
learn first-hand not just about Iran’s professed national aspirations to  
develop and maintain a peaceful nuclear program but more of its ultimate  
intentions. Negotiations with North Korea have demonstrated that nothing  
works better than direct contact in generating transparency and an  
atmosphere conducive to increased mutual confidence between governments.
Changing the dynamic
Fourth, direct negotiations will also create their own dynamic, and open  
the door for far broader regional security agreements. Because of its  
strategic geographical location and size, as well as its oil and gas  
resources, Iran will always be an indispensable player in the region. The  
Bush administration must thus seek a breakthrough when there is a  
breakdown.
Direct negotiations with Iran offer such a prospect. They also would have  
tremendous appeal for the Iranian people. This may seem surprising but the  
United States actually remains more popular in Iran than in any other Arab  
and Muslim state, which explains why most Iranians will welcome normalized  
relations between the two countries.
Fifth, the experience with North Korea have shown conclusively that only  
direct talks between Washington and a regime it is in conflict with, even  
when conducted in the context of multilateral talks, make a final  
agreement possible. The North Koreans insisted all along on direct  
negotiations, knowing full well that the United States is the prime player  
and that only it could provide them with the ultimate security and  
financial aid they sought. Tehran is of the same mind, believing  
absolutely that America holds the key to regional stability and prosperity.
Having watched its misguided policy toward Iran for the past five years,  
friends and foes of the United States wonder what this administration is  
planning to pull out of its hat next. If this administration wants to  
resolve the conflict with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, logic and  
practicality dictate that direct negations hold the only real promise for  
resolution before things escalate beyond even the U.S. capacity to contain  
them.
Alon Ben-Meir is professor of international relations at the Center for  
Global Affairs at NYU and is the Middle East Project Director at the World  
Policy Institute, New York. 
al...@alonben-meir.com
  Web:  
www.alonben-meir.com

 
come in Irak <g> ?



... leggere pirma di parlare no, eh?

Dino ha scritto:

ehm,l'autore dell articolo forse non conosce bene bush e compagni....
L' unica politica che questi applicano è quella delle minacce o
peggio,ergo certi consigli sono inutili .