Introduction: Every authority on United States Foreign Policy has acknowledged the Iranian motive of strengthening their nuclear program: to produce Nuclear weapon capabilities. The legitamacy of this determined motive will not be called into question. In conflict are the numerous options of varying feasibility and utility to deter Iran enough to maintain World Order and (more importantly) ensuring United States National Security. The history of the United States provides contemporary scholar with similar situations to draw upon, but with their history of violence and terrorism Iran presents a unique case.
*March 15th, 1995 marks the date of President Clinton’s authorization of Executive Order 12957, this order “declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.” (Bush 2007) Furthering the United States control over Iran, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12959 on May 6th 1995, imposing economic sanctions on Iran. A quick nineteen days later, a meeting of the Middle East Policy Council took place in order to digest, analyze, and project possible resolutions to the conflicted U.S.-Iran relations. The panel of experts who spoke at the meeting included: Ellen Laipson,
Gary Sick, and Richard Cottam.
*In his address to the Council, Professor Gary Sick disagrees with the Clinton’s Secretary of State Warren Christopher’s assessment that “[The U.S.] must isolate Iraq and Iran until there is a change in their government, a change in their leadership.” Warren Christopher, the 63rd Secretary of State, was credited for the negotiation and safe return of 52 American hostages held in Iran. Despite the existing disagreement about Iran, Professor Sick concludes that no one wants Iran to have nuclear capabilities “We do not want Iran to get the bomb, and on that we are joined by virtually every government in the world.” (Sick 1995, pg.7) To ensure Iranian deterrence, Sick reveals a five-point strategy of easing U.S.-Iran tensions: (Sick 1995, pg. 9)
“Cool the rhetoric for a while.”
“Let’s take some time to get our priorities straight.” Ibid.
“Let’s begin to develop a strategy that engages our allies and lets us work with them, instead of bullying them and ignoring their own legitimate interests.” Ibid.
“We should adopt a policy of selective neglect.” Ibid.
“We should apply the Waco test.” Ibid.
*Addressing the National Security Council, Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, Richard Cottam illustrated incredulity of American intelligence when he announced: “I’m arguing that the U.S. has misread Iran’s intentions. Much more seriously, it has misread basic fundamental trends of Iran, most of which are favorable to American goals.” (Cottam 1995, pg. 12) A writer for a journal of international affairs agrees: “The United States continued to misread, miscalculate and disregard [Iran’s] painful historical experience.” (Maloney 2007)
*Socialist Noam Chomsky expresses the deepest of sympathy for Iran vis-à-vis criticisms of the United States. Noam notes that pre-1979 Iran was ruled by “a brutal tyrant installed by the U.S.” Regarding U.S-Iran nuclear relations, Noam offers four suggestions to the United States (Chomsky 2007, pg. 11,13-14) :
“Call off threats that are virtually urging Iran (and North Korea) to develop nuclear weapons.”
“Join with other efforts to reintegrate Iran into the global economy.”
“Join the rest of the world in accepting a verifiable FISSBAN treaty.”
“Live up to Article VI of the NPT, which obligates the nuclear states to take ‘good faith’ efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, a binding legal obligation, as the World Court determined.”
*Writing for The Nation Alexander Crockburn provides a more cynical view than Chomsky. With a strong scent of disapproval, Crockburn suggests that it is likely that President Bush will bomb Iran before his term is up. (Crockburn 2007) Crockburn concludes that “the [U.S.] peace movement had better pull itself together,” (Crockburn 2007) allowing the categorization of Crockburn as an idealist or a liberal, in the International Relations sense. The opposite camp of the Machiavellian realists has not yet been discussed; their case will now be made.
*A writer for Newsweek suggests that President Bush should publicly ask Iran to open an American embassy in Tehran. (Zakaria 2007) This writer believes that this act of diplomacy will make the leaders of Iran defensive (Ibid.) and obligated to create a political interdependence.
*One correspondent to the Atlantic Monthly insisted in 2006 that “Realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb.” This definition of realism concluded the article that cited President Ahmadinejad policy which states “that modern Israel must be ‘wiped from the map.’” (Fallows 2006) Following the trend of painting a cloudy field of U.S. solutions to the Iranian threat, the correspondent failed to offer insight that would resolve the apparent discrepency. The conflicting discrepency is that on one hand the United States must not bomb Iran, but on the other hand Iran wants to destroy Israel.
*Writing for a Jewish Magazine, one analyst believes the only solution of dissolving the Iranian threat would be the region-wide implementation of a codified law disallowing possesion or creation of nuclear weapons. This analyst also projects the view that the only way for world peace to exist, nuclear weapons must be eradicated entirely. Naturally, a nuclear-free planet implies that even the United States would have to give up their Nuclear weapons. (Zunes 2007)
Two American, intellectual authorities on the Iranian problem have injected polarized resolutions to the Iranian threat to the public, thus reinforcing the existing challenge of the diversity of domestic suggestions for Foreign Policy. Business powerhouse Steve Forbes holds an opposite account to Matthew Rothschild, a writer for Progressive Magazine. Both authorities reveal valuable insight.
*In the “fact and comment” section of his weekly business magazine Forbes, Steve Forbes attacks Iran with this rhetoric: “We should conduct in-and-out military strikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. These corrupt thugs are the praetorian guards of the fanatics running Iran these days.” (Forbes, 2007, p.58)
*Matthew Rothschild informs readers of Progressive with this commentary: “ If you don’t think Bush is planning on bombing Iran, well, then, you’re not paying attention.” To fortify his guestimation, Rothschild mentions Bush’s recent move of putting Iran on the terrorism list and Bush’s recent remarks made to the American Legion Convention. (Rothschild, 2007, p.8-9)
*Bush’s Iranian remarks at the Convention verbatim were: “Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability…under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” (Bush, 2007)
*Author of the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) Robert Spencer provides the Foreign Policymaking powers with perspectives from realists. In his article found in the journal of Human Rights, Robert Spencer notes the real danger of Iran: (Spencer 2006)
Iranian weapons have been found in Iraq in the hands of American aggressors.
Iran still supports the terrorist organization Hezbollah.
Rhetoric employed by President Ahmadinejad in his interview with CBS News correspondent Chris Wallace suggests a possibility that Ahmadinejad is calling America to war. “Ahmadinejad followed Muhammad's instruction to the letter both by calling Bush to Islam, and then by warning that his refusal would have bad consequences.
Iran has rehearsed large scale military maneuvers and has recently tested their short-range missile capabilities.
“Ahmadinejad continues to call for ‘elimination of Zionist regime.’”
*Conservative Politico William F. Buckley offers realism’s Machiavellian solutions to Spencer’s cited dangers of Iran. *Buckley insists forceful military deterrence upon Iran as the front-running strategy. Israel is the only solid American ally in the Middle East region and shares the responsibility of deterring Iran with America. Israel, though militarily muscular, lacks the depth of power necessary for Buckley’s plan of Iranian regime change. Buckley’s three step plan for the U.S. to carry out urges (Buckley 2007, pg. 58) :
“A bombing mission targeting [Iranian] Revolutionary Guard concentrations.”
“The destruction of known and likely nuclear sites.”
“A regime change.”
*Twelve years later, in their article “Iran’s Nuclear Challenge” political scientists Colin Dueck and Ray Takeyh, offer different advice to the Foreign Policymaking powers. “A better starting point for U.S. strategy toward Iran would be neither integration, nor rollback, nor malign neglect, but containment, supplemented by direct bargaining over the issue of Iran’s Nuclear weapons.” (Dueck and Takeyh 2007, pg. 202) Containment is a similar diplomatic tool that America implemented during the Cold War. (Dueck and Takeyh 2007) America won the Cold War.
Dueck and Takeyh agree integration should not be implemented. Integration would force diplomatic or economic contact with Iran, thus ensuring a peaceful interdependence between the United States and Iran. (Dueck and Takeyh 2007) Rollback is also denied legitimacy. “Rollback is a more aggressive option than containment, and the one singled out by the Bush administration for fresh use since the terrorist attacks of 2001.” (Dueck and Takeyh 2007, pg. 199) Rollback was used to overthrow Hitler’s Germany. American won WWII.
