4 ways US and Iran can make nuclear talks work

The Moscow talks on Iran’s nuclear program ended in stalemate June 19, as both cynics and optimists anticipated. While low-level experts will meet in July, the next set of sanctions against Iran are scheduled  to kick in within weeks, arguably restarting the whole negotiating process. The next time around, the parties should consider broadening their approach in these four ways.

2. Better understand needs

Diplomacy must understand and attempt to reconcile a broader array of interests.

Washington sees today’s Iran against a history of national disgrace and regional disquiet. From the US perspective, the 1979 Iranian Revolution and ensuing hostage crisis were some of the greatest humiliations for America. Through its proxy, Hezbollah, Iran killed 241 American marines in Lebanon in 1983 and shifted the tide of regional stability with its support of Hezbollah and Hamas. More recently, Iranian support for militants in Iraq, Lebanon, the Gulf, and even Africa has destabilized those regions and gone against American interests.

Given this record, Iran’s nuclear program, though less of a danger than many profess, is seen in the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia as a threat to the region.

Why might Iran seek a nuclear deterrent in the first place? In 1953, Iranian democracy was the victim of an American-led overthrow. Its post-revolutionary leaders feel threatened by the US military presence in the region. America has troops in nearby Afghanistan and Iraq, a NATO base in Turkey, and a US naval base in Bahrain. It has alliances in the Caucasus and military relationships with the Arabs of the Gulf – not to mention its support for Iraq in a war that killed an estimated half million Iranians in the 1980s.

America and Israel have given armed support to anti-Iranian insurgents, while sanctions have stunted Iranian development for decades. And even when President Obama “extended a hand” to Tehran in 2009, the US was simultaneously ramping up cyber warfare programs against Iran.

If you were an ayatollah facing an American threat, would you rather wind up like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi, who didn’t have a bomb and were toppled? Or like North Korea and Pakistan (or China, Israel, and India), which do have the bomb and were given concessions, and in some cases, military aid?

Iran’s nuclear program has become not just a strategic necessity in the eyes of the country’s ruling elites, but even an issue of pride for those in the opposition. The program speaks to Iran’s desire to be recognized as the regional leader that its geography, population, and influence otherwise make it. 

From America’s perspective, these talks have been about the nuclear program. But from Iran’s, there can be no resolution of the nuclear program without resolving Iran’s broader insecurity, which is what drives the nuclear program. Ultimately, these talks must be a part of a broader realignment of the US-Iranian relationship.

2 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.