Printable Version

Iranian Non-Proliferation Policy: New Directions or Old Problems?

The greater Middle East is the new strategic center of American foreign policy and efforts to shape one of its most influential actors, Iran, demand patience and time.  That was the message delivered by former Ambassador Nicholas Burns at a May 8th forum hosted by the Center for National Policy.

Looking at the broad sweep of American foreign policy history, Burns argued that Europe has now been displaced as the "most vital center" in favor of the Middle East and South Asia.  He pointed to the appointments of Richard Holbrooke as Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan and George Mitchell as Special Envoy to the Middle East in the first days of the Obama administration as an implicit recognition of the region's centrality to American foreign policy.

Iran and its opposition to American interests in the Middle East, however, loom large as the United States shifts and concentrates its policy focus, Burns argued.  "Their power is pernicious," said Burns.

Despite the difficulties, Burns believes that diplomacy, though not a panacea, represents the best, most logical next step towards curbing Iran's aggressive behavior and building a more constructive relationship with Iran.  We should "lead with diplomacy" foremost, Burns believes, because it remains an untested avenue in America's approach to Iran.  Burns provided several reasons for not leading with force: (1) the U.S. is already involved in two wars and can ill afford a third one, (2) there may be unintended consequences if Iran hit back asymmetrically through other countries or groups, and (3) it would be "unconscionable not to."  More importantly, though, Burns stated that leading with diplomacy will help earn America much needed international credibility to pressure Iran and also to lay the groundwork to tougher sanctions, should diplomacy fail.

Burns warned that, though diplomacy is the most advisable course at the moment, it is important for policymakers and the public not to view it as a cure-all.  Force, he argues, needs to be retained as a policy option "not to be militaristic but to be realistic."  Any removal would be, he believes, interpreted as a sign of weakness.

Burns concluded by highlighting that the task of engaging Iran is not one best left to government alone.  Building bridges between the Iranian and American people, he believes will be key.  Towards this end, Ambassador Burns proposed increasing student visas for Iranian students, encouraging American religious leaders to increase interfaith dialogues with their counterparts in Iran and increased travel to Iran by U.S. businesses and journalists.