HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018204.jpg
Extracted Text (OCR)
The most effective resolution would be a negotiated outcome -- to achieve
it, Washington will need to take preliminary steps on several fronts. A
serious compromise needs to be put on the table, including an offer to
suspend crippling oil sanctions in return for specific, verifiable Iranian
steps to eliminate any nuclear breakout capabilities. Equally significant is
establishing a credible military threat, given that Tehran has been willing
to endure increasing economic pressure in order to continue its nuclear
program. The regime is unlikely to concede anything during negotiations
if it does not believe that Washington will actually follow through on such
threats. Although specific public redlines are often unpalatable, the Obama
administration must clarify internally when it would take military steps,
and these intentions must be made clear to the Iranians.
In the same vein, the military option requires a credible negotiating
complement, as seen in the early 1990s with Iraq. To legitimize military
action against Saddam Hussein's regime, Washington had to prove that all
other options had been exhausted. Similarly, the only way to set the
predicate for military action against Iran 1s to show the regime and the
international community that everything has been tried, and that
Washington has left Tehran with a way out. Failure to do so would
undermine the legitimacy of any strikes.
It is also important to understand that curtailing Iran's nuclear progress
will not by itself alter the regime's regional agenda -- nuclear ambitions
are but an extension of Tehran's wider aspirations toward hegemony in the
Middle East. Unfortunately, none of the longer-term proposals for
addressing that issue seem feasible at the moment (e.g., regime change by
internal or external means; a shift in Tehran's views on the Supreme
Leader and succession; a "grand deal" between Washington, Iran, and the
international community).
One lesson to be learned from past interactions with Tehran (or lack
thereof) is that when the United States proactively opposes Iranian
aggression in the Middle East, the regime relents, but when Washington
offers a more passive response, Iranian aggression increases. With respect
to Syria, for example, it cannot be assumed that Bashar al-Assad will fall
at all, let alone quickly, without active U.S. engagement. If the Assad
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018204
Related Documents
Documents connected by shared names, same document type, or nearby in the archive.