Contain and Engage

I've finally gotten the chance to get through Joseph Cirincione's report for the Center for American Progress on recommended Iran policy options. They come out in favor of a sensible strategy they call "contain and engage." The basic idea is that you maintain a running dialogue with Iran offering carrots in exchange for verifiable steps at disarmament, while simultaneously maintaining a running dialogue with America's main allies and the other major powers about ratcheting-up Iran's diplomatic and economic isolation. The idea is to ensure that the United States is consistently the reasonable party, consistently the one prepared to strike a deal, and therefore that international diplomatic momentum remains on our side.

Among sensible people this is one major school of thought. The other, represented by Flynt Leverett's late 2006 report for the Century Foundations holds that we should be aiming at a "grand bargain" to resolve all the outstanding bilateral issues. This is, obviously, an appealing vision. The Center's authors say they "agree with the vision of a 'grand bargain' outlined by Middle East expert and former Bush administration official Flynt Leverett, who argues that the resolution of the nuclear issue requires 'an overarching framework in which outstanding bilateral differences are resolved as a package'" but that they think this is "not practical." Leverett, by contrast, thinks it's not practical to separate the issues.

I have no idea how to decide who's right about that, but it's a pretty small difference at the end of the day, since "engage and contain" could easily become "grand bargain" if the "engage" track seemed headed in that direction. It would be nice to have sensible people running the country.

3/8/07 11:25AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Amen.

Posted by: Joe Scordato on March 8, 2007 11:41 AM

I honestly can't believe you think this is really about disarmament. Iran isn't even building nuclear weapons, they're developing nuclear energy for civilian use.

It's as if there aren't any geopolitical undercurrents except those that the Cheney administration and foreign policy establishment say there are. It's just like the build up to Iraq. Let me guess, that was about disarmament, too?

"Fool me once..."?

Posted by: Murph on March 8, 2007 11:43 AM

Quite right, Matt: but unfortunately, in place of either "contain and engage" or "grand bargain" diplomacy in our relations with Iran, the PTB that actually are running this country (and its foreign policy) have decided to stick with "demonize and threaten" as their preferred approach.

And what do you suppose the chances are that this policy will change in any appreciable degree prior to Jan. 21, 2009?

Posted by: Jay C on March 8, 2007 11:46 AM

I don't get it: neither of these "plans" has a "bomb to stone age" option.

Posted by: dj moonbat on March 8, 2007 11:48 AM

israel will never give the palestinians justice.
the united states will never insist upon a nuclear free mideast.
there is no way to prevent iran from building nuclear weapons.
the only real question is what degree of animosity will be insisted upon by the parties.
both israel and the us have proven themselves sufficiently shortsighted that an attack on iran before bush leaves office is thus more likely than not.

Posted by: SouthernMan on March 8, 2007 11:55 AM

In "contain and engage", how good are our chances of being the reasonable intermediary? Wouldn't somebody else be quick to usurp that role before we could? I would've thought that most of our allies are closer to Iran than we are, and even closer than we would be under any non-grand-bargain scenario.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on March 8, 2007 12:13 PM

The idea is to ensure that the United States is consistently the reasonable party, consistently the one prepared to strike a deal, and therefore that international diplomatic momentum remains on our side.

In other words, appeasement.

(Joking, of course...but it's not a joke that the wingnuts do see 'reasonableness' as synonymous with 'appeasement'.)

Posted by: Tom Hilton on March 8, 2007 12:16 PM

Re SouthernMan

Mr. SouthernMan is quite right. Since the Palestinian concept of justice is that the State of Israel agree to go out of business, they will never get justice as they define it.

Posted by: SLC on March 8, 2007 12:17 PM

n "contain and engage", how good are our chances of being the reasonable intermediary?

Nobody else has our diplomatic weight, though. I would think that would be our substantial advantage.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on March 8, 2007 12:32 PM

I've got to say that the "contain and engage" idea sounds totally unworkable. Too many opportunities for both sides to game each other for short-term political advantage. The big bilateral agreement is the only thing that'll work since everybody on both sides knows basically what it should look like and knows that anything that's not it is a cop-out.

And, besides, it's not like the grand bargain will be the End of History or anything. There will be plenty of opportunities to shake our spears at someone else, and if Iran gets feisty in the future, we can alway bomb them.

(Anyone else distracted by what an excellent pr0n star name Flynt Leverette has?)

Posted by: Jackmormon on March 8, 2007 12:33 PM

Cirincione is definitely one of the good guys, and I generally trust his judgment, seriousness and decency. But a few questions:

1. How do you produce "verifiable steps in disamament" if there are at this point no arms to disarm?

2. Under the NPT, Iran has a right to a domestic nuclear power program. The diplomatic challenge facing the international community (as opposed to wild-eyed Washington and Tel Aviv regime changers) is how Iran can secure that right while at the same time providing the world community with the assurances it needs that Iran is fulfilling its other NPT obligations. part of that challenge is to see how Iran can provide that assurance without compromising its national security and opening its vital defenses to rampant espionage by hostile regimes.

3. Iran is already about as thoroughly contained as any country can be. The US has been agressively containing Iran since 2001, and almost all of its strategic moves since 9/11 have been about tightening the noose. The US has a military presence in every bordering country save one and all along the Gulf - and it is working on Turkmenistan which would complete the circle. It has aircraft carriers positioned offshore, and has surged a lot of other hardware and people into strike range. When do we get to the "engage" part?

4. The fundamental problem here is not one of tactics, but strategy. What is "contain and engage" intended to accomplish in the long run? What should be US strategy in the region and how does Iran figure into it? Is the idea to build the framework for a new regional Cold War with Iran, Syria - and possibly Iraq and Lebanon depending on developments - on one side against the US, Israel, Turkey, Egypt and the Sunni kingdoms and emirates, organized around a highly selective posture of regime change and ideological hostility toward the new evil empire, and laissez faire cultural and political tolerance toward our no less repressive friends? Or is the idea to create the conditions for a nearer term opening and normalization of relations with Iran, and a more balanced, less polarizing US involvement in the region? I vote for strategy two. And I don't think we are going to get there with a set of diplomatic tactics aimed at "ratcheting-up Iran's diplomatic and economic isolation" even as we attempt to "engage" them. In the long run, this strategy leads to war and tragedy.

You want better relations with Iran? Send a trade mission, not another aircraft carrier. And let our old friends know that while we will work to maintain our existing relationships, we also have some new friends, and the days of Riyadh, Cairo and Tel Aviv calling the shots for US engagement in the region are over.

Posted by: Dan Kervick on March 8, 2007 02:09 PM

Have "grand bargains" ever worked? It seems like one of those phrases that people like to use when making big proposals, but in the end it's usually a series of small bargains that gets the job done, right?

Posted by: Frank Bruno on March 8, 2007 04:06 PM

"Contain and engage" is a policy better suited for our approach to Apartheid Israel, not Iran. It's much more in our long term interest to be allies with Iran on economic, and geopolitical fronts. As the Walt/Mearshimer Study makes clear- the #1 source for the civilized world's hostility and distrust towards us is our wholesale capitulation to Israel.

Posted by: Trevor on March 8, 2007 04:13 PM

Re Trevor

Mr. Trevors' argument is similar to that of Charles Lindbergh back in the 1930s. Lindbergh argued that it was better to be allies with Germany then with weak and ineffective Great Britain. I would point out to Mr. Trevor, who apparently is in agreement with President Amadinejad that the State of Israel should be eliminated, that even former President Carter has stated that the apartheid claim he made in his recent book was over the top language.

Posted by: SLC on March 9, 2007 08:41 AM

Have you had a chance to read CFAP's other Iraq policy recommendations ?

Their 2.0 document where they propose to "stop the civil conflict" by withdrawing all US forces and monitoring the situation from "over the horizon" using the navy is a real cracker.

Posted by: Kilo on March 11, 2007 07:52 AM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar