Decision ‘08

Kissinger On Iran

Henry Kissinger believes we must engage Iran, but stand firm against its nuclear threat. He admits it’s a tightrope:

The legacy of the hostage crisis, the decades of isolation and the messianic aspect of the Iranian regime represent huge obstacles to such a diplomacy. If Tehran insists on combining the Persian imperial tradition with contemporary Islamic fervor, then a collision with America — and, indeed, with its negotiating partners of the Six — is unavoidable. Iran simply cannot be permitted to fulfill a dream of imperial rule in a region of such importance to the rest of the world.

At the same time, an Iran concentrating on the development of the talents of its people and the resources of its country should have nothing to fear from the United States. Hard as it is to imagine that Iran, under its present president, will participate in an effort that would require it to abandon its terrorist activities or its support for such instruments as Hezbollah, the recognition of this fact should emerge from the process of negotiation rather than being the basis for a refusal to negotiate. Such an approach would imply the redefinition of the objective of regime change, providing an opportunity for a genuine change in direction by Iran, whoever is in power.

It is important to express such a policy in precise objectives capable of transparent verification. A geopolitical dialogue is not a substitute for an early solution of the nuclear enrichment crisis. That must be addressed separately, rapidly and firmly. But a great deal depends on whether a strong stand on that issue is understood as the first step in the broader invitation to Iran to return to the wider world.

In the end, the United States must be prepared to vindicate its efforts to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program. For that reason, America has an obligation to explore every honorable alternative.

It’s carrot-and-stick, in other words…but what if we find out Iran doesn’t like carrots?

Good piece, nonetheless. Lengthy, but worthwhile…

UPDATE 4:30 p.m.: The UN Security Council passed another largely toothless Iranian resolution just today:

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution today that gives Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend its uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel reprocessing activities or face possible economic sanctions.

The resolution, which passed by a vote of 14-1, was weaker than the threat of immediate sanctions originally sought by the United States and its Western allies. But it marks the first time that the Security Council has made legally binding demands on Iran, with a threat to consider sanctions, regarding its nuclear program.

3 Responses to “Kissinger On Iran”

1 Madison Guy Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 3:18 pm
We already broke Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn rule in Iraq, to devastating effect. What next? The neocons seem totally convinced we just go ahead and break all the pottery in the cabinet by hitting Iran.
2 RedBlueChristian » Blog Archive » END-TIMES: WHAT’S UP WITH ALL THE END-TIMES TALK? Says:
July 31st, 2006 at 11:52 pm
[…] What does Henry Kissinger mean by “the messianic aspect of the Iranian regime”? The legacy of the hostage crisis, the decades of isolation and the messianic aspect of the Iranian regime represent huge obstacles to such a diplomacy. If Tehran insists on combining the Persian imperial tradition with contemporary Islamic fervor, then a collision with America — and, indeed, with its negotiating partners of the Six — is unavoidable. Iran simply cannot be permitted to fulfill a dream of imperial rule in a region of such importance to the rest of the world. [HT: Decision ‘08] […]
3 megapotamus Says:
August 1st, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Uh, Madison, you will find a mighty effort underway to fix what been “broke” although much of that is actually the weight of decades of national socialist chicanery on what was once the most modern nation in the mideast. But more to the point, it is the polity of the region that is broken and long has been. We may not be able to fix it but we are going to give it the old college try and, as ever, the glue gun is more tricky to employ than the go-boom gun. Shall we leave these beggars to their fate? None but the ignorant or Baathist could say so.