Time to engage, not alienate, Iran

To confront Iran, two serious approaches compete for attention. The favorite of the Bush administration – the criticize-and-alienate strategy – has demonstrated limited utility. The other – the criticize-and-engage strategy – has yet to be fully tested but offers greater potential for resolving tensions.

Disappointingly, President George W. Bush has wasted no opportunity to lash out at Iran during his swing through the Middle East. This week, in Abu Dhabi, he urged U.S. regional allies to join together against Tehran “before it’s too late.” According to the White House, Iran funds terrorists, disrupts Lebanon, helps arm the Taliban, rhetorically intimidates nearby countries and refuses to come clean on its nuclear ambitions.

I find none of that surprising, but new information has changed the conversation. For example, on the same day as Bush’s speech, word circulated from the International Atomic Energy Agency that Tehran has agreed to resolve outstanding questions about its nuclear research within the coming month.

That would be significant in and of itself. But what makes the announcement even more important is that it follows last December’s U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which presented a startling conclusion: Iran placed its nuclear-weapons efforts on hold in 2003.

Even the Bush administration should acknowledge that the black-and-white clarity of its position has become obscured in a sea of gray.

Following the useful advice that one ought to hold friends close and adversaries even closer, Washington should try a criticize-and-engage strategy. Frankly, a hint of serious engagement with Iran is something that I had hoped would come out of Bush’s trip rather than the familiar alarmist ranting.

To be clear, none of this means that I trust Iran’s leaders. In fact, I have long hoped that the Iranian people would see through their rulers’ manipulative system, rise up and create a new order. Unfortunately, such change rarely occurs as quickly as one would like.

In the interim, it is worthwhile to see what emerges from Tehran’s understanding with international nuclear regulators. In four weeks’ time, the world will either know much more about Iran’s nuclear secrets or find itself still stuck in the uncomfortable uncertainty of the present. At that point, the community of nations will face a decision.

Next, as hopeful as the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate is, more information is needed. For example, is there anything credible in Iranian opposition claims that Tehran may indeed have stopped its program in 2003 but restarted it at a later date?

Finally, even as it maintains a close watch over Iran’s predisposition to interfere in neighboring countries’ affairs – a habit as old as the country’s revolution – Washington should explore ways to nudge Tehran toward more-acceptable behavior. I firmly believe that at least part of the answer lies with including Iran in a regional peacemaking initiative. That gesture would dovetail nicely with Bush’s ambitious goal of securing an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty before he leaves office.

Which will it be, then? A continuation of a tired approach? Or a new one that takes into consideration changing realities?

Hopefully, Americans will not have to wait for a different administration to see the strategy of criticizing and alienating make way for one that criticizes and engages.