Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on High Stakes and Hard Choices: U.S. Policy on Iran

This Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on U.S. policy on Iran.  Witnesses included the Honorable Thomas Pickering, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, General James Cartwright, former Vice Chairman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mr. Karim Sadjadpour, Senior Associate for the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  The hearing assessed the current nuclear crisis in Iran and what the future of the situation looks like.   Chairman Kerry acknowledged that intelligence shows that Iran has not yet started to make a nuclear weapon, but it is clear that the purpose of Iran developing better nuclear technology is so that they will be ready when that decision is made.  To deter this decision, the international community has been placing sanctions on Iran.  The European Union has banned oil contracts with Iran and the Swiss have announced that they will not grant access to Iranian banks.   Chairman Kerry reiterated the President's resolve to "keep all options on the table", and continue to push Iran forward.   Senator Lugar gave short remarks, noting that even as Iran grows more isolated, nothing has changed. The regime continues the oppression and persecution of certain groups within the country. 

Thomas Pickering identified the three main issues that are important when dealing with the Iranian nuclear crisis: what we know about Iran's nukes, our diplomatic program, and what options we have.  In considering what we know about Iran's nukes, it is important to remember that their nuclear program is not new.  It first began as part of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Atoms for Peace Program, back in the 50's.  Under the Shah of Iran, the program further developed with the intent to be used for more than just civilian purposes.  Currently Iran is enriching at a level of 20% for the Tehran Research Reactor.  According to Pickering, this reactor is used to make medical isotopes.  Pickering said that Iran is gathering enough information about nuclear technology, so that they will be ready to build a bomb if they decide to.   As for our diplomatic efforts, the P5+1 will be holding talks in Istanbul on April 14^th.   The problem with previous talks was their brevity, and it will be important that time is allotted to negotiate propositions during these talks.

In looking at our options, Pickering identified several different paths available to the United States.  The first option could be considered useless, which is sitting back and letting Iran proliferate.  Not only would this be a waste of the efforts we do have available to us, it might also lead to further proliferation in the region.  The second option is military force.  Pickering postulated that the advantages of such a military attack are not greater than the risks that we or others would have to take.  It would also drive Iran to make a decision on producing a nuclear weapon, something we do not want to force.  A limited strike could even make Iran more resolved to move forward with weapons production. The final option is diplomacy, with which we are currently engaged.  According to Pickering, it is all a matter of timing.  We need to move to the negotiating table before we have exhausted our sanctions. The use of sanctions is not effective without the possibility of negotiations. In going into negotiations, Iran has submitted proposals and the U.S. has proposals of its own.  

General Cartwright looked at the motivations Iran might have for producing a nuclear weapon.  According to him, most states seek nuclear power as a shield to protect their own sovereignty.  Mr. Sadjadpour bolstered this assertion when discussing the mentality of regime.  When under pressure, the regime sees compromise as weak.  They feel that the U.S. wants regime change, not behavior change.  It is important that this difference be made clear.