President Barack Obama‘s decision to name accomplished diplomats to deal with the Arab-Israeli and Pakistan-Afghanistan crises is more than welcome. Another appointment, however, will be even more important: special envoy to Iran.
George Mitchell faces an almost insurmountable challenge in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has been intensifying steadily for 40 years and now, after Israel’s assault on Gaza, seems further from solution than ever. Turning the tide in Afghanistan and calming Pakistan, which is now Richard Holbrooke’s assignment, will be just as difficult. But it takes only a look at the map – or a cursory reading of any day’s news – to understand that Iran lies at the centre of this “arc of crisis”.
If Iran can be brought back into the world community as a full and welcome partner, it could pressure militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to end their war against Israel. That, in turn, might lead Israel to stop its devastating attacks on nearby populations, which intensify hatreds, create terrorists and horrify the world.
Iran also has tremendous influence in Iraq – more, in fact, and any other country, including the US. It is the only country than can guarantee a modicum of stability in Iraq as American troops depart.
Iran’s centuries-old relationship with Afghanistan means that it could also play a decisive role in calming the terrifying crisis that is engulfing that country and threatening to blow Pakistan apart. An Iran that feels safe might even agree to compromise on its nuclear programme, which much of the world justifiably fears.
All of this means that engaging with Iran is probably the most important contribution the US could make to calming these interlocking crises. If Obama’s yet-to-be-named envoy to Iran can negotiate a grand bargain, dramatic steps toward stability in other parts of this exploding region will become realistically possible. That makes this post potentially the most important in the entire Obama administration.
The Washington rumour mill isbuzzing with speculation about who will get this job. One name that has emerged is Dennis Ross, an old Middle East hand well known as a vigorous defender of Israel. Fairly or not, Ross is mistrusted and even despised in Tehran and other Muslim capitals, where leaders of all stripes consider him the opposite of an honest broker and are unlikely even to engage him seriously.
He is famous for his passionate belief in the efficacy of sanctions, which have failed and will forever fail to alter Iran’s behaviour. His recent assertion that “sharp sticks” should be part of US policy toward Iran led the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Ali Larijani, to reply as one would expect from a leader of such a proud people. “The language of carrots and sticks,” Larijani said, “is obsolete and barbaric in relation to an ancient nation such as Iran.”
For the US to shape a peaceful relationship with Iran will be difficult under any circumstances. If the American negotiating team is led by Ross or another conventional thinker tied to dogmas of the past, it will be impossible.
Who, then, might be a better choice? Anyone who has an open mind, understands the nature of compromise, recognises Iran’s legitimate security interests and does not see the region through Israel-tinted glasses. There are plenty of eminently qualified candidates.
If Obama and secretary of state Hillary Clinton want a high-level diplomat with decades of global experience, Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to Russia, Israel, India, Jordan and the UN, or James Dobbins, who has served as a special envoy to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, would be obvious choices. If they want a former senator, Chuck Hagel or Sam Nunn would fit the bill. Might they prefer a conservative Republican congressman with strong credentials as a defence hawk? If so, Geoff Davis of Kentucky, a West Point graduate and former helicopter commander in the Middle East, would be ideal. American universities are also full of brilliant strategic thinkers of Iranian descent who fully understand both country’s strategic needs, among them Vali Nasr of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Fawaz Gerges of Sarah Lawrence College and Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland.
It is not far-fetched to suggest that the fate of Obama’s presidency, and hence his place in history – not to mention the future of the world’s most volatile region – may depend on this choice. Nowhere does the US have a chance to redraw the world’s strategic map as dramatically as it can in Iran. Success in reaching a broad accord between Iran and the US would bring immense strategic benefits to both countries and contribute decisively to world peace. Failure could lead to war. Much depends on who Obama and Clinton choose to direct their new approach to Iran.
