New Beginnings Will Not Work

For the past 40 years, Iran has been viewed as a national security threat to both the Middle East and the U.S. As Iran becomes more aggressive in its acquisition of enriched uranium and a nuclear weapon, now is hardly the time to allow it to succeed. President Obama’s intention to waive the previous condition for negotiation—that Iran suspend its nuclear program—is not only troubling in the national security problems that it presents, but also in the legitimacy it adds to the Iran regime’s troubling course of domestic action.

On the campaign trail, Obama promised direct talks with Iran in an effort to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. In principle, such a policy is laudable: The U.S. often engages in diplomatic efforts with unfriendly nations, sometimes even in the midst of conflict (such as in the case of former President Reagan’s willingness to talk to Moscow during the Cold War). However, Obama’s proposal to do so with no preconditions is naiveté at its finest. In fact, even the Iranians themselves admit that negotiations provide more time for Iran to come closer to creating a nuclear weapon as they stonewall negotiations with the U.S. and other Western nations. It allows them to purchase approval of their domestic policy on the cheap. Perhaps this is why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the administration might renege on its promise of direct talks with no preconditions.

This potential change in U.S. policy toward Iran is troubling because Iran has demonstrated its ambition for nuclear weapons with alarming regularity. In February, the Iranian government launched a satellite into space. While not large enough to launch missiles, it demonstrated that Iran had developed the technology necessary in order to do so in the future and, perhaps more importantly, had an intention to continue exploring this form of military technology. About two weeks ago, Iran unveiled its first nuclear fuel manufacturing plant and announced an increased ability in processing uranium, despite the fact that the Iranian government agreed to engage in a “dialogue with respect” with President Obama. In spite of the Iranian regime’s repeated claims to the contrary, these actions present legitimate cause for concern for the safety of U.S. allies in the region.

Obama would do well to recall the history of North Korea’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon. Former President Bill Clinton’s best diplomatic efforts were not enough to stop North Korea from pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003—North Korea’s decision to do so was in direct violation of the 1994 agreement negotiated between the U.S. and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Indeed, no diplomatic agreement seems powerful enough to restrain Kim Jong Il’s appetite for nukes: Even after destroying the cooling tower of itsmain nuclear facility pursuant to an agreement negotiated under the Bush administration, North Korea secretly (and, recently, publicly) continued its nuclear weapons program.

Given the regional instability generated by a nuclear North Korea, this is an experience Obama should not be keen to repeat. While the situation with Iran differs from North Korea in important ways—Iran is still a signatory of the NPT and is a more democratic state—there are still lessons to be learned. First, being a partner in the NPT or other diplomatic agreement today does not guarantee Iran will continue to be forever; indeed, a nuclear Iran summarily withdrawing from the NPT is not a far stretch of the imagination, nor is continued covert nuclear development in violation of negotiated treaties. Moreover, today’s “peaceful, power-generating purposes” is easily replaced with tomorrow’s “self-defense” as a reason for nuclear development once Iran succeeds in developing a nuclear weapon.

Beyond the enforcement and regional stability problems, Obama’s friendly gestures to Iran also perversely give misguided legitimacy to President Ahmadinejad’s regime in its reelection bid. The regime’s policies against civil rights for women and government actions silencing those seeking a democratic form of government gain more domestic support as Iran faces less international isolation. Changing the fundamental nature of the relationship between Iran and the rest of the world will come only from changing the composition and guiding philosophies of those who rule. The U.S. must encourage democracy in Iran and allow the dwindling number of extremists to take their rightful place: without the reins of government control. In the upcoming June elections, Iran has an opportunity to elect a more moderate leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi, who has promised to improve relations with the West, to increase freedoms domestically, and to mark a distinction between “weaponization and nuclear technologies.” Talks that allow the current Iranian administration to demonstrate foreign policy success only amplifies its message and detracts from the increasing resentment of the Iranian people towardstheir current leadership.

Obama marked his proposed discussion with Iranian leaders as “the promise of a new beginning.” While it is indeed a departure from past policy, his “new beginning” is not the right solution for dealing with a country that defies international sanctions, has shown animosity toward the Western world, and is within reach of the most powerful and deadly weapons known to man. It may be time for new ideas, but any plan that allows Iran to continue developing nuclear capabilities under its current ideology and leadership is not a sound one.


Luis A. Martinez ’12 lives in Matthews Hall. He is the vice president for speakers and political discourse of the Harvard Republican Club.