NourNews.ir

NewsID : 48656

‫‫Sunday‬‬ 18:15 2020/04/26

BY: Bonnie Kristian

There are three paths forward for U.S.-IRAN relations. Only one averts war

As the worst pandemic in a century upends billions of lives and wipes out trillions of dollars, one thing has remained constant—the sorry state of U.S.-Iran relations. Of late, that has included the U.S. blocking an International Monetary Fund loan to Iran, Iranian ships becoming more belligerent in the Persian Gulf and bombastic tweets from President Donald Trump, which the Pentagon suggests amount to nothing new

NOURNEWS-

Now, there are three ways forward for U.S.-Iran relations.

One, as promoted in a recent treatise from Eric Edelman and Ray Takeyh at Foreign Affairs, is U.S.-orchestrated regime change.

Another is maintaining the status quo indefinitely, pursuing a "maximum pressure" campaign while skirmishing with Iran-linked forces in Iraq, Syria and beyond. The Trump administration's recently announced installation of new air defense systems in Iraq in response to Tehran's ballistic missile strike in January is a project of this model.

Third is the option we need: Reject outright any move toward U.S.-backed regime change or military intervention. Trade the failed maximum pressure approach for realistic diplomacy centered on working-level talks with meaningful concessions from both sides. Withdraw from Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other conflicts in the Middle East, which distract from more pressing domestic concerns and heighten the chance of unwanted escalation with Iran. In short, pursue a foreign policy reliant on diplomacy, not coercion, and aimed toward peace, not domination.

The regime change option should never have been on the table, but it has been persistently popular in some corners of the U.S. foreign policy establishment for years. Ousted national security adviser John Bolton may be its most shameless barker, but Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is no stranger to the notion, even if he has somewhat tempered his rhetoric of late.

The Edelman-Takeyh article deserves credit for saying what many Iran hawks will not: that U.S.-forced regime change is their goal. But the reason that language is avoided is a good one. As Edelman and Takeyh write, it "conjures up images of the Iraq war, with the United States trapped in a quagmire of its own making." And so it should.

However, invading Iran would not be the same as the Iraq War—it would be worse by every measure. The risk isn't that Tehran could defeat the U.S. in a conventional military conquest but that it could bleed us dry with our largest, costliest forever war yet.