New Carrots and Sticks

“Eid Shoma Mubarak,” said President Obama in his Norooz (Iranian New Year) message to Iranian-Americans, Iranians in Iran, and, for the first time since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, to the Iranian government.

Obama’s approach to the Iranian nation — both its government and people — was one of the most clear and positive steps an American president has taken toward a direct dialogue in the past 30 years. In response, the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and President Ahmadinejad both made it clear that Iran is ready for direct talks. They each said that Iran is ready to have a direct dialogue with the United States, but “under mutual respect.” Further, they added, “America must change its policy in taking action, not just by using words.”

A month before President Obama’s Norooz message, the U.S. Senate approved a new set of sanctions on Iran. Also these days the Congress is working on a new sanction on Iran — House Resolution 1985 — which could hurt the the Iranian economy more than ever. The Iranian economy has been suffering from sanctions that were already in place, and if one believes that sanctions are one form of undeclared war, as many people do, what is the real connection between Obama’s positive words and this harsh action from Washington?

Although the new approach and the language of President Obama to Iran are appreciated, there are still many steps the White House could, and should, take at this time. It is obvious that the new Israeli administration is at odds with its American counterpart where policy toward Iran is concerned. The Obama administration could be stronger and more direct with Israel. It could make the case that the key to Middle East peace is in Iran’s hand. To have a direct dialogue with Iranians and work with them would facilitate peace in the Middle East: from Afghanistan to Iraq, and even between Israel and Palestine.

Now, a stronger U.S. policy on the Middle East should not include the sale of more arms to Israel, especially after what recently happened in Gaza as well as the aggressive language that the Israeli new administration is using toward Iran. Just a week after President Obama’s message to the Iranian nation and government, a shipment of American missiles and other arms arrived in Israel. This was at a time that the new Israeli administration was talking about attacking Iran: “if Iran does not stop its nuclear program, Israel will act unilaterally to stop Iran.”

Based on the change in language by both the U.S. and Israeli leadership, many political analysts have argued they are just playing the old game of “bad cop/ good cop” — or subtly implementing a “carrot or stick” policy on Iran. Either President Obama has really good intentions, but not enough power to present his real policies, or he is also a part of this game.

What it boils down to is two options being presented to Iran: accept the United States’ offer, or Israel will attack you. It’s the good ol’ “carrot or stick” — where the U.S. has the carrot, and Israel provides the stick.

Iran’s tenth presidential election since the Revolution is being held on June 12. As of only a few weeks prior to the election date, none of the candidates had offered a clear foreign diplomacy policy — or if they had, it was not much different from what we had seen in the past four years. On the nuclear issue, the same “continuing uranium enrichment” policy was apparently the mantra. With respect to international relations, candidates had limited their announced policies to “decreasing tensions with the rest of the world.” No one knows what exactly this means, but, obviously, Iranians don’t want more sanctions and the lifting of the current sanctions would be seen as a great success for the next Iranian president. Such a move by the U.S. administration would both be a useful step in the peace process and woud show “change in action, not word” toward building relations with Iran's incoming president and administration.

This is the time for Obama administration to comprehensively review U.S. policies regarding the Middle East, especially towards Iran and Israel. This is very important specifically on the nuclear issue — after all, while Iran is seen as a nuclear threat, it is Israel that actually has an arsenal of nuclear weapons. One positive U.S. action could be supporting the idea of Iran’s enrichment of uranium for energy purposes, while beginning a direct dialogue around that issue. The best possible option is President Obama’s suggestion of a nuclear-free world, but a nuclear Israel and Pakistan, two belligerent Iranian neighbors, suggest charges of a double standard regarding Iran. Perhaps working with Iranians around the nuclear issue instead of wanting to force them to stop enrichment by showing them the “stick” is a better approach toward “mutual respect.”