Positive engagement

The modern history of nations as different as South Korea, Russia, and South Africa suggests that when the United States engages countries politically and economically, they move toward democracy. Countries that the United States treats as pariahs, like Cuba, do not.

Stephen Kinzer
"Clouds Over Iran"
New York Review of Books (3/24/2005)

[review of In the Rose Garden of the Martyrs:
A Memoir of Iran by Christopher de Bellaigue]

On the specific topic of Iran, Kinzer goes on to say that "By subjecting Iran to constant denunciation and unilateral sanctions, American leaders are making the transition to democracy there more difficult," which seems like a reasonable evaluation.

The article also points out that the last time the US attempted "regime change" in Iran was the overthrow in 1953, by the CIA, of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, the "eccentric but brilliant natonalist" who was the country's best hope for establishing a secular democracy. The overthrow (one of the CIA's first, approved by Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles) resulted in the iron reign of the Pahlavis as self-appointed Shahs, the brutality of which led directly to Khomeini's Islamic revolution and the current state of things in Iran.

Kinzer concludes:

Last year a task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and chaired by two prominent members of the American foreign policy establishment, former CIA director Robert Gates and former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, recommended "a revised strategic approach to Iran." In their report they concluded:

It is in the interests of the United States to engage selectively with Iran to promote regional stability, dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, preserve reliable energy supplies, reduce the threat of terror, and address the "democracy deficit" that pervades the Middle East.... A basic statement of principles, along the lines of the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué signed by the United States and China, could be developed to outline the parameters for US– Iranian engagement, establish the overarching objectives for dialogue, and reassure relevant domestic political constituencies on both sides.
["Iran: Time for a New Approach" (Council on Foreign Relations, 2004)]

There is every possibility that in time, Iran will return to the democratic course from which the United States so violently forced it in 1953. If Americans allow events there to proceed at their own pace, they will finally see the result for which they hope. It is also the result most Iranians want: an Iran that respects the will of its people and helps to stabilize a dangerously unstable region. By lending their support and power to the European negotiating effort, Americans might reach a "grand bargain" with Iran that would address not only the nuclear issue but also concerns about human rights, terrorism, and Middle East security. Without active American participation, these negotiations are unlikely to achieve anything important.

[...]

Zealots who hold power in Washington and Tehran are not known for their interest in poetry, but they might ponder that verse. For the United States to continue treating Iran as a pariah will produce no positive result. Seeking to destabilize it will intensify its leaders' sense of isolation. Attacking it will turn its remarkably pro-American population into America-haters once again. Military interven-tion could set off a wave of patriotic indignation that will solidify the mullahs' regime rather than weaken it, and would probably set the cause of democracy back a generation. "Regime change" would probably not even turn Iran off its nuclear course, since most Iranians of all persuasions agree that their country has at least as much right to nuclear power as Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea. Treating Iran as a member of the world community with its own set of reasonable hopes and fears, however, might lead it toward responsibility, peace with its neighbors, and perhaps even democracy.

Such an outcome would hardly be a foregone conclusion. Issues that divide the two countries are serious, and ideologues on both sides have invested great amounts of psychic and political energy in the idea of continuing confrontation between Washington and Tehran. But, as de Bellaigue has written, there is no more promising option than serious dialogue.

P.S. It's also worth noting that the American economic sanctions against Iran are being circumvented by Russia, Pakistan and China, as well as European, Japanese and even American companies:

Among them is a Halliburton subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Ltd., which is registered in the Cayman Islands and has its headquarters in Dubai. It is bidding for a lucrative contract to develop an Iranian gas field called South Pars, said to be the biggest in the world. [Link added. - Ed]

In a way, I suppose the fact that Halliburton is already poised to feed off of Iran might actually work in favor of Bush taking a less stringent position there than he was willing to in Iraq -- but, then, when has reasonableness, logic or engagement with reality been a hallmark of Bush's foreign policy?