WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 (UPI) -- The United States needs a regional strategy to respond to the growing threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Economic sanctions, military force and pressure for internal reform are not guaranteed to stop Iran from joining the nuclear club, nor will promoting democracy across the region. Instead, America needs a vision of how Iran might be co-opted into a new system of Middle East security, particularly in light of the instability that will be created by the eventual reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq.
American policymakers should first de-emphasize competition with Iran. Contemporary threats like terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, narcotics and criminal networks can best be addressed through broad-based security cooperation with allies as well as adversaries. Narrow military competition based primarily on defending against the threat posed by Iran could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The United States needs to maintain its own defense and deterrent capabilities, as well as those of allies. However, America should avoid creating a new regional security alliance specifically directed against Iran. Such an alliance could empower Iranian radicals who would benefit from a nationalist response.
By developing a cooperative regional context to moderate Iranian behavior, the United States could improve its standing and partnerships with regional allies. This can be accomplished by supporting attempts to create a new Gulf security framework that includes Iran. Such an idea is currently being discussed in unofficial forums and receiving high-level regional attention. But this will not be easy, because the current Iranian leadership has shown little interest in any form of regional cooperation, particularly with Arab Gulf neighbors interested in reining in Iranian power and capabilities. Iran may be more interested in developing security relationships with Russia and China than with its neighbors.
Still, the United States can support several other important steps to create a more favorable regional environment for influencing Iranian actions that would not require a radical shift toward improved relations with Iran. While a dramatic diplomatic opening to an Iran run by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not seem feasible, multilateral engagement with Iran may still be possible in the aftermath of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Even if Iran does not respond to visible overtures, such failures on Iran's behalf would ultimately favor more forceful American actions if deemed necessary.
Areas of limited U.S. engagement with Iran could include:
-- A focus on common U.S.-Iranian interests involving Afghanistan, such as counter-narcotics and the prevention of the return of Taliban rule. This is a far less problematic area for cooperation than Iraq.
-- Assurances that the United States is not setting up bases or access agreements in Iraq designed to target Iran. In exchange, Iran would need to make a commitment to halt interference in Iraqi military affairs, particularly the training of Iranian-backed militia groups.
-- A renewed American commitment to address proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the region -- in parallel with continued efforts to stem the Iranian nuclear program. This could be accomplished by encouraging all sides to join or ratify all major non-proliferation treaties and work toward the ultimate goal of making the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction.
-- Efforts to re-establish a comprehensive regional security framework with European and Russian support, leaving the door open to Iran to join. Such a framework could lead to a dialogue to lessen each side's perceptions of a threat from the other, and introduce confidence-building measures that could increase transparency and prevent unintended conflicts.
Iran values international recognition of its regional status. Therefore, a dialogue with the United States may be welcomed in Tehran because it would broaden regional security discussions beyond the nuclear issue and recognize Iran's own security concerns in a way that a more limited Gulf security forum could not. Even if the current Iranian leadership rejects such dialogue, a multilateral regional security structure would be in place for future Iranian leaders to consider and in the interim could contribute to improved security relations among other nations in the region.
Iran under the current regime is a dangerous and destabilizing force in the Middle East and capable of undermining U.S. interests in a variety of spheres. Any future regional strategy must contend with this reality. But it is not clear that a competitive American posture to balance Iran based on threats and force will make Iran any less dangerous.
A comprehensive and more cooperative regional approach may prove no more successful, but its failure would more clearly highlight Iranian intransigence and make it easier for the United States to gain more friends to address this challenge.
--
(Dalia Dassa Kaye is a political scientist at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
