The popular American TV show “Deal or No Deal” is not just entertaining but also enormously revealing about human nature. When offered a high prize, we usually tend to take more risks. And hopes of winning by a larger margin can stop many of us from playing it safe and making reasonable deals in life. True, the moments of such deals are often difficult and stressful. But reasonable people seize those moments – just like reasonable governments in the international arena.
When I was watching “Deal or No Deal” this Wednesday night, I couldn’t help but think whether this could be a good time for a deal (or at least a genuine attempt in that direction) between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. What could have been more appropriate in the wake of the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report that has reshaped the whole debate on Iranian nuclear zeal and how to deal with it?
The NIE report reflects the consensus views of the American intelligence community that Iran halted an alleged clandestine nuclear weapons program in 2003 and would not be technically capable of producing enough weapons-grade uranium earlier than 2009-2015. Increased international pressure, obviously led by the United States, is credited for that. It is certain the new findings would further reduce the chances of the White House using its ultimate stick – that is, the military option – against Iran as a diplomatic tool or a real option for the foreseeable future. Since even the “more-sticks-with-fewer-carrots” policy has worked effectively so far, why not adopt a “more-carrots-with-fewer-sticks” one that would offer sufficient incentives for Iranians to not resort to unruly actions?
The NIE suggests that “some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might – if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible – prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program.” Here is a fine exit strategy for the United States from the highly charged Iran policy. However, I am not sure if the Bush administration would adopt it. Their initial reactions have been tepid. Don’t forget, what we are dealing with is a Sept. 11 traumatized administration that has been emotionalizing U.S. foreign policy.
Making a reasonable deal requires reasonable parties on both ends. Having listened to Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (for instance, when talking about “wiping Israel off the map”), a typical Westerner might deduce Iran is run by lunatics. Feelings are mutual on the other side when President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney talk about a “World War III.” In fact, these outspoken leaders do not necessarily represent the accumulated wisdom of their respective countries. And domestic politics plays a great role in this whole saga.
The wisdom of the United States can best be represented by the intelligence community, whenever they are not subject to political pressure. Their stated key goal is “to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished and unbiased information – regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy.” I am happy for both the United States and the international community that American intelligence organizations have rediscovered their independence and learned from the mistakes of dishonoring that key goal in Iraq and Iran. They conclude, “Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.” That is, to admit Iranian leaders are not necessarily lunatics and can be reasonable enough to negotiate a deal. What’s needed is the political will. The powerful pro-Israel lobby (evangelicals included) and nationalists would not help Washington in that respect.
As in the “Deal or No Deal” game, it is not wise to force your luck too much and blow a deal opportunity because you are to maximalist. The U.S. goal of “zero uranium enrichment” is unacceptable for Iran, given the national mood in the country is supportive of adopting nuclear technology for energy purposes. On the other hand, “total enrichment freedom” would be a perfectionist attitude for Iran. Therefore, I join Gareth Evans, president of the International Crisis Group (www.crisisgroup.org) who said in The Washington Post that “unconditional” negotiations aimed at achieving “delayed limited enrichment with maximum safeguards,” rather than the failed policy of “zero enrichment” can produce a win-win outcome.
Win-win outcomes in international relations are a function of reason and compromise. Whether Iran and the United States would say deal or no deal is extremely important. This dangerous game of chicken is not in the best interest of any party, not to mention the region and the world.
