Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on Iran
|
|
Attended my first committee meeting...I'm a virgin no longer! It was interesting...but actually kinda frightening that this is how our National policy is formulated.
I'll give you a synopsis of the meeting followed by my personal insight into the process and recommendation for a way ahead.
First, the synopsis: Chaired by Senator Lugar. The Honorable Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Department of State, outlined current administration policy that Iran is in noncompliance with UN Resolution 1696 and until they suspend enrichment activities, there will be no direct talks. Long standing animosities were cited as leading to current diplomatic problems even going back to the Iran hostage crisis and US support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Also cited were Iranian involvement in terrorism, weapons of mass distruction, and the Israel-Palestine issue. Mr. Burns outlined ongoing efforts to influence business ventures by declaring Iran as too risky. Should talks fail, the US and coalition partners are committed to a series of escalating sanctions though what the particular sanctions include is still undetermined. Follow-on panelists agreed that while political sanctions have an immediate affect, economic sanctions would take time and would not necessarily be successful. They referred to Iran's strong desire for nuclear weapons, historical distrust of US intentions, and their desire to be recognized as a regional leader. Military coercion was felt to be dangerous and only putting off the inevitable. Panelists agreed that Iran was still 2-3 years from having the fissile material necessary for a bomb.
Personal observations. This is a scary process. Of the 18 members on the committee, only 7 showed...and most were there for only a few minutes basically to ask a question of the Dept of State guy...and then they left (this includes by the way Senator Allen of VA). Half the rooom got up and left after the Under Secretary finished and left...they (including the State guy) never heard the follow-on panelists--subject matter experts from Harvard, Brookings Institute, and the Council on Foreign Relations. At one point, there were only two senators in the room. And yet, this is how our National policy is being formulated...kinda like a drive by shooting. As Senator Biden pointed out, we are woefully uninformed about Iran (as we were with Iraq)...there are no credible options being offered...that calling for regime change makes diplomacy difficult...and there's no endgame or goal.
It was an interesting day...though kinda frightening. Personally, it's a difficult issue...but I certainly don't think that telling the Iranians "our way or no way" is the way to negotiate. As one of the panelists suggested, probably the best way forward is direct talks where all issues are on the table and neither party comes with any preconditions.
I'll give you a synopsis of the meeting followed by my personal insight into the process and recommendation for a way ahead.
First, the synopsis: Chaired by Senator Lugar. The Honorable Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Department of State, outlined current administration policy that Iran is in noncompliance with UN Resolution 1696 and until they suspend enrichment activities, there will be no direct talks. Long standing animosities were cited as leading to current diplomatic problems even going back to the Iran hostage crisis and US support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Also cited were Iranian involvement in terrorism, weapons of mass distruction, and the Israel-Palestine issue. Mr. Burns outlined ongoing efforts to influence business ventures by declaring Iran as too risky. Should talks fail, the US and coalition partners are committed to a series of escalating sanctions though what the particular sanctions include is still undetermined. Follow-on panelists agreed that while political sanctions have an immediate affect, economic sanctions would take time and would not necessarily be successful. They referred to Iran's strong desire for nuclear weapons, historical distrust of US intentions, and their desire to be recognized as a regional leader. Military coercion was felt to be dangerous and only putting off the inevitable. Panelists agreed that Iran was still 2-3 years from having the fissile material necessary for a bomb.
Personal observations. This is a scary process. Of the 18 members on the committee, only 7 showed...and most were there for only a few minutes basically to ask a question of the Dept of State guy...and then they left (this includes by the way Senator Allen of VA). Half the rooom got up and left after the Under Secretary finished and left...they (including the State guy) never heard the follow-on panelists--subject matter experts from Harvard, Brookings Institute, and the Council on Foreign Relations. At one point, there were only two senators in the room. And yet, this is how our National policy is being formulated...kinda like a drive by shooting. As Senator Biden pointed out, we are woefully uninformed about Iran (as we were with Iraq)...there are no credible options being offered...that calling for regime change makes diplomacy difficult...and there's no endgame or goal.
It was an interesting day...though kinda frightening. Personally, it's a difficult issue...but I certainly don't think that telling the Iranians "our way or no way" is the way to negotiate. As one of the panelists suggested, probably the best way forward is direct talks where all issues are on the table and neither party comes with any preconditions.
we've gotta reform some of that... if you can't attend the hearings you shouldn't serve on the committee.