An approach which insists on bigger sticks to go with allegedly bigger carrots is exactly the wrong one to take with Tehran, said The Guardian
Statements from other Iranian officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, all seem designed to cast America in the role of supplicant. American statements, equally, like Obama’s promise to respond if Iran “unclenches its fist”, suggest none too subtly that aggression is all on one side.
These skirmishes must soon end. It is worrying that Dennis Ross, likely to be appointed as Obama’s senior adviser on Iran, is known to want tougher sanctions on that country, as well as to keep military action on the table.
Ross is one of the authors of a recent report that called both for more sanctions and for “augmenting the military lever”. If this is to be the line, we would be justified in asking what, exactly, would have changed between Bush and Obama. An approach which insists on bigger sticks to go with allegedly bigger carrots is exactly the wrong one to take with Tehran. This is particularly the case when the threatened military punishment is less than credible, and when a tighter economic squeeze depends on persuading already reluctant countries to take more severe measures against Iran.
Instead of concentrating narrowly on preventing Iranian nuclear weapons, the better way would be to proceed incrementally, by way of small concessions and bargains, recognizing that the gulf between the Iranian and American understanding of history is a very wide one. More fundamental progress is unlikely unless there is movement toward a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, and an acceptance that the Israeli nuclear monopoly cannot be left out of the equation when urging nuclear restraint on other states. There are no magic wands in the Middle East.
