Iran Running out of Time?

US officials are calling for Tehran to respond to the EU and UN Security Council proposals that would ultimately make Iran suspend its enrichment of uranium. The international stalemate with Iran has been long-standing, as Tehran says it wants to perfect enrichment to generate fuel, while critics fear the development of arms.

Iran wants to increase cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency “in accordance with [their] legal obligations,” said chief delegate Ali Ashgar Soltanieh. However, he questioned the IAEA’s probing of weapons allegations, claiming it to be outside of its domain, and a threat “fabricated and forged…by the US”. The IAEA’s report from May said that Iran may be withholding information and that Tehran continued expanding its uranium enrichment program, despite the UN Security Council’s retaliatory sanctions.

A package of incentives was discussed last week, in a meeting between Iran, the P5, Germany, and the EU, offering Iran access to technology for nuclear power plants that would take care of fuel supply and address their security concerns. The “freeze-to-freeze” negotiation, where Iran would freeze its uranium enrichment program and the international community would freeze its sanctions, would build confidence and the lay the groundwork for more substantive future negotiations.

Iran has less than a week to respond and US leaders are encouraging a quick reply, especially with the threat of more sanctions under their belt. Many believe that Iran is buying time until the US change in administration, as it is sure to play a large role in the foreign policy work of the next President.

Senator Obama has in the past said that he is willing to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but also insists on direct US talks with the country. In a press conference in France today with President Nicolas Sarokzy, he urged Iran to accept the UN and EU proposals.



Senator McCain’s foreign policy frustrations include the determination to continue disengagement with Iran. While he has said he is opposed to regime change, he has joked to “bomb-bomb-bomb Iran,” maintaining that Iran is a threat to Israel.

Rethinking Pakistan

US foreign policy in Pakistan has played a large role in the heated debate regarding Muslim militancy in the Middle East over the past few years. As the US has traditionally aligned itself with Pakistan - except for a few years when it placed sanctions on the country as punishment for pursing its nuclear weapons program, which was socially and economically devastating to the nation - aid from the US is crucial to continue positive development in Pakistan, especially with volatility in the nation, where religious fundamentalists typically take advantage of socio-economic and political problems for their own gains, using religious vernacular to articulate larger issues that are not inherently based in religion.

There is much debate about what the US's role should be in Pakistan, with critics who are frustrated by the apparent loss of control by the in its northern regions to militants pursuing a more aggressive US foreign policy towards the nation, allies explaining that the country has done and is doing the best it can given the circumstances, and others who emphasize complete disengagement.

While I think the US has made many poor choices in the Middle East and South Asia, and in Pakistan in particular, I do not think disengaging with the nation is a wise option, nor is pursuing an aggressive strategy. I think it is important for us to recognize first that Pakistan is a very young nation, barely 60 years old. While it has had fair economic success over the past years, it is still a developing nation, with a majority of the population suffering from poverty. Pakistan faces social, political, environmental, and economic problems similar to many nations, especially today considering the state of international affairs and the common global issues.

As the Bush administration seeks to shift over $200 million to Pakistan in military aid, we must be wary of our apparent ease in transferring such great funds to the Pakistani military with practically no "check up," (we must be wary of this anywhere, anytime, really) and recognize the negative consequences in the way we dealt with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Those who argue for increased air strikes in the northern regions forget that there are still over 250 Afghan refugee and IDP villages in the north, with many children, that often face the brunt of religiously-inspired violence and retaliation from the international community. Those who call for sanctions and disengagement forget the dependency of Pakistan's economy to the US, and the interdependent regional and global economies that are already suffering, a backlash of globalization.

What needs to be done now is a shift in focus. The US should support largely non-security projects in Pakistan, helping develop the infrastructure: building schools, roads, access to clean water and sanitation, and hospitals. Also, the US should show support for greater judicial, political, and democratic good governance reforms. Economic, environmental, and human rights concerns need to be addressed, while aiding the large and ever-increasing refugee population. In essence, poverty reduction is key.



Religiously inspired violence is the direct result of socio-economic and political problems that marginalize a community of people, causing a rebellion that is articulated in religious terms. Instead of truly reflecting or believing in some violent religious ideology, these aggressor seeks to change the socio-economic or political status-quo that marginalized them, using religion as a tool for mobilization. A change in policy measures that focuses on the root of the problem rather than its outcome is likely to be more successful in Pakistan and around the world. Additionally, it will make facing current important threats, like Al-Qaeda, much easier, more effective, and efficient. Security aid should be based on incentives and performance, rather than serving as a blank check. More importantly, however, we must recognize that security aid is only useful in the short-run and relying only on military means will have negative consequences in the long-run, as we have historically seen.

I can only hope that the tough talk that our current Presidential candidates are espousing will be seriously reevaluated. Pakistan is on its way to be at the forefront our foreign policy focus for the next few years, and it'd be nice not to, for once, repeated out mistakes.