This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: The Gramercy Round Revisiting Iran? Chaired by Ian Bremmer and Fareed Zakaria, the Gramercy Round convenes over dinner in New York's historic Gramercy Tavern. Its task is to consider pressing issues that have received insufficient attention from the established foreign policy community. The round meets to discuss questions with an eye to promoting realistic assessments and innovative approaches for American policy. The round met late last year to consider innovative approaches to Iran. The situation has changed since that meeting, so several of the round's participants updated their thoughts for The National Interest. Fareed Zakaria An effective response to Iran's nuclear challenge requires our policymakers to an- swer three interrelated questions. First, is Iran's goal to achieve hegemony in the Persian Gulf and throughout the Middle East? Second, is that possibihty sufficient cause for the United States to act, and to strike Iran militarily? And finally, should it be a guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy to militarily neuter countries inimical to our interests? It makes a major difference if one concludes that Iran pursues nuclear weapons for a suicidal Gotterdammerung, in which Iran sacrifices its statehood to strike Israel and the United States. But if, despite the rhetoric, Iran is engaged in traditional statecraft (seek- ing hegemony and influence), it opens the door to a wider range of policies, among them containment, deterrence and negotiation. But there are no "guaranteed solutions." A carrot-and-stick approach has led states like Brazil, Kazakhstan and Libya to either give up existing nuclear weapons or forego nuclear weapons programs. On the other hand, sanctions had no effect on India and Pakistan during the 1990s. After all, back in 1971, then-Pakistani Foreign Minister Zul- fiqar Aii Bhutto famously declared, "Even if Pakistanis have to eat grass, we will make the bomb." So the challenge is how to pimish Iran if it continues its nuclear program. U.S. policy needs to be much more deft and able to operate on a two-track approach, rather than defining different alternatives as "either/ors." There is no reason not to cen- sure Iran^while at the same time holding out the possibility of Tehran's rehabilitation as a full member of the international community. Negotiations can occur alongside sanc- tions for past and current indiscretions. We need to show Iran that its nuclear program can make it more of a pariah statebut we also have to allow a viable "way out." Cliff Kupchan Let's start with defining what "a nuclear Iran" means. This is a situation where Iran has installed 1,500 to 3,000 working P-1 centrifuges underground at the Natanz en- richment facility, making Iran able to obtain a working nuclear bomb within one year....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/01/2012 for the course 790 319 taught by Professor Licklider during the Spring '09 term at Rutgers.
- Spring '09