Leveretts spell out terms of Iran Grand Bargain

The indefatigable husband and wife team Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett lay out the best "what's next" scenario in their NYT OpEd titled How to Defuse Iran.

They start out with a sensible question:

Democrats and others are criticizing President Bush for again having "hyped" a nuclear weapons threat. This criticism, while deserved, does not address the critical policy question: What do we do now?

The solution is neither new nor rocket science. One version went by the name of "Grand Bargain" which was taken up by the Kerry campaign in '04. It brought some element of transparency, respect and mutual interest into the picture. Back then the Washington Post was willing to publish that which must not be written nowadays:

Despite its oil reserves, Iran has long sought nuclear energy to provide future energy for a burgeoning population, which has doubled since 1979. But Tehran, during the monarchy and under the current theocratic rulers, is also seeking nuclear energy as a key to development in the 21st century.

The timing was right. Iran had just conceded the big enchilada, pre-surge Iraq was still a paradise compared to the blood bath of 2005, 2006 and most of 2007. The biggest, baddest boy on the MidEast block could have been a real partner, like it was in Afghanistan.

All indications are that Ahmadinejad would not have won the '05 elections had the Khatami reformists been able to show even some moderate amount of success in sticking out their necks for the Americans.

I talked to all sorts of people. I held conversations with Islamists, people who support the regime in Iran. Their view was that they had been vindicated. You remember I said in my talk, that they had warned Khatami not to deal with the Americans and that he would only be humiliated and insulted.
-- David Barsamian, 2007

This entire notion was rejected due to mis-informed, ideological and amateurish God-complex passing as "foreign policy." Instead we got 3 years of misery, devastation and Lord only knows how close we really came to WWIII.

However, as the Leverett's point out, the essentials of a Grand Bargain can still be salvaged, provided US shows some leadership and diplomacy.

From an Iranian perspective, serious engagement would start with American willingness to recognize Tehran’s legitimate security and regional interests as part of an overall settlement of our differences. But neither Republicans nor Democrats have been willing to consider such an approach, because of the pursuit of a nuclear weapons option and support for terrorist organizations that Iran employs to defend what it sees as its fundamental security interests. Successful United States-Iran engagement requires cutting through this Gordian knot by undertaking comprehensive diplomacy encompassing the core concerns of both sides.

This is Leveretts' proposal in a nutshell:

US:

1. "Washington would promise that it would not use force to change Iran’s borders or form of government."

2. "Washington would also pledge to end unilateral sanctions against Iran, re-establish diplomatic relations."

3. "Terminate Tehran’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism."

Iran:

1. Iran to "discloses all information relating to its atomic program, past and present, now being sought by the atomic energy agency."

2. Agree to "an intrusive inspections regime of any fuel cycle activities on Iranian soil."

3. "Issue a statement supporting a just and lasting settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on current United Nations Security Council resolutions. This statement would affirm the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as expressed in the 2002 Security Council resolution, and also the Arab League’s commitment to normalized relations with Israel after it has negotiated peace agreements with the Palestinians and Syria."

4. "Iran would also have to pledge to stop providing military supplies and training to terrorist organizations and to support the transformation of Hamas and Hezbollah into exclusively political and social-welfare organizations."

It's remarkably well-thought out. I would say, there is only one thing missing. US and allies should stop supporting anti-Iran terrorists (MEK, PKK/PJAK, Jundullah, assorted ethnic separatists), and turn them over to International courts for prosecution. US should criminalize dealings with these groups just as it does any other declared terrorist organization.

Question: Do we have anyone with political courage to implement such a plan? We already know it won't be the Rethugs. But who from our side will be willing to spell out this kind of a strategy? Keep in mind that there is only a few weeks until all Democratic candidate will begin the time honored American tradition, "dance to the right." Come February 5th the nomination will be sealed, and the nominee will be most concerned about dodging swift boats, than bold, risky foreign policy. The only chance we have to get someone, anyone, on the record with this plan is right now. It's now or never.