Panel Spars Over Diplomatic Influence Of Post-Nuclear Iran

At a panel of leading foreign policy experts hosted by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) on Friday, Ambassador John Limbert, former deputy assistant Secretary of State, declared that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons won’t significantly alter in influence on the global environment.  

“I heard that the comment that an Iranian nuclear weapon would change everything in the region,” Limbert said. “Well, I’m sure it would change some things, but there are certain things it would not change and Iran would remain essentially isolated and diplomatically weak as it is today.”

Other panel members, however, disagreed with Limbert. 

John Hannah, former national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, said that an Iranian nuclear weapon would greatly increase Iran’s economic and diplomatic global influence.

“With a country as important as Iran - as large as it is, as influential as it is, with as much oil as it has - there could be an awful lot of people flowing back to deal with Iranians,” Hannah said. “That sanctions regime and isolation will, in fact, inevitably erode and eventually disappear.”

Stephen Rademaker, former assistant Secretary of State, echoed Hannah’s sentiments and explained that if Iran had nuclear weapons during their proxy war with Israel in 2006, they would have been more liberal in their tactics against Israel.

“Iran, in that war, had to be restrained,” Rademaker said. “There was a level of escalation beyond which Israel would stop hitting back at Hezbollah, the proxy, and they would hit back at the patron of the proxy.”

“Nuclear weapons change that,” Rademaker continued. “If Tehran has nuclear weapons the ability of Israel to hit back at the patron, the real sponsor of the war, is substantially diminished.”

Limbert, however, claimed that his fellow panelists’ alternate opinion is based on a general misconception of Iran’s power.

After comparing Iran to a backgammon player that improvises frequently, Limbert expressed that, “this lack of contact, this lack of engagement…has led to a distorted image of what they can do and what they are capable of.”

Pelosi: Democrats Stand By The IMF

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service

Despite the uncertainties that Congressional Republican leaders have on the efficacy of the reform of the International Monetary Fund, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is adamant that “The IMF will have a strong support from the Democrats.”

Pelosi defended the international organization today at her weekly press conference where she also mentioned the success of her recent bipartisan trip to China.

House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Whip Eric Cantormay, backed by other House Representatives who fear that Democrats are fusing two very different entities, the IMF and a bill, together, said that "Weighing down this critical legislation with non-defense spending will only drag this process out further and cost it essential Republican support needed for passage."

Cantor added that “We should not be having this discussion. IMF funding has no business being included in the war supplemental bill,” while adding that the funding may result in helping terror-sponsoring states such as Pakistan.

The debate over funding of the IMF has stemmed from President Barack Obama’s announcement at the April Group of 20 meeting that $100 billion will be granted to the IMF as part of the U.S war-bill which should further the fight against the global economic crisis.

Obama also said that the U.S would support the IMF as it sell 400 tons of gold, whilst Pelosi reminded that “It [the IMF] has been reformed so that it will help the poor. They wanted to sell gold, we said you can, but the proceeds have to go to help the poor.”

Responding to Cantor’s allegations, Pelosi said “I don’t know why anyone would say that the money is going to the hands of terrorists, it’s simply not based on facts and is a scare tactic.”

Pelosi also said “There are two contradictory things: one says that one shouldn’t be on war funding, which is our responsibility to support our troops in the war in Iraq, end the war in Iraq, bring our troops home and fight terrorism where is it a threat to our country, which is in Afghanistan, and we know that we have to do that." She added that “The IMF, in its reformed state, can be a force for alleviating the despair amongst people in the world. It’s a very important national security initiative.”

“The issue of the IMF, I think, has strong support on the Democrats’ side; not any support we’re hearing on the Republican side,” Pelosi said.

This war-bill, which involves military and diplomacy costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, will skyrocket to over $100 billion.

The Future Of Iran And The U.S. Lies In The Hands Of The New Administration

by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

Today on Capitol Hill experts gathered to talk about the future relationship between Iran and the United States and expressed their recommendations to the Obama administration.

This morning, the Middle East Policy Council, an organization that provides political analysis of issues involving the greater Middle East, held a discussion on the prospects of engagement between Iran and the United States.

Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East specialist at the Congressional Research Service and author of "Warriors of Islam: Iran's Revolutionary Guard" said that Iran envisions a Middle East free of what Iran believes is domination by the United States and Israel.

“Iran’s goal, it’s honored policy goal, the assessment of many, is to fundamentally restructure the Middle East by reducing U.S. influence in the region and weakening Israel to the furthest extent possible,” said Katzman.

Thomas Pickering, the former Undersecretary of State and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and the Russian Federation said that the future of our relationship with Iran will not depend on a totally accurate reading of Iranian internal politics because that remains something of a crapshoot.

“Watch as much as what is done, as what is said,” said Pickering.

Pickering said that the objective for the U.S. and Iran ought to be to seek a normal relationship over a period of time.

“A relationship that involves not just embassies and ambassadors but an ability for people on all sides to meet, talk with, know and work with each other.... We have a lot at stake and Iran has a lot at stake,” said Pickering.

Trita Parsi, the President of the National Iranian American Council and author of "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States" said that in order for the U.S. to improve relations with Iran there needs to be a change in atmosphere and said that the speeches and comments made by President Obama are creating just that and injecting trust.

But Parsi said that giving a deadline of diplomacy to Iran will only militarize the atmosphere, and that will not be successful.

“The more the atmosphere gets militarized, the more difficult it will be for the Obama administration to be able to pursue its path of diplomacy,” said Parsi.

Brookings calls for new public diplomacy strategy

The Brookings Institution held a discussion in which in unveiled "Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century," a plan to improve U.S. public diplomacy.

"Power is diffusing into a larger and more diverse group of nations, non-governmental organizations and multinational corporations than ever before," said Kristin Lord, a fellow at Brookings and author of "Voices for America."

Lord called for the creation of a non-profit organization called U.S.A.-World Trust which would "conduct and commission research and analysis...and convey it in a form useful to public diplomacy practitioners." It would also "tap the vast potential of the private sector...to engage companies, non-governmental organizations, universities, think tanks and others to work on innovative new initiatives" and "provide grants and venture capital to endeavors that advance the nation's public diplomacy objectives."

"The goal in all the instances would be to attract new talent and new voices to the challenge of improving U.S. public diplomacy," said Lord.

The panelists agreed that one of the most important things the U.S. should do is listen to public opinions in foreign countries. "Listening conveys respect, and a lot of people in the Muslim world feel that we don't respect them," said Martin Indyk, Senior fellow at Brookings and Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "The consequence of listening is that you have to show that you're going to change something about what you do as a result of listening. Otherwise, people get the sense you aren't listening at all even though you say you are."

Military going soft

Panelists discussed “Humanity as a Weapon of War,” a new report on the military's role in humanitarian assistance written by Reuben Brigerty, at the Center of American Progress. Brigerty, Director of the Sustainable Security Program at CAP, said decisions being made at the Pentagon suggest the military is realizing that force alone is not an effective strategy in warfare.

Brigerty said his paper outlines the US military’s shift from a direct line of approach in times of conflict, a “kill or capture” technique, to a softer approach that recognizes the causes of insurgencies and works to alleviate them. He said the Department of Defense is beginning to see that humanitarian efforts are not only moral undertakings, but also national security operations. According to Brigerty, the US military benefits from humanitarian ventures by showing American goodwill to skeptical populations and by planting people in the field that can observe local sentiment. He also said the US public must realize, despite written evidence, that US security interests rely on diplomacy and the military equally.

Elisabeth Kvitashvili, deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, expressed discomfort with the military’s role in humanitarian efforts. She said USAID has called upon the military in the past to assist in a supportive role and added that civilian agencies like USAID and the Department of State should continue to lead development efforts. Kvitashvili said workers at the DoS and USAID have been trained development methods and that large-scale military participation in humanitarian assistance may cause recipients of aid to doubt the neutrality of non-military organizations.