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.”

Hezbollah 'Perhaps Better Organized & Better Armed Than Al Qaeda,' Says Expert

According to Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, the Lebanese based terrorist organization Hezbollah could be as powerful, if not more so, than Al-Qaeda.

"[Hezbollah is] the most potent terrorist organization next to Al Qaeda - and perhaps better organized and better armed than Al Qaeda," told a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee Tuesday.

Pletka pointed to the 40,000 rockets and missiles that the Lebanese Islamist group claims to have as evidence of their strength.

A State Department official who also appeared before the subcommittee noted that although Hezbollah has not launched an attack against the U.S., they could still be considered a potential threat.

"While we recognize that Hezbollah is not directly targeting the United States today, we are aware that that could change, especially if tensions increase with Iran over that country's nuclear program," Daniel Benjamin, the Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism said.

Despite these suspicions, however, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman declared that, "[U.S.] policy is for non-engagement with Hezbollah ... and I don't anticipate that policy changing."

Lebanon At Crossroads Following Parliamentary Election

By Michael Combier-Talk Radio News Service

The results of the Lebanon Parliamentary election on June 7th represent a step forward for the country, but sectarian division still exists and may de-stabilize the nation in the future said Middle East experts who gathered at a forum today at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington D.C.

“The fact that the election went smoothly gives us hope...It could potentially put Lebanon on a positive trajectory toward greater reform and reconciliation,” said Mona Yacoubian, a special advisor to the Institute’s Muslim World Initiative.

The opposition, including the Maronite leader Michel Aoun and Hezbollah, did not pick up any seats in Parliament. Middle East Institute Scholar Graeme Bannerman attributed this to the fact that the country’s Sunni population voted mainly in support of Lebanon’s pro-Western bloc, known as the ‘“March 14th Coalition." Bannerman added that “General Aoun’s people lost support within the Christian community.”

Despite the results, Hezbollah still remains a strong influence in the country, and the next government will have to find a way to work with the anti-Western organization said most of the panel’s participants.

“The Hezbollah is positioning itself for a kind of a deal” that will involve a political status quo on the organization’s militarization said Randa Slim, a scholar at the USIP.

Because of the Hezbollah’s control in local districts of Lebanon, the government, led by the ‘March 14 Coalition,' “will be less likely to call in the immediate term for Hezbollah’s disarmament,” added Slim.

Lebanon’s Interior Minister will soon release the county-by-county election results.

Iran's point of view on process of talks with the U.S.

During the last decade, the U.S.-Iran relationship has been a great disappointment to the Iranians, according to Geneive Abdo, former Guardian correspondent in Iran and a current Fellow member of The Century Foundation, which hosted a panelist discussion on the "Escalating Pressures on Iran". “For 30 years U.S. administrations have sanctioned Iran, isolated Iran, condemned Iran...,” said Abdo.

The panel focused on issues on how to develop a better approach involving issues with Iran, which includes nuclear programs and Iranian regime shifting. According to Abdo, Hezbollah's and Hamas's influence are growing stronger in the Middle-East region, which indicate that United States policies are failing in that area, a reason for the United States to change how to "talk" with Iran. Abdo highlighted that U.S. will be unable to achieve its objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan without co-operation from Iran.

Samuel Gardiner, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and author of the book Dangerous and Getting more Dangerous: The Delicate Situation between the United States and Iran, stated that Iran most likely does not want nuclear powers to aim at the United States nor potential neighboring countries, but simply to protect their own national security interests. “The Iranian regime is not suicidal,” said Gardiner.

The panel agreed that when speaking of nuclear weapons, the United States cannot exclude military action from the agenda. According to Gardiner, unofficially, it seems like U.S. current foreign policy on Iran is centered around overthrowing the Iranian government. "Yes, we can strike the nuclear facilities and yes, we can do serious damage, the problem is that we will have to deal with the response,” Gardiner said. “How do we deal with the response?”.

Gardiner said that those who pose a threat, when speaking on how to approach the Iran issue is not President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad anymore, but the supreme leaders and spiritual leaders in Iran.

According to Hillary Mann Leverett, (CEO of Stratega (Strategic Energy and Global Analysis) and former Director of Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs National Security Council, both sides need to compromise if they are to succeed in developing a comprehensive approach to their policies. Leverett highlighted that reserving Iran's security interests is an important point for them to be able to succeed with a relationship involving the United States. She also noted that it is going to be difficult, for the United States to take regime change off the table.

U.S. should not preemptively attack Iran

U.S. should not preemptively attack Iran

At the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a discussion was held on the implications of relations between the United States and Iran. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, said that Iran must make a concession before the U.S. will negotiate them, the hostility of the region and the “clumsiness” that the problem has been handled has been a problem.

The U.S. has lived with a nuclear armed Russia, China, Pakistan, India and Israel for many years, deterrence will work with Iran as well, but preemptive war will not work, Brzezinski said. Iran is looking to build up its nuclear program to be secure in the region, but it is incorrect to say that they will use nuclear weapons to attack Israel or give them to Hezbollah, he said. The Iranian government is not very popular among the Iranian people and they will not support military action against other nations, they are only building up nuclear weapons to ensure security and safety in a volatile region, Brzezinski said.

The U.S. needs to be willing to lower sanctions on Iran, if the Iranian government promises not to use their uranium for nuclear weapons, Brzezinski said. However, the U.S. should not back down on nuclear proliferation and thereby unintentionally legitimizing the use of force to gain respect and power in the Middle East, he said.