Senate leaders want negotiations with Iran

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony today of two experts on foreign policy dealing with Iran: Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to President Carter, and Gen. Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush. Their purpose was to advise on the strategy which the United States should take when dealing with negotiations with Iran.

Dr. Brzezinski stated in his testimony that a nuclear Iran would be a “disaster,” as would a military collision with Iran. He then noted that there are two ways to approach negotiations: The first is to design the negotiation to fail, and to make Iran appear to blame. This would be achieved by setting preconditions, threatening with sanctions and force, calling for regime change and labeling the Iranian government as a “terrorist entity.” The second approach to negotiation is to, “Seek to engage the Iran in a process in which there emerges the possibility of some consentual arrangement.”

Gen. Scowcroft stated that the real threat from a nuclear Iran is the road to nuclear dissemination in the region. If Iran gets nuclear capability, Turkey, Egypt and other countries in the region will want to follow suit. He noted that in the past, the U.S. and even Israel have had good relations with Iran, and it is important not to view the current situation as permanent. When asked if he thought that negotiations would actually work, he stated, “It seems to me that it is worth a try because in the process of trying, if the United States is really sincere, we are likely to get on board people who suspect now who say we’re sitting off in the corner throwing rocks at them and asking for sanctions; not trying to solve the problem.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) concluded the hearing with the sentiment of productive negotiations, stating, “We’ve got to be smart, restrained, thoughtful and skilled in our diplomacy so that we have an opportunity to really pursue every avenue with the greatest potential for success.”

How does the U.S. approach Iran?

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

"If the United States is able to set a new tone in context with the
relationship in Afghanistan and elsewhere I think in of that
itself will change the nuclear calculations of Iran's leadership."
said Karim Sadjadpour, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.

In a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing titled "Iranian
Political and Nuclear Realities and U.S. Policy Options" witnesses
gave their recommendations on how the U.S. should approach Iran
concerning nuclear production. The hearing comes after a report
released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stating that
Natanz, an Iranian nuclear plant, has gained enough reactor-grade
uranium to allow Iran to create an atomic bomb.

Sadjapour focused on three key options that he thinks the U.S. should
follow. The first being to commence the dialogue with Iran by aiming
to build confidence on areas of common interest such as Afghanistan
and Iraq rather than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the nuclear
issue. "Focus on Supreme leader in Iran, Khamenei not the President,
Ahmadinejad. If I had to describe him (Ahmadinejad) in one word, is
mistrustful...He believes that if you compromise you project
weakness." he said. Sadjapour also stated that it is imperative that
the U.S. maintain an airtight international approach saying that each
country should approach Iran with the same talking points.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Zambia and Egypt, Frank Wisner, said that Iran
is important, Iran is dangerous and Iran is urgent. "I do not believe
in the military option...there is no room for a military
response...the issues of national survival that are first and foremost
on Iran's mind gives me some hope that we can get traction if we chose
to engage and engage fully but I won't pretend for a moment that
dealing with Iranians will not be extremely tough. There will be many
setbacks and many deceptions...I personally welcome as I'm certain all
of us do, an appointment of a new special representative to take a
hard look at Iran and our foreign policies." he concluded.

What is the United States long-term relationship with Iraq?

From Senator Biden’s perspective, the agreements made are going to make it more difficult for the successor to the Presidency to change course in Iraq. In his opening statement at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on “Negotiating a Long Term Relationship with Iraq,” Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) expressed concerns that the negotiations and agreements being made now will not be in the same line of “vision” for two of the three presidential candidates. Not all security agreements, he said, are created equal.

"Our presence in Iraq must be governed by international law or a bilateral agreement, and our military and diplomatic personnel must have appropriate legal protections," Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN) said. By transitioning to a bilateral agreement, there would be a "tangible expression of Iraqi sovereignty," and there would be a predictable legal framework on both sides. It is important, Lugar said, that the Administration be fully transparent about their intentions, and in the progress of their deliberations.

What is the goal of our agreements with Iraq? According to Ambassador David M. Satterfield, it's to help the Iraqi people establish their country as a stable democratic nation that can meet its people's needs. It is imperative, Satterfield said, that the US negotiates with the Iraqi government an agreement that would provide a post-Chapter VII framework [of the UN mandate] that is applicable to US forces. Specifically, "Iraqi consent to the presence and operation of our forces and the protections necessary for our troops to continue to operate in Iraq."

We owe it to our troops in Iraq, Satterfield said, to obtain for them the protections they enjoy elsewhere in the world. "Let me be clear," he said, "the SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement] and strategic framework will not establish permanent bases in Iraq or specify the number of American troops to be stationed there."

Has there been progress in Iraq?

What progress has been made in Iraq? The progress question or some variant of it was asked repeatedly at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on "Iraq After the Surge: What Next?" Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) said in his opening statement violence in Iraq has gone down, but not as far as anticipated. These are fragile gains, he said, and the notion of staying in the country is not the goal. The continued loss of life, drains on our treasury, the impact of readiness on our armed services, and the ability to send soldiers to where al-Qaida has grouped, is like "treading water" and we can't keep treading water without exhausting ourselves.

Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, relayed that it is hard to see progress in Iraq, and there is much to be done. However, he said, the surge is working. We have begun to develop a long-term relationship with the United States and Iraq, and the heart of the framework is a United States presence in Iraq. Our forces will remain in Iraq past December 31, which is when the current UN agreement expires. The new agreement will not make permanent bases in Iraq or raise up troop levels. Almost everything about Iraq is hard, Crocker said, but hard does not mean hopeless. Our gains are fragile and reversible. In regards to Iraq, Americans and the world will judge us not on what we have done, but what will happen in the future.

We have been transferring power to Iraqis, said Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. Half of the provinces in Iraq are under their control, and Iraq's security forces expenditures have exceeded ours. While the forces in Iraq itself have improved, Petraeus said, their forces are not ready to defend themselves on their own. They are shouldering a lot of the load, but they are not yet ready for a resurgence of al-Qaida in Iraq, better known as AQI. There is an operational consideration, he said, transference of power requires a lot of time and monitoring. We've asked a great deal of our men and women in uniform, he said, and we are grateful and appreciate their sacrifices. All Americans should take great pride in them.

But what would happen if we removed our troops? Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) asked that question, and Petraeus responded that we have put our teeth into their jugular, and we need to keep it there. In response to an additional question from Senator Biden, Petraeus said we are at a "six or seven" level on a scale from one to ten towards readiness to return to our pre-surge troop level. Biden also asked Ambassador Crocker, "In a choice, the Lord Almighty came down and sat in the middle of the table there and said, 'Mr. Ambassador, you can eliminate every al-Qaida source in Afghanistan and Pakistan or every al-Qaida personnel in Iraq,' which would you pick?" The Ambassador said he would choose al-Qaida in the Afghanistan Pakistan border area.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) said AQI was not in Iraq before we got there, and that AQI is really the focus here. If we are successful in Iraq, he asked, do we anticipate that AQI will not reconstitute itself? At what point do we say that they will not be particularly effective? In terms of our success in Iraq, it's just as fair to say that we can't get rid of AQI but just create a manageable situation. What is a legitimate affair between Iran and Iraq that would make us comfortable enough to pull out our troops? We all have the greatest interests in seeing a successful resolution in Iraq, he said. I continue to believe that going in was a blunder. I think that the surge has reduced violence and given us breathing room, he said, but not enough breathing room. I think increased pressure in a measured way, includes a withdrawal of troops.

Military Experts Urge Troop Withdrawal from Iraq

General Barry McCaffrey, president of BR McCaffrey Associates LLC, Lt. (Ret.) General William E. Odom, senior advisor of Center for Strategic and International Studies, Maj. (Ret.) Gen. Robert H. Scales, Jr., CEO/president of Colgen, LP and Ms. Michele Flournoy, president of New American Security, all testified today in front of the Foreign affairs committee’s hearing on “Iraq After the Surge: Military Prospects.”

While introducing the topic of the hearing, Chairman Joseph R. Biden (D-DE) said “Iraq is dangerous and very far from normal.”

The witnesses started off by explaining the situation in Iraq and how the security has increased after the ceasefire. However these past few weeks, some southern parts of Iraq, such as Basra, have been witnessing some clashing between Shiites militia groups.

General Barry McCaffrey talked about how the tactical situation in Iraq has improved, but he showed his concern of the various Shiites militia groups in Iraq. However, he further emphasized the quality of the manpower of the U.S. army, the U.S. naval being not resourceful, and the latter has been one of the reasons why it has been hard to resolve the militia problem in the country. In addition to his concerns, he talked about the constant extension of the time frame of troop withdrawal and said it should be as soon as possible, because the conflicts in Iraq are far from resolution. After the current problems in the country, the struggle between Shiites and Northern Kurds will start, mostly on oil and territory, thus “it makes sense to get out of there now” said the General.

The hearing continued with General William E. Odom, who talked about the importance of troop withdrawal, and Al-Qaeda hatred in the country and by its neighbors. Gen. Odom also stressed the importance of progressing good relations with Iran, since the latter country is a crucial power in the region.

Gen. Scales and Ms. Fournoy both stressed the importance of withdrawing the troops strategically and leaving trainers on sight to help and train the Iraqi Army and the government for future threats. President Bush’s strategy on remaining until the Iraqis were in need of help was said to be unrealistic by the witnesses, since that makes the Iraqis rely and be dependent on the U.S. forces rather than their own. Gen. Scales also added “the best way to make the Iraqi government effective is to get them fight.”