Iran and the next Obama term

Iran was an issue in the U.S. election. Now that he has won, President Barack Obama has to decide what to do about it. There are no good options.

Beyond the rhetoric over the need for a rapid attack, much of it coming, until recently, from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his friends, the U.S. intelligence community remains of the view that Iran has not yet made the fateful decision to build a bomb. But Iran is getting closer to a weapons capability. This cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

So what is likely in the first few months of Obama’s second term? Probably not an attack. Obama still seems to believe (rightly) that sanctions have more time to work. Make no mistake; the sanctions are having a huge impact, particularly in combination with Iran’s own poor economic performance and its chronic corruption. Iran’s currency is in free-fall and it is finding it more and more difficult to sell its oil.

Obama will also be reluctant to begin his second term by unleashing a regional war that could sink his presidency as Iraq sunk Bush. But the Iranians are getting closer to a “red line”, and there is also a desire on Obama’s part to avoid allowing Iran to dominate his last four years as president.

One possible way forward is to attempt an end-run. This could take the form of a firm offer to Iran. It would include U.S. acceptance that Iran would continue its civilian nuclear program, including a very modest enrichment program under extremely strict monitoring, and would provide other economic benefits and incentives, including the progressive lifting of sanctions. But it would also insist that Iran’s questionable nuclear activities must be halted, that it accept much tougher international inspections, and that the bulk of its stockpile of enriched uranium be removed from the country (with perhaps a very small face-saving amount allowed to remain for “research” purposes).

The purpose of such an offer would be two-fold. First, there is the hope that it might be accepted — or at least lead to a serious, time-limited negotiation. It would be reasonable to expect Iran to suspend some nuclear activities during these talks, and the imposition of further sanctions would also be delayed. This would be by far the most desirable outcome.

But, if that were not to happen, a generous (in the U.S. view) offer which had been rejected would clear the decks, politically and diplomatically, for action. It would be difficult to “blame” the U.S. for precipitate military action if a serious offer had been rejected.

It is always difficult to come up with a timeline for this sort of thing. Nevertheless, one may speculate that a U.S. offer might be made soon; Tehran would then plead that its own presidential election, scheduled for June, makes a quick response impossible; serious though quiet exploratory talks would begin in the meantime. Finally, the nature of the person whom the Iranian system allows to win their presidential election will tell us much about whether a deal is possible. Thus, by the late summer of 2013 we should know if this is going to go anywhere. If not, the U.S. will have to make good on the “or else” aspect of the offer.

If this scenario plays out, we may expect Obama to begin his second term, not with an attack on Iran, but with an offer to it. That could be the sign that we are entering the end-game on this, and would set a clock ticking towards either a resolution of the issue or an attack by the autumn of 2013.

Peter Jones is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen