Why is APN weighing in on Iran?

U.S. policy towards Iran has a real impact on Israel. As an organization dedicated to achieving peace and security for Israel, we believe that we have a responsibility to speak out regarding U.S. policy on Iran. How the U.S. deals with Iran has a very real impact on Israel, in terms of not only the direct threat to Israel that would be posed by a nuclear-armed Iran but also in terms of the threat of Iranian retaliation against Israel in the case of U.S. military action against Iran, and in terms of continued Iranian support for terrorist organizations in Lebanon, Syria, and, increasingly, the West Bank and Gaza.

Moreover, for a number of years some organizations and members of the American Jewish community have taken a very public, leading role in pressing the Administration to pursue and escalate a policy of threats and sanctions vis à vis Iran - a policy which, in our view, has been inconsistent with the best interests of both Israel and the United States. As a well-established and respected member of the organized Jewish community, representing large numbers of Americans who care about Israel, we have a responsibility to make clear our view on this issue.

 

Why does APN support engaging Iran's regime, given the highly disputed results of the last election?

Boycotting the Iranian government until the Iranian domestic political scene has clarified itself is not a reasonable policy for the US, given the significant national security interests at stake and given the failed track record of non-engagement as a foreign policy strategy. This issue is too important to put on hold, and engaging with Iran's leaders is still the best hope for progress.

Since long before these disputed elections we have rejected the position that refusing to engage is an effective tool of US foreign policy. Such an approach was a central pillar of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. Similarly, the Bush Administration clung to the view that openly interfering in internal domestic politics if a country was an effective tool for changing these same regimes.

Both of these policies failed. In countries where the US refused to engage the leadership and governments, the US found itself with few tools to promote its objectives and protect its interests, and few cards to play in times of crisis. In countries where the US openly supported pro-democracy/anti-government forces, its support discredited those very forces and undermined the genuine domestic movements for change.

 

Why is APN opposed to sanctions against Iran?

APN is not opposed to sanctions against Iran. We have long argued that sanctions can be a powerful tool for putting pressure on Iran, and we have thus supported, and continue to support, the far-reaching sanctions that are already in place targeting Iran's government, its leaders, and its nuclear program.

What we do oppose are sanctions that deliberately target the Iranian people - like the "crippling" economic sanctions currently under consideration. The deliberate infliction of suffering on civilians in order to compel them to put pressure on their government is a dubious approach, both from a moral standpoint and from the standpoint of efficacy. 

Examples of cases where such sanctions have caused tremendous human suffering but failed to force a change in governmental policy include Iraq, Cuba, Gaza, and, in fact, Iran itself, where decades of US and international sanctions did little to weaken the Iranian regime in the eyes of its people.

Moreover, such new sanctions could feed the Iranian government's narrative that the current popular protest is foreign-inspired and foreign-supported, giving the Iranian authorities a pretext to discredit and further persecute critics and protesters. Indeed, new sanctions that make the lives of the Iranian people more difficult could provide the government a populist point around which to try to mobilize solidarity and, potentially, sympathy.

We believe such sanctions are a morally and strategically perilous path that the Obama Administration must reject.

 

Why is APN opposed to having a deadline after which sanctions or other punitive actions coming to play?

APN is not opposed to the Obama Administration using deadlines as part of its Iran policy, so long as these deadlines are the product of judicious and ongoing assessments by the Obama Administration of the state-of-play of current diplomatic efforts.

We do oppose arbitrary deadlines - including deadlines imposed by outside parties. Such deadlines are unhelpful and potentially counter-productive.

Some outside interest groups are seeking to compel the President to adopt a firm deadline for ending engagement. They portray such a deadline as necessary in order to thwart Iranian delay tactics - tactics they argue Iran will use to continue to expand and develop its nuclear program. However, this effort discloses less a fear of Iranian delay tactics and more a desire to tie the President's hands and limit his foreign policy options.

According to the US Constitution, the conduct of foreign policy is a prerogative of the President.  If and when the President decides engagement - or waiting for engagement - with Iran has exhausted its usefulness, he has the authority to take action at that time, including articulating any deadlines he deems appropriate.

 

How can APN argue that the US can both engage this terrible regime and at the same time signal support for the Iranian people? Aren't these two things mutually exclusive?

 

No. America can walk and chew gum at the same time.

US foreign policy should never be viewed as a zero-sum game, wherein the US must be "all-in" either with a foreign government or with its people. Indeed, throughout the world the US maintains constructive diplomatic relations with governments while at the same time criticizing the conduct of those governments with respect to the rights of the citizens of those states, and maintaining a range of programs aimed at helping those populations.

With respect to Iran, it is simply incorrect to suggest that the US cannot engage the Iranian government while at the same time finding ways to signal support for the Iranian people. This could mean carefully calibrated public statements of support, including sustained focus on the human rights situation inside Iran. It should certainly mean that any US engagement with Iran must deal with the full range of issues on the US agenda, including US concern for human rights and political freedoms.

It could also mean the clear articulation of a US strategy that does not view the deliberate infliction of suffering and poverty on the Iranian people as an acceptable political tool. In addition, it could involve tangible changes in US policy, like beginning the process of de-criminalizing donations by US citizens to legitimate charities in Iran.

 

Does APN rule out the use of force against Iran, regardless of the success of engagement and regardless of the progress of Iran's nuclear program?

 

No. APN does not rule out the use of force against Iran. We urge policymakers to discard casual rhetoric about US or Israeli first-strike options and to discard the notion that the guiding policy for the US must be that "all options are on the table."  Clearly, the option for military action is always available, but it must be reserved as the option of truly last resort, and no military action should be threatened or contemplated, let alone taken, which violates the Constitution of the United States or international law.

Likewise, we oppose policies that appear certain to - or even designed to - fail, thus paving the way for an eventual use of the military action. The goal of U.S. engagement should not be to make a show of exhausting all nonmilitary options in order to build a case for war; rather, the goal must be to capitalize on non-military options in order to resolve differences and avoid war.

For the sake of both Israeli and American national interests, what is needed now is not a rush to escalate the US conflict with Iran into a confrontation and potential conflagration. Rather, real leadership and commitment diplomacy is needed to address this top US foreign policy and national security challenge.