|
By Charles Martin-Shields
The recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) took a significant turn away from the former estimates of Iranian nuclear arms production, and told us that Iran had ceased its program in 2003. This has caused a large stir in Washington policy circles, and has lead to sometimes confusing analysis of the situation and where we go from here.
While some people have pointed out that the report is ambiguous about what constitutes a cessation of nuclear weapons ambition, the U.S. has a clear opportunity to engage in direct talks with Iran. What we have gained from the NIE is a measure of tangible evidence to stave off military action in favor of diplomatic engagement. This is welcome news for those who have been advocating diplomacy and dialogue with Iran.
Many consider the most important finding the fact that Iran is responsive to international pressure and criticism. Diplomatic initiatives are credited with causing Iran to stop its nuclear weapons efforts.
 This past year a group of U.S. religious leaders went to Iran to see the country and talk with the Iranian people. This was the first group of Americans to meet with an Iranian sitting president since the 1979 revolution. What the participants saw was the importance of face-to-face dialogue, the opportunity for both sides to have their stories heard. Such dialogue is a focus of the "Words, Not War, With Iran" campaign. Launched in September 2006, it is organized by Faithful Security: the National Religious Partnership on the Nuclear Weapons Danger along with Sojourners/Call to Renewal. This campaign encourages people of faith to learn more about Iranian and U.S. relations, and to advocate for direct U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran. Muslim-Christian Initiative (MCI) partners have also been signatories to the "Words, Not War" statement and participated in educational efforts to promote diplomacy.
In the recent MCI training session in Washington, DC, Lynn Kunkle, Policy Director for the 3D Security Initiative and an MCI facilitator, talked about her findings in working on the Iran case. She spoke about how Iran is a rational actor that responds to threats to its own security and has viewed its nuclear program as a symbol of national sovereignty. She emphasized the importance of taking the threat of regime change off the table, providing the security that will allow for diplomacy to work.
Echoing the same theme, Reza Aslan, Research Associate at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, addressed "A Forum on Iran: Confrontation or Negotiation?" hosted by Congressman Keith Ellison & the Congressional Progressive Caucus in December. Aslan also asserted that U.S. diplomacy has to begin by removing the threat of regime change and that Iran is rational—not apocalyptic. He spoke about the educated and active women and youth in Iran who are working for change, which can only be stopped by threats from outside forces that would cause the population to rally behind their government.
From the recent National Intelligence Estimate to the work of Sojourners/Call to Renewal and Faithful Security, we are seeing a call for a change in our relations with Iran. Now is the time for the United States to open talks. Now is the time for people of all faiths to demand "words, not war" with Iran, and a strategy of shared peace and security for the entire region.
|
