By Shermineh Salehi.
On the long standing contentious matter of nuclear bomb building, scholars remain divided on a response that can bypass a potential nuclear war. Today’s Iranian nuclear development has left more than fifty percent of scholars in agreement that sanctions are ineffective while the remaining conservative bunch encourage pressure and war to halt the bomb. As a topic close to my heart, over the last few years I have found the Liberalist camp continuously pushing for diplomacy, a fact based measure in comparison to Conservative violence inducing measures that do not benefit Iranian people or the world.
Iranian Lives:
On both sides of the table Liberalist and Conservative thinkers encourage a change of course yet the Liberalist bring a more realistic and logical solution through diplomatic measures. Scholars like James Phillips of Heritage Foundation would agree with the views of Marine General James Mattis that the Islamic regime has been using negotiations to stall for time. He feels convinced that Iran is preparing for a military clash with America’s great ally Israel by installing an anti aircraft defense system in Syria.[1]
Here, Mr. Phillips makes references to the Wall Street Journal as a legitimate article encouraging Obama to prepare for military strike on Iran once negotiation talks fail. The argument shows a lack of legitimacy since he does not base the argument on sound research and tries to assume the worst, based on the tone of voice of different Iranian leaders. Phillips does not discuss an approach to negotiation instead he quickly assumes warfare is the best choice.
Whereas, doctoral researcher Mohammad Ali Shabani, might agree that sanctions are not the right response, he instead is considering the wellbeing of the middle class. Shabani would also prefer to see the regime ousted but his fact based research shows a cultural and physiological argument that Iranian leadership will attain public support using ‘Persian Pride’ as a front against sanctions.[2] Like SAIS Dean Nasr, he believes the regime would be offended by talks that lack negotiation to solely benefit America.[3]
Here both scholars, Iranian by descent have concrete understanding of the Islamic regime as they are educated in cultural norms and policy making approach of Iranian leaders. The scholars understand the expense of war and the need for America to have a strategic regional ally like Iran where sanctions would only push Iranians to support their Dictator.
Global Impact:
Additionally, discussions on increasing economic pressures showed Liberalist explain the reality that economic sanctions on Iran would have a regional consequence, while Conservative minded scholars did not consider the harm to American allies in the area. James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation laid out a number of strategies that should be imposed to oust the regime through the U.N Security Council, support United States gasoline sanction and fund opposition groups to expose corruption in the government.[4]
Phillips does not consider reality when making these suggestions since the Iranian opposition group “Green Movement” are the same middle class people angry at America for making everyday life a great economic struggle. As well, for the President of the United States to act without the support of the United Nations would divide the Democratic Party and lead international allies to question Obama’s legitimacy.
SAIS Professor Steve Hanke sees a negative outcome since Iranian people are well educated and not easily fooled by global pressures, shown through a jump in investments into gold, a stable non traceable store of value and a reliable medium of exchange.[5] As well he argues against the legitimacy in the U.S alliance with Turkey since they have been secretly providing gold to Iranians in exchange for natural gas, adding to the need to seriously consider diplomacy.[6]
Here Professor Hanke shows strong analytical arguments that America’s approach of containment is in fact bursting at the seams and dragging in Turkey an ally of the United States. Boldly and rightly so, he shows American policy makers that the Iranian middle class are an educated bunch whom can easily pull in the economies of neighboring nations, thwarting the goals for sanctions. Hanke takes a more humane approach and considers the livelihood of the hard working middle class in Iran who do not deserve to suffer as a consequence of failed leadership.
Furthermore, when the motivation behind Iranian nuclear deterrence is for the purpose of avoiding a violent war, Conservative minded thinkers must consider the middle class population who unjustly suffer. While Liberalist scholars might agree that the Islamic regime is inhumane these thinkers have considered diplomacy as a realistic option after carefully reviewing academic research and American backed military tactics that failed i.e. Iran Iraq war. Although researchers may continue to debate on the best policy approach, Iranians directly affected will continue to nervously wait upon the results of international discussions.
