Iran Analysis: Which Way Forward for US Policy?
Marc Lynch, one of the leading analysts of US foreign policy on the Middle East and Iran, posts this challenging piece in Foreign Policy.
I appreciate Lynch's attempt to find an "off-ramp" to get out of confrontation with Tehran, but I can't help feeling, after reading and re-reading, that he is locked into the dilemma that "we have to do something" to head off those pressing for military action against Iran. Unfortunately, because Lynch can't find a "something" that will work, he winds up back at the default position --- with a shrug of his shoulders --- of intensified conflict and a probable strike on Iran.
The alternative? Instead of "do something", a bit of patience might be in order, as well as a recognition that internal developments in Iran --- while likely to change the situation significantly --- take time. So, instead of "doing something" directed at Tehran, perhaps "doing something" directed at the US policymakers and chattering classes might be advisable: don't give in to an inevitability that talk of military action means military action; instead, head it off and knock it back.
What happens in Iran should be led by Iranians, not by Washington. And it certainly should not be directed by or be dependent on the nuclear-military setting:
This morning, at a small meeting with various Washington-based analysts and European diplomats, I was asked to speculate on the future of Iran policy. While it's of course impossible to predict, I don't expect to see military action by the U.S. or by Israel. Nor do I expect to see any serious progress towards a political bargain, either a narrow one about the Iranian nuclear program nor an expansive one about Iran's place in the Middle East. Nor do I expect Iran to test a nuclear weapon.