I agree with Architect that it's not at all a solution. Indeed, one can see at least two reasons why it's a silly idea that the Iranians won't consider. First, it amounts to saying that we won't do something that's immoral and we're not capable of pulling off, so long as you change your policy drastically to suit us.  If that worked, we could run around telling everyone what to do. Second, it amounts to asking the Iranians to give up two things their regime loves, because both promote the paranoid nationalism they need to manipulate the masses and stay in power: thre threat of U.S. invasion and an agressive military program to "defend" themselves. If this sounds like the Bush psychology, maybe we should learn from the resemblence. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

That's more or less correct, according to a former Bush administration NSC official, Flynt Leverett.

It wasn't a full-fledged 'deal,' per se, but an overture passed through the Swiss embassy which sought to open negotiations along those general lines.

First, it amounts to saying that we won't do something that's immoral and we're not capable of pulling off, so long as you change your policy drastically to suit us. If that worked, we could run around telling everyone what to do.

This is indeed paart of the reason for being skeptical about the efficacy of a mere offer "not to engage in regime change." For one thing, as Mr. Etzioni recognizes, regime change is not something the Bish administration is likely capable of carrying out anyway. So why would the Iranians trade away a whole nuclear program for such a relatively meaningless concession?

Much more significant would be some sort of broader non-aggression agreement. The problem is that, for such commitment to be effective, believable and reliable, you have to spell out an awful lot of details about the circumstances in which all bets would be off, and military action might take place. In the case of Iran, I think we can see that the spelling out would involve consideration of such a huge number of regional contingencies that the the conversation would quickly expand into a very broad discussion of regional issues. So perhaps these issues would be part of the discussion right from the beginning. But this would be an awfully big first domestic bite.

In any case, no simple words or signatures on paper would be enough to convince Iranians we are unlikely to attack them in the future, or convince Americans that Iranians will not attack US interests. What is needed is a series of concrete US and Iranian steps that amount to the beginnings of a strategic reorientation in the region, are conducive to building confidence on each side, and develop real common material interests among the two populations. Trade and diplomatic normalization, in exchange for a verifiable long-term moratorium would be a better first step. The permanent treaty arrangement could come later.

Bush et al push "regime change" because it's guaranteed not to happen, can't happen because of the reasons you cited. It logically follows that an attack on Iran has already been signed, sealed and will be delivered. All these on-going threats, "negotiations," thrusts and parries serve to merely buy time.

2 items might be relevant here.

First, a few years ago the North Koreans made big play out of asking the US for security assurances not to attack. US negotiators say that this then got some consideration. However, in the past 12 months the North Koreans have almost entirely dropped the subject and no longer seriously make the request. The implication these negotiators have drawn was that it was merely a useful propaganda tool and not a genuine concern.

Second, EU negotiators, in their talks with the Iranians, both formal and informal, made great efforts to explore room for compromise. They are now dispirited and pessimistic because it seems there is nothing the Iranians want-- i.e. nothing for which they would give up their program. The EU and the US are understandably reluctant to make the offer explicit if it appears that it has no chance because it will be used in propaganda to pretend that the policy of regime change is the underlying driver of proliferation, rather than anything else (e.g. the Iranian regime, nationalist ambition, pride, etc.)

The bottom line is that the Iranians do not perceive a major downside to getting a nuclear capability. As long as this is true, why would they accept a deal?

If we apologize for regime-changing them in the past and our support of Iraq with WMDs during the Iran-Iraq war, and promise not to regime-change them again and endorse a MacNamara-like statement that renounces US reliance on nuclear weapons for our military strategies and denounces any use of nukes as in violation of the just-war concept of proportionality then maybe they'll listen and turn away from pursuing nuclear weapons!

I know that's saying a lot, but I really do believe that McNamara is right that the indefinite combination of human fallibility and the destructive power of nukes is a catastrophe waiting to happen...

dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

There's one very simple explanation why the Koreans and the Iranians no longer believe in negotiation.

It got them no where.

Even the village idiot in North Korea and Iran can see Bush wants regime change, not a rational equitable agreement.

The only difference between the two countries is that North Korea HAS nukes and has a military that CAN kick our asses.

Anybody who doesn't understand that regime change IS the underlying driver of both crises is simply not qualified to talk about it.

Etzioni is making the same mistake so many are making.  A nuclear armed Iran is not, in spite of what the Bush administration says, a justification for an attack on Iran.  Many countries are nuclear armed, including Pakistan, which is also a Moslem country, and one that has already engaged in handing out nuclear technology to terrorist nations.  If any country should be attacked, and they shouldn't, it is Pakistan, which shelters bin Laden (remember him?) and trains Moslems to hate Americans.

One would think that people, like Etzioni, believe that our possession of military superiority over all other countries means we just have to attack someone.  It doesn't mean that at all.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Well, it's regime change, obviously, but the underlying reason is that Iran want's to sell its hydrocarbons in Euros, lie Iraq did, like NK does, like Venezuela does.

Neoboho

I don't know if I read this correctly -

US efforts to cause regime change will backfire, therefore the US should offer to end efforts to cause regime change in exchange for Iran giving up the right to enrich uranium?

If it won't work anyway, why should Iran trade enrichment for it? The amazing thing is that this is nowhere near the most crazy misreading of the Iranians that I've come across.

It will be very difficult to buy off the Iranian right to enrich uranium, but if it is possible, it will cost a lot more than ending efforts at regime change.

Now other than that, Iran would accept inspections and ratify the additional protocols which would make it impossible to hide a weapons program for free in a second if Iran's right to enrich is respected.

"If ALL fails, the US and allies will need to use force,"

Who are the allies who will be shoulder to shoulder, body bag to body bag, with George W. in this, his grand and final bloody war fiasco Mr. Amitai Etzioni? As one of the 100 smartest in the country, do you care to estimate when it will end and what it will accomplish besides blowing lots of things up and getting lots of people killed? 

This artile completely misses the mark.
First of all, the nuclear issue is merely a pretext -- the real policy of regime change is intended to secure Israel's hegemony over the middle east, and has nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. The LAST THING the Israelis want is for the US and Iran to start to get along - they risk becoming the Taiwan in Nixon's trip to mainland China.

Second, even if assuming that nuclear proliferation is the issue(which it isn't):

The US is already obligated NOT to engage in aggression against Iran -- its called the UN Charter.

And Iran is absolutely and totally entitled to have its enrichment technology, in accordance with the NPT.

Iran has already offered many compromises that exceed any obligation under the NPT and which would have addressed any real concern for proliferation, but the US has summarily turned these offers down and instead insists that Iran shouldn't know anything about nuclear technology, and should not have any secure source of nuclear energy. This is clearly unacceptable to any country, and certainly not acceptable to Iran, and the Bush administration knows it too.

So any "bargain" in which Iran has to give up its "inalienable" rights is a loser, right off the bat.

This isn't the first time that super-powers have issued illegal ultimatums to Iran. Iran's history is full of these ultimatums from the Imperial British, and the Russians before them. Too bad the Americans have become just another super-power bully. And in Iranian history, the politician who gave into these ultimatums are still hated as traitors.

Iran's offer March 2005:

- Iran is allowed to enrich uranium

- Iran implements then ratifies the additional protocols

- Iran agrees to forego reprocessing technology

- Iran agrees to turn all low enriched uranium into fuel rods which are difficult or impossible to enrich further

- Iran accepts continuous IAEA monitoring in its nuclear sites

- Iran accepts any other conditions the IAEA believes would help prevent any diversion of nuclear materials

The EU offer August 2005:

- Iran is not allowed to enrich or convert uranium

- Iran implements and ratifies the additional protocols

- Iran amends its acceptance of the NPT so that unlike every other signatory that can leave after 90 days notice, Iran cannot leave ever under any circumstances

- Britain and France reaffirm their NPT-required policies not to attack Iran using nuclear weapons if Iran is non-Nuclear. They carve out new exceptions to those policies.

- Iran scraps its enrichment, conversion and heavy water plants

As compensation:

- The EU accepts arrangements Iran had already made with Russia to supply low enriched uranium

- Iran is taken to the first step towards WTO admission. Its WTO accession can and still will be blocked by the US.

- Iran gets the status of major energy supplier to Europe - any benefits to Iran, if any, of this status to be discussed later.

- After Iran accepts this agreement, the EU and the US agree that if Iran makes further concessions, the US will make concessions on its sanctions regime, to be discussed later

- A commission of Europeans goes to Iran to investigate alternative uses for the facilities Iran has built for enrichment, conversion and heavy water processing.

- Every ten years, the agreement can be reexamined and terms can be relaxed at the sole discretion of the Europeans.

I'd say there is no question about which side wants to provoke a confrontation and which side want the issue to resolve peacefully.

It was a snarky remark. There were comments among the pundits to the effect that saving face is an imperative in Arab culture, which would suggest that we are ruled by a Beduin tribe of Banu-Bushi, a.k.a. Busheviks.

Iran can logically claim that as a subject of past and present embargoes it has higher needs for technological independence than, say, Brasil. (I would guess that Brasil does enrich its uranium.) If anything, this arguments should be convincing to Iranian population.

We can say that there were good reason for the embargo and the same reason do not allow us to tolerate their technological abilities getting closer to making nukes. The law, whatever it is worth, is on Iranian side and I do not think we can successfully bomb our way out of this conundrum.

Men who only talk of peace while desiring only war will always find ways to make war.Just as they will always find ways to prove their humanity as they keep trotting out new justifications for making war. If bush cared about anything but absolute surrender and regime change he'd act presidential and if necessary be willing to invite the iranians to come sit at his table show some texas hospitality and respect. We're the nation holding the keys to all this mess,but we need leaders who are able to both be humble and knowledgable something bush just is'nt.