Former White House Aide for Iran and current foreign policy scholar Gary Sick painted a cautiously optimistic picture of American-Iranian relations during his visit to Oberlin yesterday.   Sick reported that, while it is doubtful that the stand-off with Iran will end in diplomatic compromise, so it is also doubtful that a full-on war will break out between the United States and Iran.

Sick based his analysis on the  implausibility of a successful U.S. strike on Iran due to America’s ongoing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“To finish the job we’d need forces on the ground — we don’t have them,” said Sick.  “Iran would make Iraq look like a picnic…The only way to do it would be a draft, and a lot of you who are not interested in international politics right now would become very active.”

Confident assessments about the unpopularity of the regime in Tehran would become irrelevant in the wake of an American intervention, according to Sick.  “The people will rally to their government, even if they don’t like it, when it is attacked,” he said. “By attacking [Iran], Saddam saved the Iranian regime.  If we bomb we’ll do the same.” 

Sick also warned that bombing Iran would be counterproductive from a non-proliferations perspective. It would mean the end of international inspections and could lead Iran to pursue a crash nuclear weapons program.

Recent changes in the American government have made Sick more hopeful that war will be avoided.  Sick viewed the retirement of Donald Rumsfeld and the appointment of his replacement Robert Gates — an acquaintance of Sick — as a promising development.

“[Gates will provide] more of a balance against Vice President Cheney, ” he affirmed.

Sick explored the recent history of relations between the U.S. and Iran to demonstrate further the un-likeliness of a resolution to Iran’s nuclear research and other outstanding issues between the two countries.  At the end of his second term Clinton was open to engagement, but the Iranian government was unreceptive.  Since then, said Sick, the United States has left diplomacy with Iran to the European Union. 

In 2003 and 2005 Iran made offers to the Bush Administration for direct negotiations without preconditions. 

“Iran offered full inspections…ratification of the additional protocols for [the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] and [in return] wanted recognition of the revolution and assurances of non-intervention,” said Sick. “They were rejected out of hand because the United States was against allowing uranium enrichment.

“I don’t think our negotiating strategy has been sensible,” he continued. “You have to give something to get something. At this stage we’re just not looking for a creative solution. We just want them to obey and that’s not the way to do it.”

Sick traced the current confrontation between the United States and Iran to the recent re-emergence of Iran’s importance in Middle Eastern affairs. 

“Iran has become the pivot of regional politics, emerging as a regional power, even a regional superpower,” said  Sick. “Iran’s lost all its natural enemies and gained allies in Syria, Hezbollah and Iraq.” 

Sick argued that Iran’s regaining its sway has been in large part due to the American policies that resulted in the elimination of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein — two of Iran’s main rivals. 

Iran also raised its own profile by pursuing nuclear technology in spite of opposition from the United States.  Sick dismissed the idea that Iran’s program is designed solely for military purposes. 

“Iran wants to reduce domestic oil gas consumption and replace it with nuclear energy and export it instead,” said Sick, who noted that Iran has been simultaneously exploring other energy alternatives like solar energy and hydro-electricity. 

Sick continued, “Iran clearly wants a full nuclear fuel cycle. It is perfectly sensible and Brazil has done the same. The problem is that the process is the same for producing a nuclear weapon.” 

Additionally, Iran wants a fully independent atomic capability, said Sick, because of residual trauma from the Iran-Iraq war.  “In the war, Saddam used massive amounts of chemical weapons on Iran,” he said. “What happened? Nothing. The experience has made Iran deeply suspicious [of the international community].”

Sick maintained that, even if Iran were set on nuclear arms, their plans could not be realized quickly. “Iran is at the earliest phases of building a nuclear infrastructure,” said Sick, pointing out that American intelligence chief John D. Negroponte had reported to Congress that Iran was five years away from building a nuclear weapon. 

Sick concluded, “This is a problem, not a crisis.”