Leaders, experts discuss Iran’s political future at summit (The Diamondback)

In the wake of Iran’s contentious summer elections and recent disclosures about the country’s nuclear programs have shifted perceptions both domestically and internationally, leaving experts to debate the country’s future course of action. During Friday’s Iran symposium, consisting of a series of panels in the Riggs Alumni Center, heated debates erupted about whether the United States should negotiate with Iran on their nuclear weapons program, but participants seemed to agree — nearly unanimously — that Iran must slow its pursuit of nuclear weapons. “This is an impressive conversation about Iran as I’ve seen,” said panelist James Walsh, an associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with expertise in weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. “Iran is fundamentally different than other nuclear weapon-holding countries like North Korea, unlike what the media reports tell us. A nuclear-armed Iran is not inevitable.” The day was broken into three panels, each with three presenters, followed by a question-and-answer portion.

"In the wake of Iran’s contentious summer elections and recent disclosures about the country’s nuclear programs have shifted perceptions both domestically and internationally, leaving experts to debate the country’s future course of action"The panels spurred talks about the election and its aftermath and touched on the impassioned protests that followed. Another theme that carried throughout the summit was the significance of the Iranian government’s response to protesters and the implications the elections had for the U.S. Other panels focused mainly on what the Iranian government is trying to accomplish with its nuclear program. Although panelists were indecisive about the direction of Iran’s nuclear program and how the U.S. should play a role — especially since the elections — they were adamant about slowing down Iran’s timeline for nuclear armament.

“Most [countries] fail to become nuclear weapon states because their time horizons keep extending and they get distracted with other issues like war or their economy,” Walsh said. “We need to figure out how to extend Iran’s time horizon further.” An assortment of professors and experts in international and Middle Eastern affairs served as panelists for the symposium — “Iran After the 2009 Elections: Domestic, Regional and International Dimensions” — sponsored by The Roshan Center for Persian Studies and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development. Panelists connected Iran’s nuclear program and the country’s recent elections, saying one depends on the other. “Iran has become a more powerful force in the Middle East, and that makes people nervous,” said panelist Gary Sick, a research scholar and adjunct professor with a special expertise in Iran at the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. “The future of the Iran nuclear situation depends on the aftermath of the election.

"During Friday’s Iran symposium, consisting of a series of panels in the Riggs Alumni Center, heated debates erupted about whether the United States should negotiate with Iran on their nuclear weapons program, but participants seemed to agree — nearly unanimously — that Iran must slow its pursuit of nuclear weapons"We just don’t know what’s going to happen here.” But when it came to creating a plan for American involvement, Sick said the U.S. should stay silent. “The present Iranian government is just waiting for the opposition to go away, but it’s not, and the U.S. shouldn’t get involved,” he said. “That would be the worst thing that could be done.

The election shifted the attempted equilibrium between the U.S. and Iran.” Other panelists disagreed, citing past negotiations as proof that civil conversations between the U.S. and Iran are necessary in securing a stable relationship between the two countries. “We need to create a balance in our negotiations and establish trust,” said panelist Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. “We need to make it clear that we are serious about negotiations.

This is not about technology, but about politics.” hampton at umdbk dot edu Comments