Experts focus on United States’ relationship with Iran

Experts discussed possible resolutions to the nuclear conflict between the United States and Iran at an event hosted by the USC Center on Public Policy on Wednesday in the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

 

The event, “The Iran Project: A U.S.-Iran Public Diplomacy Road Map,” focused on the challenging diplomacy issues in the context of the current United States-Iran relationship.

The bipartisan panel featured USC Professor Philip Seib and members of The Iran Project, a non-governmental organization that issued a comprehensive report on potential solutions to the conflict between the United States and Iran. Ambassador William H. Leurs, Ambassador Frank G. Wisner and Admiral Eric T. Olson were representatives of the project.

The speakers highlighted some of the key themes of the report, particularly the need for people within the United States to have rational discussions about the United States’ relationship with Iran.

“Politicians and others who are to quick on the draw need a reality check, and that’s what this report provides,” Seib said.

To this end, Wisner encouraged those in attendance to think about Iran in terms of the events that affect the Middle East and how this affects U.S. interests.

“As you begin thinking about Iran, think about it in context,” Wisner said. “We are not just dealing with a nuclear question, or a threat to Israel, we are dealing with a new significant strategic reality with which the United States cannot afford not to be engaged in.”

The Iran Project has worked to find political and diplomatic solutions to the conflict, including working behind the scenes with both governments to promote direct talks and help interpret communications. Members have also engaged in “Track II” diplomacy, in which non-officials work to create dialogue and build trust between the two nations.

A summary of their findings, which is published in the small booklet “Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran,” lists the pros and cons of military attack against the Iran.

The panel also highlighted national issues in Iran, geographic and economic interests, the United States commitment to Israel and Iran’s ability to impact the U.S. interests.

This region factors into our most important national interest because of its huge and extraordinary holdings of hydrocarbons,” Wisner said.

The panel then shifted to discussing the possibility of military action against Iran. All members were largely opposed to military action; instead, they encouraged diplomacy and respect for each country’s national interest.

“We have to recognize Iran as its own reality — its own government,” Wisner said.

Seib said he hopes students leave the panel with a new appreciation of the complexities of the U.S.-Iran relationship.

“I hope there is a recognition of the complexity of issues concerning Iran specifically, and the questions of war and piece generally,” Seib said.