Expert Letter on Deescalating with Iran

Editor’s note: The National Iranian-American Council has released a letter, signed by 30 foreign policy practitioners, calling on the U.S., Europe, and Iran to take steps to reduce tensions in the Persian Gulf.

July 30, 2019

As foreign-policy practitioners with decades of collective experience in national security and diplomacy, we write to warn that U.S.-Iran tensions have entered a dangerous new phase that has put us on the brink of a disastrous and avoidable war. The administration’s decision to violate the Iran nuclear agreement in pursuit of a so-called maximum pressure strategy is damaging the accord and U.S. interests in ways that could be difficult to reverse. There remains a narrow path for the U.S. and Iran to avoid military conflict and resolve ongoing disputes through negotiations. Doing so, however, will require bold action and constructive steps from all sides, as outlined below.

The U.S. Should Suspend Recent Sanctions to Provide Space for Diplomacy

  • The U.S. should suspend sanctions imposed after its withdrawal from the nuclear accord with Iran in May 2018 to provide space for de-escalation and assurance that it is serious about pursuing and adhering to a negotiated solution.

Iran Should Return to Full Compliance with the Nuclear Accord

  • Iran’s recent decision to cease adherence with aspects of the July 2015 nuclear deal in response to U.S. sanctions feeds into a counterproductive escalatory cycle and could lead to an irreversible collapse of the agreement. Iran should welcome the suspension of U.S. sanctions by returning to full compliance with the nuclear deal.

The U.S. and Iran Should Pursue a Prisoner Swap

  • Iran has unjustly imprisoned at least five American citizens and dual nationals. According to publicized reports, at least a dozen Iranians are in custody in the U.S. on sanctions violation charges. Iran has publicly and privately offered to arrange a swap of American and Iranian prisoners held in each country’s jails. The Trump administration should pursue this overture and view it as the low-hanging fruit for negotiations that can build confidence for broader diplomacy.

Europe Must Take More Serious Steps to Address Challenges in Meeting Its Sanctions Relief Obligations

  • Due to U.S. extraterritorial sanctions, Europe has not been able to satisfy its obligations under the nuclear deal to ensure legitimate trade with Iran. To its credit, Europe’s development of a special financial mechanism to facilitate legitimate trade with Iran, known as INSTEX, is a constructive first step forward. Europe must now urgently take all necessary actions to ensure INSTEX is utilized to enable the trade and economic benefits promised under the nuclear deal.

The U.S. and Iran Must Reestablish Communication Channels

  • The U.S. and Iran should reestablish a permanent and direct communication channel to de-escalate crises, such as the downing of the U.S. drone and the oil tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman. Absent a dedicated channel for deconfliction and deescalation, as existed under the previous administration, the chances of disaster remain far too high.

The U.S. Should Appoint a Credible and Empowered Iran Envoy

  • To signal U.S. seriousness about negotiations and to facilitate the process, a new Iran envoy with the ear of the President and experience in diplomatically engaging Iran is needed. As long as John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are viewed as leading the administration’s Iran policy, concerns that the U.S. seeks regime change and military action – and is not serious about a negotiated solution – will undermine any hopes for talks.

Pursue an Agreement to Avoid Confrontations in the Persian Gulf

  • The U.S. and Iran came dangerously close to war following several incidents in the Persian Gulf and unverified accusations leveled by both sides. To avoid similar confrontations in the future, the two sides should negotiate an “incidents at sea” agreement to avoid collisions between their naval and air forces operating in close proximity.

U.S. Congress Should Pass Legislation to Prevent War

  • Congress was not consulted when President Trump came just a few minutes away from attacking Iran, which could have dragged the U.S. into a major regional conflict far more damaging than the Iraq war. Congress must assert its war-powers authority and uphold its constitutional duty as a coequal branch of government by passing legislation to ensure the administration cannot start an illegal and disastrous war with Iran.

Signatories:

Jamal Abdi, President, National Iranian Amerian Council

Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, Professor in Global Thought and Comparative Philosophies at SOAS, University of London and Fellow of Hughes Hall, University of Cambridge

Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Founder and CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN)

Andrew Bacevich, Co-founder, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan

Michael C. Desch, Packey J. Dee Professor of International Relations, University of Notre Dame

Dina Esfandiary, Fellow, International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and Security Studies, Harvard University; Fellow, The Century Foundation

John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion & International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University

Farideh Farhi, Affiliate Graduate Faculty of Political Science, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

Nancy W. Gallagher, Director, Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland and Research Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland

Mark Gasiorowski, Professor, Department of Political Science, Tulane University

Kevan Harris, Assistant Professor of Sociology studying development and social change in the global South, UCLA

Rula Jebreal, Professor, American University of Rome

Peter Jenkins, Former UK Ambassador to the IAEA

Bijan Khajehpour, Managing partner at Vienna-based Eurasian Nexus Partners,  a strategy consulting firm focused on the Eurasian region

Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, former Assistant Secretary of Defense (1981-1985)

Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director, Nuclear Studies Institute, American University

Joshua Landis, Sandra Mackey Professor of Middle East Studies and Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma

Daniel Larison, Senior Editor, The American Conservative

John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago

François Nicoullaud, Former French Ambassador to Iran

Rouzbeh Parsi, Visiting Research Scholar, Sharmin and Bijan Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Iran and Persian Gulf Studies, Princeton University; Head of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs-Stockholm; Senior Lecturer, Human Rights Studies, Lund University

Trita Parsi, Co-founder, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; Adjunct Associate Professor, Georgetown University

Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State and Ambassador to Russia, India, the United Nations and Israel

Paul Pillar, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution

Edward Price, Director of Policy and Communications, National Security Action; former National Security Council Spokesperson; Former Special Assistant to President Obama for National Security Affairs

Barbara Slavin

John F. Tierney, former Member of Congress and Executive Director of Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and of Council for a Livable World

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

Lawrence Wilkerson, Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell

Guest Contributor

Articles by guest writers.

SHOW 8 COMMENTS

8 Comments

  1. The “Expert Letter on Deescalating with Iran presents a logical path to deescalate the situation, if the U.S. and Iran would choose to pursue it. Regrettably, it appears that Bolton and Pompeo do not want de-escalation. American-educated Foreign Minister Zarif has been sanctioned and emphatically told by Pompeo that he spewed false propaganda during his recent visit to the U.S. and that he shut up. Is it possible that Pompeo is concerned that President Trump may hear and understand what the Foreign Minister is saying and decide to open negotiations himself by calling the Zarif? At that point Bolton would no longer control negotiations, but they would be controlled by the president who could then personally deliver de-escalation of the crisis and strengthen his chances for reelection.

    John Bolton does not want de-escalation. He wants regime change and apparently believes that regime change could be easy. He appears to have convinced President Trump that war with Iran would be short and that the people of Iran are welcome Trump’s sanctions that bring closer the end of the rule by Ayatollahs.

    Even some Iranians such as @Ali Mostofi (see his comment above) seek regime change. ”The secular Iranian people have been persecuted for the past 40 years, because the world media has tried to negotiate with these horrible people. Do you just want to carry on negotiating for another 40 years? Pressure must be put on this regime so that it cannot fund itself. They must then fight amongst themselves and self-destruct. They only have anger and have no love. Let them release their anger to themselves.”

    The extremely severe drought in Iran have impacted agriculture and created conditions similar to Syria in 2011 preceding the mass demonstrations and the outbreak of civil war. Millions of refugees fled Syria and hundreds of thousands died. The situation in Iran undergoing internal conflict cannot be expected to be better. Why would someone wish such a catastrophe on a people?

    In 2017 president Rouhani was reelected with a decisive majority in part reflecting the support of the people of Iran for JCPOA and the benefits that it could bring to the country. Rouhani was positioned by this election to push for reforms and strengthening of government institutions relative to the IRGC and the Supreme Leader. Instead of receiving relief from sanctions Rouhani was cut off at the knees by Trump’s exit from JCPOA and the imposition of more severe unilateral U.S. sanctions than the sanctions that had been authorized by UNSCR1929 in 2010 that were incorporated within JCPOA.

    The pursuit of regime change forecloses the possibility of reforms and increases the likelihood of war and or civil war with disastrous consequences for not only the people of Iran but also for the EU for which the millions of refugees from the civil war in Syria became an existential threat to the survival of the EU itself. Civil war in Iran, a much larger country than Syria, could be far more destabilizing than the horror that has taken place in Syria.

  2. this is the dumbest “expert” letter i have ever read. prisoner swap? really? thats the answer? walt is the only name i recignize on the list

  3. Well, the only realistic thing one can say about this proposal is…

    It ain’t gonna happen.

    The US goal is war – and there is literally no one on Earth who can stop it (unless Russia and China decide to enter into a mutual defense treaty with Iran – which also ain’t gonna happen.)

    You’re all going to be paying $20-30/gallon or more at the pump for the next thirty years because Iran will never surrender its sovereignty to the US and Israel.

Comments are closed.