Sparring Opinions: Iran's Nuclear Program

Western leaders are reassessing their approach to Iran after recent disclosures about a secret nuclear facility and new missile tests. How should they address Iran's nuclear ambitions at this week's diplomatic talks in Geneva? How should President Obama approach Iran's leadership?

In today's Sparring Opinions we're comparing two op-eds that discuss these questions.

Scott Ritter, a prominent UN weapons inspector, argues in the Guardian that Iran's disclosure of the facility in Qom should not be met with tough language from Western leaders. Iran's move, he writes, should mark a step toward non-proliferation:

"the emergence of the existence of the Qom enrichment facility could very well mark the initiation of a period of even greater transparency on the part of Iran, leading to its full adoption and implementation of the IAEA additional protocol ... Calls for "crippling" sanctions on Iran by Obama and Brown are certainly not the most productive policy options available to these two world leaders. Both have indicated a desire to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran's action, in declaring the existence of the Qom facility, has created a window of opportunity for doing just that, and should be fully exploited within the framework of IAEA negotiations and inspections, and not more bluster and threats form the leaders of the western world."

Former National Security Council staffers Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, writing in the New York Times, agree that sanctions would be counterproductive, but call for intervention from the Obama Administration and international community that curbs weapons development and serves Iran's needs:

"the administration should seek a strategic realignment with Iran as thoroughgoing as that effected by Nixon with China. This would require Washington to take steps, up front, to assure Tehran that rapprochement would serve Iran’s strategic needs.

On that basis, America and Iran would forge a comprehensive framework for security as well as economic cooperation — something that Washington has never allowed the five-plus-one group to propose. Within that framework, the international community would work with Iran to develop its civil nuclear program, including fuel cycle activities on Iranian soil, in a transparent manner rather than demanding that Tehran prove a negative — that it’s not developing weapons. A cooperative approach would not demonize Iran for political relationships with Hamas and Hezbollah, but would elicit Tehran’s commitment to work toward peaceful resolutions of regional conflicts"

Tell us which of these Sparring Opinions you find most insightful -- and add your reviews to these two stories:

• Keeping Iran honest - The Guardian

• How to press the advantage with Iran - New York Times

-- Derek Hawkins

Sparring Opinions: Withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will shocked Washington media observers today with a column arguing for the United States to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Will's prescription comes as the top U.S. commander in the country calls for an overhaul in military strategy and the Obama Administration begins a more than threefold increase of U.S. forces.

In this week's Sparring Opinions we're comparing George Will's column with an op-ed by liberal blogger and author Matthew Yglesias.

Will, an early proponent of the war in Afghanistan, wrote in the Washington Post that troop deaths, the inability to eradicate the Taliban and other issues necessitated a reversal of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan:

"forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters."

Yglesias, writing for the Daily Beast, argued the Obama Administration should "turn the policy trajectory around" in Afghanistan before the debate over whether to withdraw becomes too polarized. For now, he said, Obama is safe, but he risks "push[ing] liberals into the antiwar camp":

"Obama has ... a pretty open grace period in which complaints from the left about his Afghanistan policy will remain fairly marginal. In principle, the administration could take advantage of that opportunity to try to shift our approach to that country in a more sustainable direction—an essentially defensive mission aimed at ensuring the Afghan government is strong enough to avoid a Taliban takeover of the country, hoping that would prevent the re-emergence of the openly operating terrorist training camps of the pre-9/11 era."

Which of these opinions do you find most convincing? Do they both miss the mark? Weigh in on these two controversial pieces by adding your review:

• Time for the U.S. to get out of Afghanistan - Washington Post

• Bogging down in Kabul - Daily Beast

-- Derek Hawkins