The conference  was divided into two panel discussions:

• Iran: State of the Green Movement
• Iran: U.S. Policy Options

Other conference highlights:

• Key Quotations (PDF)
• Full Conference Transcript (PDF)

The South Asia Center of the Atlantic Council hosted a debate between experts Michael Ledeen and Flynt Leverett on how best to approach Iran’s nuclear ambitions and on possible courses of action for the U.S. and its allies to halt Iran’s capacity to weaponize its nuclear program.  Washington Post columnist and creator of PostGlobal David Ignatius moderated the discussion, and Frederick Kempe, President and CEO of the Atlantic Council, provided an introduction.

Both the tempo and the temperature of the dialogue on Iran have been on the rise in recent months, as the Obama administration attempts to craft a new policy towards the country in the wake of contentious elections and outbreaks of public unrest.  Many different solutions have been offered by analysts – ranging from military action to sharper economic sanctions to support for dissident movements.  But are these solutions practicable?  Do we really understand Iran and its motivations?

Podcast (MP3):

Speakers:

• Frederick Kempe, President and CEO, Atlantic Council
• David Ignatius, Columnist, Washington Post
• Michael Ledeen, Freedom Scholar, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
• Flynt Leverett, Senior Research Fellow, New American Foundation
  

March 3, 2010

FREDERICK KEMPE:  Welcome.  I’m Fred Kempe, president and CEO of the Atlantic Council.  It’s a particular personal pleasure for me to introduce today’s event.  And it’s not only because of the importance of the subject or the brilliance of the speakers or the platform of the relatively new South Asia Center.  In the space of one year, I think that Shuja as director and his staff have turned it into an intellectual center for this kind of conversation and Shuja himself has set himself apart I think as one of this town’s – or perhaps beyond this town’s – leading experts on the region.

For me, however, it’s a particular personal pleasure to introduce the moderator.  You all know David Ignatius is a uniquely talented columnist and novelist.  His children know him as the person who got a movie made from one of his books where they got to meet Leonardo Dicaprio.  You also know that in the noise that is U.S. commentary these days he is consistently wise, well-informed and ahead of the curve.  And as a novelist he is consistently readable.

What you probably don’t know is that, as a friend, he is equally as gifted and as durable.  And so I want to thank him for that as well.

But, with that, let me turn over to David, who has some practice in dealing with people who don’t entirely agree with each other.  (Laughter.)

DAVID IGNATIUS:  Well, I am delighted to be moderating this panel, especially after that wonderful introduction from Fred.  People in Washington always refer to each other as my good friend, my dear friend.  Fred and I actually are good and dear friends; we go back to the early 1980s.  We’ve seen each other through more life crises than you’d imagine.  Anybody who wants some really good stories about Fred Kempe, you can call me, but I won’t tell you.  (Laughter.)

Another Washington is to advertise debates that aren’t really debates.  As we all know, the range of permissible opinion in Washington normally stretches from A to B, maybe to C.  This morning we’re going to give you the whole alphabet.  We have a genuine disagreement about what the United States should do on arguably our most important foreign policy priority.

And we have two people to argue the opposing points of view who don’t mind controversy, who don’t want to round off the edges of what they have to say so as to fit the conventional Washington structure of the debate.  If anything they’re going to probably push it a little to extremes.  Somebody asked me if I had a flak jacket ready.  I, knowing both of these gentlemen, I know that that’s not necessary but I do think that we’re going to get something that’s unusual for Washington, which is, as I say, a real debate about something that matters.

Let me introduce them briefly.  On my left, Flynt Leverett, as you know, is now with the New America Foundation, a director of one of their initiatives.  He is known to us as somebody who was very active in foreign policy and policy analysis first with the CIA in the 1990s – he served as an analyst in the directorate of intelligence from 1992 to 2001; then went in 2001 to the policy planning staff at the State Department; and then in 2002 went to the National Security Council where he was involved in policy questions for the Near East and South Asia – and in that role observed the possibilities for openings to Iran that he then has discussed in some important articles that I’m sure you’re familiar with and that we’ll talk about today. See More.

A question and answer panel about the politics of resistance in Iran with Simon Critchley, Danny Postel, Charles Kurzman, and Ali Rezaei.  (V Parts) See More.

Iran has stepped up efforts to combat what it calls American “plots,” according to state media, with at least $20 million approved for a special committee to thwart such schemes. Go to CNN.

The Nobel Peace Prize has renewed prestige in my book. No, not because Barack Obama won it for accomplishments to be determined later. It’s got new luster because Shirin Ebadi has, at great personal risk, effectively come out for regime change in her native Iran.

Ebadi, who won the Peace Prize six years ago (under the old rules whereby recipients were expected to do something to earn the prize before receiving it), is Iran’s premier human rights lawyer. In an interview with the editors of The Washington Post, Ebadi “suggested that the nature of Iran’s regime is more crucial to U.S. security than any specific deals on nuclear energy.” Go to original article.

IND:  We hope the Obama administration soon reaches the conclusion that engaging the hardliners by either offering them incentives or threatening them with economic sanctions and possible military strikes is an exercise in futility.    The administration ought to help bolster Iran’s Green Movement – but not so much because of altruism or lofty ideals but rather because doing so would advance America’s strategic interests more effectively and with less risk of unintended consequences and at a lower economic and human cost than any other approach the administration could possibly undertake. In Iran today, idealism is realpolitik.

The Obama administration’s strategy Thursday in talks with Iran is to convince both the Iranians and America’s partners at the table that it is prepared to take crippling measures if Tehran does not reverse course on its nuclear program.

…One direction the Obama administration has yet to take is to zero in on actions designed to undercut and even topple the 30-year-old regime in Tehran. This is the approach recommended by a growing number of analysts and intellectuals on the right and the left.

…The idea that the problem is the regime – of which the nuclear program is only a symptom – grew out of the aftermath of Iran’s June 12 presidential elections. Violent repression of Iranians protesting the officially declared reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as the subsequent persecution of political moderates, has galvanized an ideologically diverse international opposition to the regime.

“There’s been a paradigm shift, from targeting the nukes to doing something about political change,” Mr. Sokolski says. Go to CS Monitor.

As nuclear talks with the United States and its international partners approach, Karim Sadjadpour suggests that the Iranian regime will ensure that negotiations continue in order to “show the people they are legitimate and that the great powers are paying attention to them.”

The underlying problem for the United States is the very character of the Iranian regime. Given this fact, it will be difficult to come to an agreement that can be trusted. Accordingly, Sadjadpour asserts that the United States should “pursue policies that will facilitate the transformation of the regime.” The worst thing the United States or the Israelis could do is attack Iran, since “a military strike would be the best thing for regime hardliners, because it would heal internal political rifts and unite the people.” Ultimately, the United States will have to contain the threat posed by the regime “until there is a broad alteration of the character of the regime,” notes Sadjadpour. Go to Carnegie.

Among the defendants were several prominent reformist opposition activists, including former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, former government spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, former Vice Speaker of parliament Behzad Nabavi, former Deputy Foreign Minister Mohsen Aminzadeh and leader of the biggest reformist party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front, Mohsen Mirdamadi.  The reformist Web site www.mowjcamp.com denounced Saturday’s trial and said defendants had no access to lawyers and there was no jury.  ”Do those who organized this show trial today think that the nation will remain silent to slaughter the nation’s best? Go to NY Times.

It may have been a case of hitting the target but missing the opportunity. Reports last week said Saad bin Laden, Osama bin Laden’s fourth son and a mid-ranking al-Qaeda operative, was killed by a recent CIA Predator strike. But six years ago, the U.S. had an opportunity to get him alive, but lost it when the Bush administration decided to pull away from cooperation with Iran. Go to Time.

Bob Schieffer spoke with Iranian Journalist Roya Hakakian about the tense situation in Iran after thousands protested the recent presidential election.

Hillary Clinton’s recent statement that the United States would extend a “defensive umbrella” over the Middle East if Iran acquired nuclear weapons reflects the world’s increasing acceptance that, sooner or later, the Islamic Republic will acquire such capability. While some advocate a military solution and others propose diplomacy, an obvious truth is overlooked: A democratic Iran that respects the rights of its own citizens is less likely to be a regional threat than an authoritarian regime sustained by terror and intimidation. Go to original article.

A major shortcoming of private security firms and official intelligence agencies is that they frequently lack on-the-ground, in-country, sources and do not fully utilize experts who travel to and study the country. Human intelligence is woefully lacking, so too much reliance is placed on signals intelligence. Those organizations under-exploit the open source information that is readily available to them. Go to Huffington Post.

About the Islamic Republic the Secretary of State said, “We know that refusing to deal with the Islamic Republic has not succeeded in altering the Iranian march toward a nuclear weapon, reducing Iranian support for terror, or improving Iran’s treatment of its citizens.”  Secretary Clinton is correct to note the challenges the Islamic Republic poses, but is incorrect to blame her predecessors rather than the Islamic Republic itself for the failure of diplomacy. Go to AEI.

Whatever the end result of the current electoral crisis in Iran, the dramatic rise of national politics has already cast a long and enduring shadow over the geopolitics of the region. No country can go back to business as usual. The climate has changed — for good.

Before the June 2009 presidential election, the realpolitik of the region had placed Iran, Syria, the Palestinian Hamas, the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Iraqi Mahdi Army Go to CNN.

From satellite phones to Internet hacking, the U.S. can make a difference.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech Wednesday in which she condemned Iran’s crackdown on democracy protesters as “deplorable and unacceptable.” What she didn’t say was how U.S. policy might be used to help ordinary Iranians. In the 1980s, the Reagan Doctrine offered military assistance to rebel groups fighting communist repression. We may be glad that Iranian dissidents have remained nonviolent but we can still help them resist government repression. We should certainly help them get their story out.

Go to WSJ.