With trust between America and Iran collapsed, how can a negotiated end to the Iran War occur? I want to explore one idea here today.
What if the leadership of a substantial block of other nations met with an Iranian delegation to work on a deal that the rest of the world could get behind? Perhaps this could happen in Turkey, which shares a border and some cultural history with Iran and also plays a bridging role to Europe and NATO.
Given Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s role as a catalyst for starting to unify a 40 nation economic alliance that includes the EU but extends globally, he might be considered a lead negotiator for the group while other nations send delegates. This would build credibility for the new alliance of nations as a negotiating force and stabilizing structure.
The deal elements might include, for example, a ratification of the ability for Iran to charge a Strait of Hormuz toll up to a maximum of 2% of the insured cargo value of ships passing there in order to rebuild its economy. But there could be stipulations that no more than 20% of the revenues generated could be used for military defense purposes and 80% would need to be devoted to civilian redevelopment that is managed in a visible public way.
The truth is Iran has sustained an estimated $300 billion to $1 trillion in damage from the airstrikes. Their economy is in desperate shape. As they did not start the war, a pathway to rebuild is appropriate. A 2% toll on ship traffic could generate enough over 10 years (at $2M per oil tanker, that alone would be perhaps $45 billion per year). If approached in the spirit of repair and with international backing, it would not set an extraction precedent for other areas of the world. Ensuring that such a toll primarily benefits the citizens of Iran rather than the IRGC would also be beneficial. The tolling could be sunset when a financial threshold is reached so that it is not seen as a permanent concession.
A second element could include the removal of sanctions on Iran’s economy by the the nations that are represented. While this would not compel America or the rest of the world to drop sanctions, it would begin to free up the Iranian economy to grow again, which is necessary to help the citizens who have been suppressed by the regime. Policies that help the people of Iran are vital.
On the nuclear side, an Iranian commitment to suspend all nuclear enrichment activities for a decade would keep some protection for Iran that derives from being close to a nuclear bomb while minimizing the danger from rash decisions. Basically, this could protect the status quo, with international inspections to verify. The conditions could also be made that Iran would no longer financially or militarily back other regional militias.
Perhaps most importantly, a consortium of other nations could condition the financial benefits to Iran on commitments to stop the violations of human rights of their people and curb repressive aspects of the regime. If the regime endures but has more boundary conditions in order to keep the agreements intact, that may be enough for the IRGC and the Supreme Leader to decide that it’s in their best interest to honor the agreements and that can work out as a win for the Iranian people.
By establishing deal terms that are workable for much of the world with or without America and Israel’s agreement, there could be a normalization of relations between Iran and a substantial portion of the world, an acknowledgement that it was attacked in an illegal war and that it is given a chance to redress the damage to its economy in a reasonable fashion. Such a negotiated deal would eventually put pressure on America to conform to a deal if a large block of nations has already agreed with it.
We need to remember that Iran has seen itself as under existential threat from the United States and Israel for many decades and if its sovereign freedom can be more fully established, other reforms may become negotiable.
The United States attempt to force Iranian submission to demands with massive military force has effectively failed. The rest of the world has the option to incentivize positive behavior from Iran on multiple fronts with a carrot of economic benefit and a rejoining of the global order. This may prove more effective than the threats to lead Iran to play a better role on the world stage and have a less destructive influence in the Middle East.
Iran comes out with improved economic prospects and an opportunity to grow in healthier directions. The rest of the world protects the flow of oil and the global economy while curbing the militarism of America and Israel. America would, of course, come out somewhat weaker in this scenario, as much of the rest of the planet moves forward without its leadership. Its role in the global order would likely be permanently compromised. But it does stop lose troops and treasure and benefits from the normalization of the world economy around oil again.
This kind of approach would, I believe, create a better result for the vast majority of the planet and it’s worth considering.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.