newjerseynewsroom.com

BY ALI GHARIB

IPS NEWS AGENCY

NEW YORK — The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place in its Iran policy. On the one hand, the recent unrest will take time to percolate into a reformed Islamic Republic. On the other, time is in short supply if the U.S. hopes to stop Iran progress toward a nuclear weapons capability.

Obama is facing a litany of pressure from different groups to act in different ways. While the possibility of meaningful U.S. engagement appears at least temporarily sidelined by Iran's internal political turmoil, policy circles continue to debate whether leaving Iran alone is the right course, or whether "crippling sanctions" are in order.

For the moment, the U.S. is still publicly stating its intention to continue pursuing engagement with Iran until at least September, making a strategic priority of the nuclear issue. But Iran experts in Washington are, in increasing numbers, suggesting the U.S. should hold off in Iran until the dust settles - even among those who have at times advocated talking.

"Oh [zero] for six," remarked Rep. Gary Ackerman at a Congressional hearing on Wednesday after all the panelists before the House Foreign Services Committee said engagement should be put on the back burner.

However, three of the six panelists are neo-conservatives who have long opposed engaging Iran, and two others have been inconsistent supporters of the policy. Nonetheless, all six warned against talking to Iran, at least in the short term.

As long as the Iranian opposition keeps up its struggle against the disputed Jun. 12 reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the logic goes, there is hope for Iran to reform on its own.

Since the authorities' crackdown dampened the demonstrations, the opposition has been less visible. But unrest is still apparent, as when last Friday's prayers delivered by former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a behind-the-scenes opposition player who delivered mild-mannered demands, sparked massive protests.

Many experts fear that engaging Iranian authorities, led by Ahmadinejad and Iran's Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could legitimize Ahmadinejad's disputed electoral victory - undermining the very contention that set off opposition challenger Mir Hossein Moussavi's "Green" movement.

At the House hearing, one panelist said that it was clear that democratic reform was a prerequisite for meaningful movement on the nuclear issue.

"We will not have a resolution of the nuclear issue unless we have a democratic system in Iran," said Abbas Milani, a professor at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he teaches.

Milani said that "creative engagement" could be a boon to the democratic movement that came into full force as scores of thousands took to Iran's streets to contest what they claimed was a fraudulent election - a sign that the republican feature of Iranian system, once regarded for relatively free fair balloting, is at risk.

But, with the nuclear clock ticking and warnings from neoconservatives of an Israeli attack should Iranian nuclear development continue, many are seeking a hard deadline for the offer of a U.S. handshake to morph into a slap of sanctions or - more severely - a military strike against Iran. Among the proponents of a deadline is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Earlier this month at the Group of Eight summit in l'Aquila, Italy, Obama said that the international community would reevaluate the offer of engagement at the U.S.-hosted Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

However, Milani, probed by thoughtful questioning from Rep. Keith Ellison, said that the September timeframe was never a reasonable deadline for progress in engagement, let alone since Iran's unrest.

"The September deadline was arbitrary," Milani said. "And it's (improbable) that anything substantial will happen between now and September."

Irrespective of the merits of pulling back an engagement offer or placing a deadline on it, the whole question may be a moot point if Iran, still distracted with its domestic situation, does not respond to the U.S.'s outstretched hand.

One expert, neoconservative Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), said that the U.S. engagement policy ought to be to wait for a response.

"I'd wait for their phone call," Clawson said. "The ball's in their court. We shouldn't rush."

Nonetheless, with the engagement questioned at home, the topic in Washington has turned to whether or not to impose sanctions on Iran if the Islamic Republic doesn't take up the U.S. offer.

Almost to a person, the Representatives at Wednesday's hearing expressed support for sanctions of some sort.

The committee chairman, Rep. Howard Berman, who was criticized for loading the panel with neoconservatives and others who cheered the U.S. into war with Iraq, spent much of his time promoting the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which he sponsored. The bill calls for sanctions against companies who provide Iran with refined gas. Because it has a low refining capacity, Iran depends on refined imports for energy.