---

BY HANNAH PURKEY

In print | April 10, 2008

On Monday afternoon, Representative Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) joined two experts on the Middle East from prominent, Washington-based think tanks to discuss future relations between Iran and the United States. The panel’s participants cited flawed foreign policies, a consolidation of conservative control across the Middle East and a lack of strong-handed diplomacy as factors that have crippled efforts to negotiate an agreement between the two countries.

The event, one of the highlights of Peace Week, was sponsored by the College Democrats, the College Republicans, the Forum for Free Speech and the Peace and Conflict Studies Dept. The panel’s chief organizer, Aaron Brecher ’10, said that the panel was aimed at addressing widespread misunderstanding of contemporary political systems in the Middle East.

According to Brecher, neither Americans nor Swarthmore students fully grasp what is going on in the region despite a preponderance of national media attention.

“We have an opportunity to study the early medieval period in the religion and history departments with classes on Islam, but the modern Middle East is an area where the departments lack classes,” Brecher said.

Sestak arrived late to the panel due to a Congressional vote Monday morning. Drawing upon 3 years of service under the Clinton administration as Director for Defense Policy on the National Security Council, Sestak offered an insider’s perspective on the U.S. relationship with Iran. He was critical of the Bush administration’s confrontational approach, arguing that the government has pushed Iran away from the negotiating table. Sestak said he believes strongly that diplomacy with Iran is critical to resolving tensions that emerged over the country’s onetime pursuit of a nuclear program.

“Diplomacy is not sitting down to have a cup of tea,” Sestak said, asserting that a successful negotiating strategy can be both respectful and aggressive. “Diplomacy oftentimes has to hurt the other person, the other nation. It hurts them through economic sanctions.”

Other panelists offered different perspectives on the U.S.’s relationship with Iran and the effects that the upcoming elections in both Iran and the U.S. will have on that relationship.

Dr. Ray Takeyh of the Brookings institution spoke first, discussing the recent gains by the Middle Eastern conservative movement and its affect on the internal political and cultural aspects of Iran that are shaping its stance toward the US. Using elections in Iran over the past decade as a guide, he said that surprises are possible but not likely this time around.

“At this particular point it is safe to suggest that the right wing has consolidated its power and it is a power that it is unlikely to relinquish easily,” Takeyh said.

He went on to discuss the implications of this conservative power in Iran’s interactions with the U.S. as well as whether or not he thought the current Iranian president would be reelected. “do have a cultural objection to normalization of relations with the U.S. The U.S. is not just a strategic threat, not just an imperial power, but also a cultural challenge. The level of normalization and intimacy that can take place between the two countries therefore can erode the pillars of the Islamic republic.”

Dr. Philip Gordon of the Brookings Institution also spoke, focusing on the ways in which other nations have approached Iran and concentrating on the contrasting views of U.S. policy makers and those of the European Union. He specifically talked about the role of economic relations and the differences in successes between the US and the European Union.

These views have converged in the last few years, he said, before noting that the presidential candidates were likely to approach problems very differently with Iran if elected President.

Students attending the panel appreciated the nuanced views expressed by the panelists, but some had hoped there had been an opportunity to expand on the different approaches of the candidates. “It would have been nice to hear what they thought about the difference between Obama and Clinton’s policies were,” Student Council President Peter Gardner ’08 said. “They kind of lumped the democrats together and then compared them to McCain.”

On the whole, responses to the panel were very positive. “I thought it was fantastic,” Gardner said. “The panel was well balanced, especially between the elected official and the policy wonks.”

Attendees were also impressed with the candor of the panelists. “It didn’t feel like they weren’t saying things because they were not politically correct,” Brandon Karlow ’08 said.

As an organizer, Brecher was also impressed by the level and quality of participation by students attending the lecture.

“I thought that the questions asked by students were especially sharp,” Brecher said. “When panelists speak at college campuses, they may not always expect the student body to be as informed as they are here.”

Although Brecher experienced some initial funding issues, the President’s Office stepped in to support the event financially. The only thing Brecher wregretted was the brevity of this event. “My one regret was that we didn’t have more time,” Brecher said. “I would have loved to have continued, to have had more questions and answers.”

---

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »