TOUGH TALK TO TEHRAN

There are many reasons to be frustrated with Iran’s double talk about its nuclear program, its backing of Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly arming Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But putting the country’s Revolutionary Guard, a branch of the Iranian military, on the United States list of terrorist organizations will only worsen an already tense situation. Instead, the United States should pursue stepped-up sanctions and more diplomacy, especially on Tehran’s involvement in Iraq.

Recently, officials at the White House and State Department said they would soon formally declare the Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. The designation would make it difficult to fund the largest branch of the Iranian army. It also would dissuade foreign companies from doing business with its large financial network, which includes construction and oil interests.

The Revolutionary Guard was created to protect the country’s revolutionary clerics, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, and has been responsible for quelling dissent through assassinations. It was involved in the Lebanese civil war in the early 1980s and is believed to still be supplying arms to Hezbollah.

The Defense Department has long maintained that the Revolutionary Guard is supporting Shiite militias in Iraq and that U.S. soldiers have been killed by weapons made in Iran. The Iranian government disputes both.

The United States also has accused Iran of working to build nuclear weapons. Iran recently granted international inspectors more access to its nuclear facilities, likely to try to avoid more financial sanctions, yet it continues to insist it is not enriching uranium for weapons.

As troubling as the announcement itself is the language being used. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters: “We are confronting Iranian behavior across a variety of different fronts, on a number of different, quote unquote, battlefields, if you will.”

The word “battlefields” suggests leaning toward military action, which would be inappropriate. The rhetoric likely has much to do with boosting hawks in Washington who want a tougher stance against Tehran than changing Iran’s behavior.

Michael McFaul of Stanford University told the Washington Post that a more positive approach was likely to be more effective. “If you want democratic regime change and to destabilize the regime, the best thing you could do is to make an offer about massive negotiations about everything – human rights and state sponsorship of terrorism, as well as lifting sanctions and opening an embassy,” he said.

Strengthening the regime of the ideological Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while distancing it from the United States at a time when the U.S. missions in Iran’s neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan are facing increasing difficulty is a counterproductive distraction.