Seven Bad Assumptions We Make About Iran

Continuation:

1. Iran is ripe for regime change.
Not true. [...]
2. Iran is irrational and cannot be deterred.
Not true. [...]
3. Iran is inherently anti-American.
Not quite. [...]
4. Enrichment equals a nuclear bomb.
Not necessarily. [...]
5. Iran seeks Israel's destruction.
False. [...]
6. The pressure on Iran is working.
Questionable. [...]
7. Stability in the Middle East can be achieved only through Iran's isolation.
Quite the contrary. [...]

Iran poses a complicated challenge to America, but not an irresolvable one. Despite the tremendous distrust between the two countries, history shows that negotiations can work. In 2001 Tehran and Washington worked closely together to defeat the Taliban and install a new government in Afghanistan. Without Iranian help, the new Constitution of Afghanistan would not have been achieved, according to U.S. diplomats involved in the effort.

clipped from www.alternet.org The Bush Administration's policy (insistence on zero enrichment of uranium, regime change and isolation of Iran) and the policy of the radicals around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (unlimited civilian nuclear capability, selective inspections and replacing the United States as the region's dominant power) have set the two countries on a collision course. Yet the mere retirement of George W. Bush's neocons or Ahmadinejad's radicals may not be sufficient to avoid the disaster of war. The ill-informed foreign policy debate on Iran contributes to a paradigm of enmity between the United States and Iran, which limits the foreign policy options of future U.S. administrations to various forms of confrontation while excluding more constructive approaches. A successful policy on Iran must begin by reassessing some basic assumptions: