Obama pelted with advice on Iran, no easy options

BEIRUT (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama wants to reshape U.S. dealings with a nuclear-ambitious Iran, but should he offer unconditional talks or get tougher first?

These two broad options emerge from the welter of advice to Obama from U.S. politicians and academics on finding better ways to tackle Iran than those pursued by President George W. Bush.

But unpicking three decades of confrontation and mutual hostility will be no easy task, even if the prospect of a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites has already receded.

"With Obama, one of the joker factors is out, which is that the Bush administration might do something completely insane," said Trita Parsi, director of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which advocates mutual understanding.

"The rest of the structural situation is identical to what it was before," he added. "And without negotiations, the two countries will gravitate toward conflict."

The Islamic Republic, whose regional stature grew after U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq removed its two main foes, has so far shrugged off U.S. and U.N. sanctions to curb its nuclear program, which it says is for electricity not bomb-making.

In its last year the Bush administration has set aside any idea of bombing Iran and has told Israel to stand down too.

Israel now hopes tumbling oil prices will force Tehran to give ground. "Iran's economic troubles make it more vulnerable to sanctions," said a senior Israeli government official, who asked not to be named. "In our view, there is now a nine-month window for stepping up the sanctions and getting real results."

GET LEVERAGE FIRST

Some U.S. voices, such as the authors of a report by the Bilateral Policy Center in September, also say it is vital to "build leverage" by increasing military readiness and preparing harsher sanctions in concert with world powers to ensure that America enters any talks with Iran from a position of strength.

In contrast, a panel of 20 experts assembled by the American Foreign Policy Institute (AFPI) has called for unconditional negotiations, not just more economic or military coercion.

Even in Israel, a debate hitherto dominated by weighing military options against more forceful sanctions to halt Iran's atomic activities has broadened since Obama's election win.

"Dialogue with Iran while at the same time insisting on clear and defined parameters for stopping the Iranian nuclear program is not necessarily negative," Israel's military intelligence chief Major-General Amos Yadlin said Monday.

So how should Obama proceed when he takes office on January 20, six months before Iran's presidential election -- and how might the Iranians respond?

Ali Ansari, director of the Institute for Iranian Studies at St Andrews University in Scotland, said he expected a cautious approach by Obama and a degree of confusion in Tehran -- with both sides initially focused on domestic economic woes.

"Just as the West was utterly bewildered by the arrival of (former Iranian President Mohammad) Khatami, so the Iranians will be bewildered by the arrival of Obama," he said.

His own advice to Obama? "Put a special envoy in charge of Iran (policy), get him to surround himself with the best experts and make it someone of stature who is not running for office."

IDEOLOGICAL OBSTACLES

Ansari said the Iranians would get nowhere with the Americans if they kept up an ideological approach. "But if they are willing to open up, there's a lot of room for maneuver."

Yet he questioned whether Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was prepared for real engagement with Washington.

"Khamenei has got to make the decision and I don't think he is fully ready, personally or psychologically," Ansari added.

Gary Sick, a Columbia University professor who contributed to the panel's report, said Obama should stress his readiness for direct talks, better ties and non-interference.

"This would remove some of that Iranian fear that we are going to overthrow them," he told Reuters.

Sick advised using the period before Iran's June election to review U.S. policy and prepare initiatives, but not launch any that might be seen as trying to influence the vote, in which hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will seek a second term.

He also proposed encouraging Iraq and Afghanistan to form regional groups, with U.S. and Iranian participation, to discuss their issues, such as the impending U.S. drawdown in Iraq.

This would challenge Tehran to play the kind of responsible regional role it claims. "It would provide an environment where we are not just pointing the finger at them," Sick said.

Iran played just such a part after the 2001 Afghanistan war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, helping U.S. officials broker a new government and providing $750 million in aid -- only to be described by Bush in 2002 as part of an "axis of evil."

The NIAC's Parsi said that experience meant it was vital to clarify the strategic end-goal before trying to build a new U.S.-Iranian relationship based on areas of common interest.

"There isn't enough trust. Why work together tactically if immediately after that tactical cooperation the two countries are going to go back to a strategic enmity?" he asked.

(Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem)