For years Iran's leaders have espoused virulently anti-U.S., anti-Israel positions, complemented by moral and financial support for extremists and terrorist organizations - including Hamas and Hezbollah. The rise to power of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - arguably the most anti-Western, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic Iranian leader in history - heightened concerns about Iran's intentions in the region and in the world. These concerns have grown over the past decade, as Iran has tenaciously pursued a nuclear program.

An Iran armed with nuclear weapons represents an alarming scenario that neither the U.S. nor Israel, nor for that matter, the world, can afford to ignore, and one that the U.S. and the international community should be exerting all efforts to avoid. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a potential existential threat to Israel and is likely to trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. An unchecked Iran will likely continue to use support for terrorist groups to destabilize the region and threaten Israel and other vital U.S. interests, including in Iraq and Lebanon.

Moreover, in the absence of an effective international strategy to deal with Iran, domestic pressure for Israel to take matters into its own hands will continue to grow.

Unfortunately, instead of an orchestrated international effort to engage Iran and address these very serious issues, the U.S. has for the past eight years adopted a one-dimensional strategy toward Iran - a strategy based on the notion that the U.S. and its allies can threaten, browbeat and sanction Iran into submission.

This strategy has failed to stop Iran's nuclear program or Iran's reckless meddling in the region. Perversely, it may even have had the opposite effect: today Iranian hard-liners burnish their nationalist credentials with pledges to stand up to American "bullying." Such nationalist rhetoric is today one of the only planks Iranian hard-liners have left to run on, given the domestic economic and social challenges facing their country. It should surprise no one that pushed into a corner, many Iranians have come to view the nuclear program as a symbol of national honor and pride.

While it is true that the United States has at times offered to engage Iran in a limited manner, such engagement has been preconditioned on Iran first freezing its nuclear program. This approach - in which, as a precondition to negotiations, Iran is required to take an action that from its perspective should be the outcome of negotiations - has been unsuccessful. Indeed, preconditioning negotiations in this manner does not constitute genuine diplomacy.

Sanctions can be a powerful tool for putting pressure on Iran, but they are not a replacement for diplomacy. Similarly, constantly reiterating that "all options are on the table" does not constitute a responsible or effective Iran policy. Clearly, the option for military action is always available, but it must be reserved as the option of truly last resort.

Addressing the challenges posed by Iran requires a smarter strategy - combining incentives and sanctions with strong U.S. direct engagement and leadership. A bipartisan group of former Secretaries of State, speaking at a September 15, 2008 forum, agrees:

Madeleine Albright: "I believe we need to engage with Iran. I think the whole point is you try to engage and deal with countries you have problems with...I think it's one of the most important relationships that we need to work on. We are not gaining anything by this [current approach]..."

Gen. Colin Powell: "...we should start to talk to them. Don't wait for, you know, a letter coming from them. Start discussions."

Warren Christopher: "...our relationship with Israel needs to be strong enough so we can say to them 'Look, we want to have a comprehensive dialogue with the Iranians.' We can't be complacent about the nuclear possibilities in Iran, but nevertheless we cannot afford not to have a comprehensive dialogue to see if it can't be stopped, because, frankly, the military options here are very, very poor..."

James Baker: "We ought to engage. Yes... We're all saying that you [the next U.S. President] ought to engage..."

Henry Kissinger: "...I am in favor of negotiating with Iran..."

Such a diplomatic effort will not be easy; indeed it will almost certainly be a long and arduous process. Nor is its success a foregone conclusion. But such an effort is indispensable if the U.S. is serious about dealing with the challenges Iran poses to U.S. foreign policy and to U.S. national security.

APN believes that the longstanding past U.S. approach to Iran, consisting almost exclusively of sanctions and saber-rattling, has failed. APN strongly supports the Obama Administration's efforts to replace this approach with a serious, results-oriented Iran policy, comprising sanctions and meaningful incentives and founded on direct, determined US and multilateral diplomacy, without preconditions.

Recent News on Iran