We need diplomacy, not war, with Iran.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Catherine Thomasson, M.D. For The Register-Guard

U.S. military leaders are against military strikes on Iran, and leading diplomats advocate for talks with Iran. So why is there only talk of war?

Indeed, during my trip to Iran in March with the Fellowship of Reconciliation, civilians and veterans approached us with pleadings to avoid war and conflict.

More than 1 million Iranians died in the Iraq invasion and war from 1980 to 1988, so they are well acquainted with war's destructive force. By refusing to talk to Iran about its nuclear program or its role in helping find solutions in Iraq, while threatening that no military options are off the table, the Bush administration holds both peace and human life cheap.

The current impasse has been created by the United States. When the United States needed intelligence information in 2002, Iran provided vital information that was instrumental in the initial success of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2003, Iran approached the United States with offers for talks on wide-ranging issues including a nuclear-free Middle East, their nuclear power program, Hezbollah and their position on Israel, but the United States refused to talk.

The Bush administration also undermined talks conducted by Germany, France and the Britain that were held while Iran suspended uranium enrichment for two years from 2004 to 2005. Seventy-two percent of Americans polled now want direct negotiations.

It appears the U.S. administration doesn't want to engage in real diplomacy at all. It is now shifting its accusations against Iran from its nuclear power program to its role in the quagmire we have created in Iraq. The influence of Iran in Iraq is generally positive, and there's a natural alliance between the two countries.

One million Iranians make annual pilgrimages to holy sites in Iraq. In addition, the current Iraqi governmental leaders representing the Shia majority were hand-picked by the United States and lived in exile in Iran for years. If the Shia-led militias really wanted to undermine the U.S. military in Iraq, the blood bath would be far worse. Our military leaders in Iraq state that the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia.

Many military leaders also state that a military strike against Iran would only make the situation worse. No military strike against Iran's nuclear program would be "surgical." Analysis by Physicians for Social Responsibility indicates that aerial attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities could kill or traumatically injure tens of thousands of Iranian civilians, overwhelm public health and sanitation infrastructure, dangerously contaminate populated areas, and create lasting psychological and social disruption. Even though the medical system I witnessed is very good, the medical and public health system would not be effective in managing the aftermath of a military attack on Iran.

U.S. stonewalling is raising the level of fear in Iran. It also keeps Iran from being able to develop any compromise stance. It plays into the hands of hardliners. Just as fear in the United States after Sept. 11, 2001, deprived us of civil rights through the so-called Patriot Act, hardliners believe that increased control of the society is needed to prepare for war.

The United States has a great deal to gain from negotiations with Iran. Porous borders with Iraq could be plugged and pressure brought to bear on the Iraqi government. Discussions over the Taliban stronghold at the Afghani-Iran border would be on the table.

As far as the nuclear program, Iran has fully complied now with all prior outstanding concerns about their nuclear program with the exception of enrichment and the heavy water reactor due for completion in 2014. They have set up a work plan to improve the verifications desired by the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The inspectors again stated in their latest report on Sept. 17 that there is no evidence that Iran has diverted any uranium to a weapons program and developing a nuclear bomb would take at least three to five years, if indeed that is what they intend. It's clear we have a significant amount of time in which to come to a diplomatic solution.

Perhaps the Bush administration could be convinced of the value of direct talks if our presidential candidates were demanding it. Certainly, our military would prefer such an approach.

The sacrifice of American and Iranian lives and the perpetuation of dangerous conflict as a burden to our children are excessive prices to pay for the privilege of not talking to people with whom we disagree. Before we pay the price of war, we should consider the value of peace.

<hr noshade size="1">

Dr. Catherine Thomasson is a past president of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility (www.oregonpsr.org) and is currently president of National Physicians for Social Responsibility. She visited Iran in March as part of the third Fellowship of Reconciliation peace mission to Iran. She will speak at 7 tonight at the First United Methodist Church, 1376 Olive St., Eugene.