Reuniting America | Transpartisan Political Communication

Transpartisan Dialogue on Iran

September 6-8, 2007
Wye River Plantation, Maryland
Convened by Reuniting America
Co-sponsored by
New America Foundation and the Nixon Center

FINAL REPORT
October 11, 2007

I. BACKGROUND

September 6-8, 2007, 19 leading experts on US / Iranian relations met at Wye River for a retreat facilitated by conflict resolution expert, Dr. William Ury. The group included a wide range of foreign policy perspectives by individuals from Heritage Institute, AIPAC, Hoover Institution, the New America Foundation, the National American Iranian Council, the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation and others. (Retreat participant list and schedule are attached.)

Reuniting America and the participants are exceptionally grateful to the Fetzer Institute, which supported this retreat financially.

Chief Facilitator, William L. Ury co-founded Harvard’s Program on Negotiation where he currently directs the Global Negotiation Project. He is the author of The Power of a Positive No:  How to Say No & Still Get to Yes (2007) and co-author, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, a five-million-copy bestseller translated into over twenty languages, and author of The Third Side.

Facilitation Team:

Ana Micka, Co-director, Reuniting America
Michael D. Ostrolenk, Co-director, Reuniting America
Samah Norquist, Global Partners LLC
Richard Hodapp, The Mapping Alliance Inc.
Ben Gass, Reuniting America

II. RETREAT PROCESS

The first evening, which was scheduled as an informal reception and introductory session, served it purposes well.  The Reuniting America (RA) team introduced themselves and the purpose of the retreat.  The RA team members explained to the attendees that their purpose was to be neutral conveners of a transpartisan dialogue process, which included working to create a safe space for authentic discussions and conversations, as well as working to ensure that all voices were heard and listened too in the process.  The RA team also discussed previous retreats and their successes in the context of not having any pre-conceived visions for outcomes for particular retreats in terms of policy. The general theme the RA team espoused was humanizing the political process and creating space for authentic dialogues (both conflict and agreement welcome) that could lead to discovering both common ground and more clarity on disagreements. The attendees introduced themselves as part of this process.

Selecting a space, like Wye River, is critical to the success of these meetings. The setting was beautiful, peaceful and private. Outside the official meeting times, some of the most productive conversations took place during dinner or over refreshments on the patio each evening.

Each meeting session either followed a meal or a break. Breaking bread is an integral part of this process as well taking short breaks throughout in order to allow relationship development.  Breaking bread, which is also an integral part of all religious systems and many ethnic communities serves the purpose of feeding the body while the process itself feeds the mind and heart.  It also allows for new conversations to take place, new relationships to develop and possible projects to emerge.

a) Questions & Group Inquiry

Bill Ury began the first (and only) full day of the retreat with an inquiry process.  This portion of the retreat exposed assumptions, differences of opinion, fears and opportunities. Bill posed the following questions:

i) Question One: Please use a word to describe your thoughts or feelings about the relationship between the United States and Iran. A few of the words used are listed below:

Frightened, Concerned, Nervous, Pessimistic,
Hopeful, Deep Concern, Fatalistic, Interested.

ii.) What are you most worried about in the next year with regard to US-Iran relations, and why?  A few of the answers are included below:

“Of an accidental cause of war, a war that could lead to nuclear engagement.”

“That Iran would attain a nuclear weapon, and that we won’t get enough intelligence.”

“That we don’t understand how different our two countries’ views are.”

“We’ve pursued a path of diplomacy in airing our concern about their nuclear program, and they’ve said that they will pursue nuclear enrichment. While I am interested in diplomacy, this hasn’t worked. It looks like those that manage diplomacy don’t have good solutions. Rhetoric in Iran also concerns Israelis and regional Arab states.”

iii.) What percent chance for war with Iran in the next year? Answers ranged from:

“80%”
“1 in 3”
“25%”
“80%” if we continue on this path”
“10%–we’re too entangled in Iraq.”

iv.) What’s the working assumption as to how close Iran is to attaining nuclear weapons? Are they even working for one?” 90 percent of the participants raised their hands to show belief that Iran is working for nuclear weapons.

v.) There’s a lot of concern in the group. And also a great opportunity here with all our different knowledge bases to discern whether or not there’s a path here. There’s the conflict scenario, and nuclear scenario. Are there ways to see if we can head off both scenarios? We’ve heard a number of pieces to the puzzle, but what do you see? What’s the path forward for the US to avert a potential conflict?

We need to talk with Iran. No preconditions.

William Ury: What are the concerns about the diplomatic track?

“We’re dealing with a fairly fractious group. The analysis of the leader’s rhetoric shows danger. There’s no clear command.”

“Here’s the fundamental issue: there’s concern about a possible military conflict. There are people that believe we need a paradigm shift into a new kind of dialogue with Iran, a new diplomatic initiative. There is no channel of communication here with Iranian powers. What’s the objection to building one?”

“The track record since 1979 is that Iran hasn’t wanted relations with the US. Now it’s we who do not want to talk. We have to work in the near-term. It’s not a matter of pre-conditions. If we concede with dialogue, Tehran will think they won. This is dangerous in the near future.”

“Starting a conversation with so much tension is difficult, and very fragile. We need to start from the ground up, the common ground.”

“The time is bad now for a bottom up approach. It’s not politically feasible.”

“79% of Americans would like to see direct talks with Iran. “

In summary – strong concern existed in the group about the path we are on with respect to Iran. Many feared Iran gaining the capacity to create weapons-grade materials. Many feared US military action leading to war. All acknowledged that any misstep, small provocation or accident could easily ignite this conflict.

b) Focalizing

After lunch, Bill asked the question that would deepen the process and lead to a major breakthrough. He asked:

“It’s Spring 2008 and the US has attacked Iran. What could have been, starting now, September 2007 to prevent this? What do you wish you could have done to prevent this outcome?

This intervention was perfectly timed and brilliant in that it brought to consciousness the fears that almost all of the participants brought to the retreat.  Bill then broke the participants into four groups to answer the question he posed.

The four groups worked diligently to answer his question and to prevent war retrospectively.  Each group presented their ideas to the larger group after many hours of discussion. Everyone in the room was surprised at how similar the plans of each of the four working groups were.

The group realized they were coalescing around a “third -option.”  The third option fills a space between the “bleak-binary-option” of military conflict or an Iran with nuclear weapons, which many participants used to describe the current situation.

The group crafted a “third – option” paper with the assistance of Richard Hodapp’s Decision Mapping process. Decision mapping helps users discover and clarify the decisions to be taken and who owns them and how to get buy in for them. It also provides a useful architecture for presenting a concept.

c. Conclusion & Outcomes

In a short period of time, thanks to the expert facilitation of Bill Ury, the group, very concerned about the consequences of either a military strike against Iran or a nuclear-armed Iran, drafted a consensus driven non-paper outlining a “third-option:
The last morning of the retreat, the group flushed out the collaborative paper The Need for a Third Option:

“A third option is needed between Iran and the United States.  The current trend of events appears to be leading toward two options, either military action leading to war, or a nuclear-armed Iran.  Both options are so dangerous for both countries that we believe that it is imperative that a third option be considered and acted on immediately.

A core element of the third option is robust diplomacy: creating a positive vision of the future and an opportunity for a new regional equilibrium wherein U.S. regional interests are secured and Iran eventually plays a constructive role for regional stability.”

Several participants had direct connections to Secretary Rice, James Baker, President Bush and other high-level officials. Others also had direct channels to Iranian officials. The group mapped a follow-up strategy with specific assignments and broke for their final lunch together.

At the closing of the retreat, participants unanimously stated that this forum for respectful dialogue among leaders with different approaches to policy was critical and that more of this type of conversation is direly needed. Participants at the end of the Wye River Conference stated that they “learned a lot”, “had new conflict resolution tools”, “felt heard”, “saw real progress and real opportunities to make a difference … to even make history” and that this process allowed “surprising convergences to emerge”.

III. NEXT STEPS

Reuniting America is supporting a follow up program to strengthen the field of support for a diplomatic solution, reduce support for a military strike (especially a military strike without robust diplomatic efforts) and directly influence President Bush.

Distrust and fear between the United States and Iran is escalating. The next year presents both an opportunity to create a diplomatic solution and the real threat that military strikes and even an accidental war could occur.

Reuniting America is implementing programs to increase support for diplomatic efforts, deepen understanding and forge collaborative action among foreign policy experts from across the political spectrum and catalyze and coordinate educational efforts in Washington, DC focused on US / Iranian relations during these next nine critical months.

a.) Program Elements:

i.) Back-channel Conversations

Some leaders from the group are arranging conversations with high-level decision makers and influencers including Secretary Rice, James Baker, Karl Rove and President Bush. The goal is to promote the need for a third – option, encourage robust diplomacy and create space for unique solutions, such as the proposal being developed for an international consortium solution to the nuclear question.

Additionally, Reuniting America on October 10th, 2007, organized a meeting between many of the Wye River Iran Retreat participants and the Iranian Foreign Minister in charge of US Affairs. The group met for several hours on October 10th at a meeting facilitated by Joe Montville. This was a 2 ½ hour relationship-building meeting. The group is working on several fruitful follow up options to continue and build on this opportunity.

ii.) US / Iranian Relations Dialogue Group

The community of foreign policy experts focused on US / Iranian relations does not spend time in diverse conversations such as the one Reuniting America hosted in September. The format, with an emphasis on listening, deepening understanding of other perspectives, and building relationships was productive and exciting for the participants.

Reuniting America proposes to nurture and expand this influential community critical to our relationship with Iran through a series of one-day retreats in Washington, DC over the next nine months. These retreats will include participants from the September Wye River Conference, individuals who were invited, but could not attend and additional people recommended by the group. The meetings will be facilitated with the goal of developing common ground and collaborative action. The meetings and connections formed will also provide an important opportunity to discuss possible breakthrough solutions.

iii.) Catalyzing and Coordinating Educational Programs
Reuniting America is helping organize a series of events in Washington, DC to improve understanding of US / Iranian relations and create forums focused on a third option diplomatic solution.  So far, the following events are underway:

Ken Ballen of Terror Free Tomorrow will brief 125 conservative Congressional staffers about the results of the first uncensored public opinion survey of Iran since President Ahmadinejad took office. The poll findings provide great insights into the true desires and wishes of the Iranian people, an important perspective for US decision makers to hear.

2. Dr. Trita Parsi, director of the National American Iranian Council, will discuss his new book Treacherous Alliance – Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the US at the center-right coalition Wednesday morning group.

3.Two forums about a “third – option” are in the early stages of being planned; one at The Heritage Foundation and the other at the Nixon Center.

The post-retreat activities continue to unfold as new relationships continue to mature, new ideas are tested and programs are implemented.  There is no ‘final’ report for this retreat, since it continues to unfold.