63 美国是否应当改变对伊朗和伊拉克的强硬政策？

63 美国是否应当改变对伊朗和伊拉克的强硬政策？

Should US Change Hard Line Policies Toward Iran, Iraq?
Ed Warner
Washington
22 Jun 2001 21:59 UTC

U.S. policy toward Iran and Iraq needs to change, according to participants at a recent Washington conference. These 1)analysts 2 say there should be more engagement and less 2)confrontation 3. But there is another point of view supported by many members of the U.S. Congress, who do not yet think it is time to relax American 3)sanctions.
Many former U.S. diplomats 4 and other analysts are speaking out against U.S. policy toward Iran and Iraq. In a series of papers and conferences, they have argued that economic sanctions are not working and are simply increasing 4)resentment against the United States.
This point was stressed at a recent discussion at the Library of Congress that was 5)hosted by the Atlantic Council and the Middle East Policy 6)Council, among other groups.
Charles Freeman, president of the Middle East Policy Council, acknowledged the speakers did not reflect 7)prevailing views. "Indeed the purpose of the gathering 5 is to reflect a very large part of the foreign policy establishment and intellectual community in the United States, which flatly does not agree with current policy and does not believe it is working," he said.
But Patrick Clawson, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the gathering should have included supporters of U.S. policy. "You talk about having dialogue with Iraq and Iran. May I suggest that you begin by having dialogue with those in the United States who disagree with you," he said. "The difficulty with this panel is that there is not a single person here today who endorses 6 U.S. policy as it 8)currently stands. Yet that policy has been held up by two administrations and 9)overwhelming 10)majorities in Congress."
Mr. Clawson notes that Congress is nearly 11)unanimous in support of maintaining sanctions against Iran, because of its support of terrorism, its opposition 7 to the Middle East peace process and its efforts to acquire weapons of mass 12)destruction.
Richard Murphy, a former top U.S. State Department official, says 13)domestic politics are also a 14)factor in the congressional decision to preserve sanctions. "If there is not a serious debate, I think it is because the road has so thoroughly 8, 15)ably and creatively prepared by AIPAC [the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee]. It has done an extraordinary job of corralling the votes so that there will be 16)virtually no discussion of what it means for U.S. interests," he said.
But U.S. policy has not been 17)static, says Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst 1 with the Congressional Research Service. It has changed with the times. "In fact, we have seen substantial evolution in U.S. policy, and U.S. policy has to some degree 18)adapted to regional developments. In 1995 and '96, we heard that Iran was an implacable adversary 9 of the United States, while in 1997 and '98, we heard that Iran is a country we want to do business with."
Mr. Katzman said the U.S. policy of dual 10 containment 11 of Iran and Iraq has been modified to meet the objections of European and Persian Gulf 12 nations, who prefer 19)accommodation to confrontation, and who believe a balance of power will keep the peace in the region.
 

(1) analyst[5AnElIst]n.分析家, 分解者
(2) confrontation[9kCnfrQn`teIFEn]n.面对, 面对面, 对质
(3) sanction[5sANkF(E)n]n. v.制裁
(4) resentment[rI5zentmEnt]n.怨恨, 愤恨
(5) host[hEJst]n.主机,主人,旅馆招待vt.当主人招待
(6) council[5kaJns(E)l]n.政务会, 理事会, 委员会, 参议会, 讨论会议
(7) prevailing[prI5veIlIN]adj.占优势的, 主要的, 流行的
(8) currently[5kQrEntlI]adv.普遍地, 通常地, 现在, 当前
(9) overwhelming adj.压倒性的, 无法抵抗的
(10) majority[mE5dVRrItI; (?@) -5dVC:r-]n.多数, 大半
(11) unanimous[ju:5nAnImEs]adj.意见一致的, 无异议的
(12) destruction[dI5strQkF(E)n]n.破坏, 毁灭
(13) domestic[dE5mestIk]adj.家庭的, 国内的, 与人共处的, 驯服的
(14) factor[5fAktE(r)]n.因素, 要素, 因数, 代理人
(15) ably[5eIblI]adv.能干地, 巧妙地
(16) virtually[5v:tjJElI]adv.事实上, 实质上
(17) static[5stAtIk]adj.静态的, 静力的静电噪声
(18) adapt to适合
(19) accommodate v.容纳,留宿,使...适应