In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes a variety of opinions from outside writers. On political and policy matters, we publish opinions from across the political spectrum.  Roughly half of our columns come from our Board of Contributors, a group whose interests range from education to religion to sports to the economy. Their charge is to chronicle American culture by telling the stories, large and small, that collectively make us what we are.  We also publish weekly columns by Al Neuharth, USA TODAY's founder, and DeWayne Wickham, who writes primarily on matters of race but on other subjects as well. That leaves plenty of room for other views from across the nation by well-known and lesser-known names alike.  By Barry Blechman and Daniel Brumberg  With the possibility of a resumption of U.S.-Iranian talks looming on the horizon, administration officials should be figuring out how to make the trip to  worthwhile. The key challenge facing the U.S. is to muster the political will to think big, which means nothing less than a recalibration of our Iranian policy.  By "recalibration," we do not mean retreating from the sanctions strategy for which the administration deserves credit. But sanctions alone will not elicit Tehran's cooperation. What is needed is a set of robust economic, political and strategic incentives that give Iran's leaders reason to cooperate. Unless U.S. negotiators leverage sanctions with incentives, the future will bring only a choice between two bad options: military conflict or containment of a nuclear Iran.  The opportunity to rebalance U.S. policy will not last forever. Sanctions have intensified the debate between the ultraconservative hard-liners, led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the more pragmatic leaders in the parliament, business community and universities, many of whom have assailed Ahmadinejad for policies that have only isolated Iran. The U.S. challenge is to help open a path for those regime voices who might have an interest in backing a mutually acceptable compromise on the nuclear issues.  Obama officials rightly insist that they've made strenuous efforts to engage Iran, only to be rebuffed. But our own policymakers have yet to forge a consensus on incentives we would be ready to offer Tehran. This requires a readiness to test Tehran in ways we have not done.  Incentives must begin with recognition of Iran's rights, like all other nations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to enrich uranium, provided that Iran fully complies with the safeguards set out by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Given the secretive history of Iran's nuclear program, and the many questions raised by the IAEA, the U.S. and its allies have every right to insist Iranian enrichment be undertaken under stringent conditions and close international supervision.  Beyond the nuclear issue, U.S. leaders must have a list of possible inducements to help Iran find its way back into the international community. This should include proposing bilateral or multilateral talks on security issues, such as Afghanistan and the drug trade, and normal exchanges between U.S. and Iranian diplomats in third nations and multinational organizations.  The international community should make a concerted effort to help Iran modernize its state-owned oil industry, and/or create a regionwide gas and electric grid to provide energy for Iran and its neighbors. If the U.S. and its allies, together with Russia and China, set out such possibilities, it might energize a far-ranging diplomatic negotiation with a real chance of success.  The U.S. cannot expect progress with Iran if it continues to rely solely on coercive measures. Even veiled allusions to the "military option" only reinforce arguments that Iran needs nuclear weapons to deter the U.S. and protect Tehran. We should weaken the naysayers by emphasizing what Iran can gain through cooperation, rather than defiance.  These measures must go hand in hand with sustaining and enhancing U.S. military and strategic cooperation with Israel and Arab states. A regional capability to deter Iranian aggression is vital, particularly if a more robust effort at engagement does not prevail. But we need not acquiesce to either the temptation of war or to the risks of a steady drift toward containment. Iran's nuclear program is proceeding more slowly than has been feared. There is time to explore a far more ambitious effort to engage Iran strategically.  Barry Blechman is co-founder of the Stimson Center. Daniel Brumberg is a special adviser to the U.S. Institute of Peace. These recommendations are part of a collaborative report, "Engagement, Coercion, and Iran's Nuclear Challenge," to be released Nov. 16.  You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference.
When the nuclear talks with Tehran resume, diplomats must take a new approach that goes beyond solely coercive measures.