A little late but I’d like to add my voice to the chorus of those coming out in support of Robert Kagan’s recent op-ed in the Washington Post, “Time to Talk to Iran”:
Negotiating will appear at first to be a sign of weakness. The Iranians could use talks to exploit fissures between the United States and its allies, and within the U.S. political system.
But there is a good case for negotiations. Many around the world and in the United States have imagined that the obstacle to improved Iranian behavior has been America’s unwillingness to talk. This is a myth, but it will hamper American efforts now and for years to come. Eventually, the United States will have to take the plunge, as it has with so many adversaries throughout its history.
This is as good a time as any. The United States is not in a position of weakness. The embarrassment of the NIE will be fleeting. Strategic realities are more durable. America remains powerful in the world and in the Middle East. The success of the surge policy in Iraq means that the United States may be establishing a sustainable position in the region — a far cry from a year ago, when it seemed about to be driven out. If Iraq is on the road to recovery, this shifts the balance against Iran, which was already isolated.
Since this is materially the position I’ve advocated for several years, it shouldn’t be surprising that I’m in favor of it now. But I’d like to add one thing to Mr. Kagan’s recommendation. It’s not as though diplomacy hasn’t been the U. S. policy with respect to Iran. If the NIE is to be believed, diplomacy, in its complete sense, has got us this far without a fullscale shooting war with Iran, including persuading the Iranians to suspend their nuclear weapons development program. Diplomacy, once again in its complete sense, including direct talks with Iran should continue to be the tool of choice in addressing the situation.
Kagan’s piece, like others, explains why such talks would be good for America. It does very little to explain what’s in it for Iran. He does say that if Iran “complies with its nuclear obligations; ceases its support for terrorist violence; and treats its people with justice, humanity and liberalism, it will be welcomed into the international community, with all the enormous economic, political and security benefits this brings.” In other words, if you change who you are, we will treat you like any other country.
The analogy to the USSR is weak. We didn’t tell the USSR that if it stopped trying to export its form of government by supporting guerrilla movements, if you stop your human rights abuses and if you stop cheating on nuclear weapons agreements, we will treat you like a normal country.
All that said, I’m not opposed to talks and if the Security Council Members would consider increasing sanctions on the condition of US/Iran talks, I would certainly support them.
If the flow of events is currently in our favor then there is no obvious need for us to talk to Iran NOW. Refuse direct negotiations. Not directly speaking to them keeps the pressure on them.
I actually go further and think we should establish another embassy in Iran. If nothing else, the intelligence and insight into the Iranian regime in general and the nuclear program in particular would be pretty significant.
Andy brings up an extremely important point that I’d meant to mention but hadn’t gotten around to. One of the reasons that our human intelligence in Iran is so ghastly is that we have no official presence there. Every contact, official, nonofficial, and covert between us and Iranians increases our penetration of the country.
As it is we’re fighting with one hand tied behind our collective back.
Dave, at least you’ve had the good graces not to say “I told you so”, even though you’ve been telling us so for quite some time. As one who has been influenced by your writings and musings re Iran, I continue to appreciate your wisdom.
Dear Sirs,
The lack of formal public diplomacy does not mean that we have not been talking to them.
Formal diplomacy is a Kabuki Dance. Its vocabulary is very similar to the use of Latin in law and medicine. The terms have definitions agreed upon by the parties so that there is no misunderstanding as to exactly what is being said. The very fact of public diplomacy indicates that both sides accept the legitimacy of the other and that agreements, formally sanctified, are binding.
The taking of the embassy in 1979 is an outstanding issue and the US can not, in accordance with international diplomatic understanding, enter formal diplomatic contact. Iran’s continued use of pejoratives in describing the US is another obstacle.
The system of international diplomacy has developed over centuries. Stepping outside of rules and customs so established for the sake of expediency would have egregious consequences.
Regards,
Roy