I’m afraid I disagree with the point that John Limbert is making at Responsible Statecraft. I think it’s far too early to negotiate with Iran.
Sooner or later, if the U.S. and the Islamic Republic are going to avoid such a lose-lose conflict, the two sides will need to stop shouting and start talking. Forty-five years of exchanging empty slogans, accusations, threats, and denunciations have accomplished little beyond furthering a few political careers and feeding a sense of self-righteousness. For successive U.S. administrations, Iran remains a problem that will not go away.
To paraphrase Trotsky, “You may have no business with Iran; but Iran has business with you.” For Iran, the U.S. remains an obsession. The more Iran’s hated rulers denounce it, the more attractive it becomes — as both a role model and a destination — to a savvy population suffering from inflation, unemployment, and the stern, misogynistic dictates of an aging and ossified ruling elite.
The Islamic Republic, despite the wishes of many Iranians and their friends, is probably not going away soon. In the first months after the fall of the monarchy, the most-asked question in Tehran was, “When are THEY leaving?” (Inhaa key mirand?). Forty-five years later THEY are still in charge and show no signs of packing their bags.
Two comparisons come to mind: Russia and Cuba. The Russian Revolution took place in 1917. Forty-five years later was 1962—just about the time of the Cuban missile crisis. We would still be dealing with committed revolutionaries until the 1980s and the Soviet Union collapse in the 1990s, a full 75 years later. The Cuban Revolution overthrew Batista in 1959. Forty-five years later Fidel Castro still ruled Cuba and would until his death in 2016. Cuba’s present ruler is no committed revolutionary—he hadn’t even been born in 1959. Negotiating with him might be effective; negotiating with either of the Castro brothers would have been a waste of breath and plane fare.
Ali Khameini, Iran’s Supreme Leader, is a committed revolutionary. We won’t get a damned thing from him.
It doesn’t make any difference how urgent the need is. Some things can only take place in the fullness of time. Regardless of how much we might like to think otherwise negotiating with Iran at this point would be an exercise in futility.
Unlike Russia, Iran had a period of relative openness and at least some prosperity prior to the revolution.
Steve
Dave Schuler: Regardless of how much we might like to think otherwise negotiating with Iran at this point would be an exercise in futility.
The United States is not considered a reliable partner for negotiation as it reneged on its last major deal with Iran.
At the time I said that I thought Trump’s actions were dumb.
Dave Schuler: At the time I said that I thought Trump’s actions were dumb.
The United States had a deal with Iran. Your argument was that Khameini was the obstacle, rather than Iran’s suspicions about the United States being confirmed by their breaking their own deal.
Both can be true.
Dave Schuler: Both can be true.
No, because Khamenei allowed a nuclear deal with the United States in 2015. He didn’t suddenly become a “committed revolutionary” after that.
He accepted a deal in which the United States gave a lot and got little. Trump didn’t recognize that what the Obama Administration had negotiated was already a sunk cost. If anything was to be realized from it, he needed to stay the course.
As I said both can be true. The Iranians are not good trading partners and neither are we.
Dave Schuler: He accepted a deal in which the United States gave a lot and got little.
At the risk of being contentious, your claim was that no deal was possible because Khamenei was a “committed revolutionary”. In fact, Khamenei allowed a deal with the United States. Now you say he allowed a deal because he got something out of it. That’s an unacknowledged change in your position.
Dave Schuler: The Iranians are not good trading partners and neither are we.
There was a deal. It was the United States that reneged on the deal.
That’s not what I said. What I said that he got something out of it and paid nothing (or next to nothing) for it. He isn’t stupid.
Dave Schuler: What I said that he got something out of it and paid nothing (or next to nothing) for it.
The West got a way to keep track of Iran’s nuclear program, which is what they wanted. You might think that’s nothing; however, while Iran can build a nuclear weapon any time they want, it’s critically important to know Iran’s breakout period. With the deal, the breakout period was at least twelve months, allowing time for the West to take action, diplomatic or otherwise if Iran moved towards building a nuclear weapon. Without the deal, the West is blind. And any new deal is unlikely because the United States reneged.
No, we didn’t. With the deal we were blind, too. We didn’t know all of the sites where Iran was doing its nuclear development then and we still don’t. We do know that we didn’t know.
My position when the Obama Administration negotiated the deal was that it was foolhardy because we simply didn’t know and what we did know was that Iran was being run by committed revolutionaries. When Trump abrogated the deal we had already paid most of the costs up front while if there were actual benefits they would be realized later. Abrogating the deal was a lose-lose approach.
Dave Schuler: With the deal we were blind, too.
The IAEA has had access to “all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit,” and that Iran was meeting its obligations.
Since the U.S. pulled out of the agreement, Iran has only provided limited access while increasing production of enriched uranium, which reduces the breakout time.
Iran has a reason to have a nuclear deterrent due to constant threats of attack. However, they have—up to recently—thought that being able to deploy a weapon within several months is enough of a deterrent. That calculus could change depending on the perceived threat.
How do you know that? Are you aware of all Iran’s nuclear sites? Or only the ones it admits to? I suggest the latter.
Dave Schuler: How do you know that?
We provided expert opinion on the subject, experts with access to Iranian nuclear sites, and the fact that nuclear refinement capability is very difficult to hide. You “suggest” otherwise.
Said another way you’re taking it on faith.
Dave Schuler: Said another way you’re taking it on faith.
That’s truly bizarre. We cited experts with access to Iranian nuclear sites, noted that nuclear refinement is very difficult to hide, and argued Iran’s security interests have not historically required a short breakout period. That’s hardly taking it on faith.
Iran also surrendered 11,000 kg of refined uranium as part of the deal.
Are you aware that Iran has NEVER disclosed a nuclear development site without events forcing them to? The logical inference from that is that they have sites of which we are unaware. They are not forthcoming.
Dave Schuler: Are you aware that Iran has NEVER disclosed a nuclear development site without events forcing them to?
Please be specific.
One of the comments above had me thinking.
I’m sure I’m not the first one, and probably it was remarked when it occurred, but there are parallels between the Russian October revolution and the Iranian revolution.
An unstable semi-authoritarian monarchy gets overthrown initially towards a more liberal (“small-l”) direction but eventually the group with a radical authoritarian ideology win. And it turns out the monarchy was far more liberal than what replaced it.
I think Russia is also a cautioning signpost. When the current generation of committed revolutionaries pass on, whoever succeeds them will continue to pursue Iranian national interests as Iranians have perceived them (essentially hegemony over the Mideast); which is in tension with American preference for a balance of power.
That has been the point I have been making. You can add Cuba to that list.
One other similarity between Russia and Iran. Pre-revolution Russia was relatively prosperous and open compared to post-revolution.
Not only did Iran give up their HEU they also gave up their plutonium and changed their reactor design so that they had limited ability to make plutonium in the future. Still your argument is weal Dave. By your reasoning we should never have an agreement with anyone since they could be cheating.
https://thebulletin.org/2021/08/how-irans-research-reactors-prove-the-nuclear-deal-is-still-working/
Steve