Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
Allow me to take up the challenge laid down by friend of Ricochet Jennifer Rubin in a post entitled "So why keep talking to Iran?"
It's no surprise [she writes] that the latest round of nuclear talks with Iran have collapsed. There was zero progress toward halting Iran's march toward nuclear capability, an outcome that could have been predicted by anyone seriously assessing the regime's behavior.
True enough. Now consider Jennifer's alternative:
Instead of talking to an Iranian regime that has shown no interest in negotiations -- and, at the same time, derives legitimacy from the negotiations -- maybe there are more fruitful actions that we and our allies could be taking. These would include: stressing that the military option remains on the table; making regime change the official policy of the U.S.; working to isolate Iran from international bodies and heightening the focus on Iran's human rights abuses. As the congressional staffer put it, if the original premise of the Obama administration was wrong, then "the aim of our strategy shouldn't be to change the behavior of the regime, but, rather, to change the regime itself."
It's hard for me to agree that we should pursue these policies at the expense of diplomacy -- because, in large part, we're already pursuing them. Everyone already knows that 'the military' option is still 'on the table.' With Stuxnet, in fact, we now know that one coercive option has been plucked from the table and put to even better use than the tools of conventional warfare. Our efforts to isolate Iran, meanwhile, proceed apace. Is there any question that Russia, for instance, will wisely continue to stand aside as the US proceeds against the Iranian nuclear program, overtly and covertly? Jennifer rightly implies that the focus on Iranian human rights abuses is already fairly intense. Whatever it might mean to intensify it further, why would such a move better advance American interests in the absence of diplomacy?
The truth about diplomacy is that it isn't all hearts and flowers. It seems evident to me that the current, 'failed' round of talks -- in the wake of Stuxnet and the deaths of key Iranian scientists -- has served primarily to formalize and publicize Iran's inability to negotiate productively even on fair and reasonable terms. Collapsed talks like these, which cost us nothing, signal clearly to Iran and the significant regional and global powers that Iran's position is brittle, inconsistent, uncompromising, and unworkable. They put Iran's bad faith under a bright spotlight in a venue that carries substantial political significance. In sum, they fit neatly within a policy framework designed to frustrate and prevent the fulfillment of Iran's designs.
Of course, neither the talks nor our other actions do a great deal to usher in regime change. The funny thing about regime change in Iran is that it would benefit the United States if it were the kind of regime change that would benefit the United States. Having the conversation that awaits beyond that tautology proves to be more interesting and more fertile, I think, than the one we get when we presume that there's no point in talking to Iran.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
I agree with you, James, that continuing dialogue with Iran cannot hurt, even if that dialogue is simply stating that we will not allow you, Iran, to have nuclear weapons. However, when Iran presents us with aggressive acts, like capturing Westerners, whether military or civilian, or suppiying IED's to our enemies to kill our soldiers, we need to react with even greater retaliatory measures of our own. If they slap us across the face, we should punch them in the nose. Without the stick, no amount of dialogue wil help. Doncha think?
Jun '10
Re: Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
Not to raise the specter of the controversial founder of "progressivism", TR but his dictum "speak softly but carry a big stick" only works if occasionally you display the big stick from time to time and are prepared to, dare I say it, even use it. Unfortunately, the US-advanced UN sanctions have proven riddled with loopholes and quite unenforceable. They don't even come close to being a Nurfball bat.
So, mere overtures to talk or timid missives tossed in Ahmadinejad's general direction have been greeted with more saber rattling not less. Iran is now sending naval vessels to the Mediterranean to take up positions next to the US and French navies. They're a major supporter of Hezbollah and would like to see Lebanon under complete Hezbollah rule to more easily support their surrogate in a potential war with Israel.
So, in Palin parlance, how's all that talkin' workin' for ya?
Edited on Jan 23, 2011 at 11:55amRe: Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
cdor, Brian, it sounds as if you're going beyond what Jennifer or even Palin are suggesting we do about Iran. If you're supporting a "punch in the nose" of some kind, I'm definitely interested in talking more specifically about what you have in mind!
Oct '10
Re: Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
why not? it has worked so well with north korea.
Edit: at least it "highlights" how irrational the north koreans are to the rest of the world right?
Edited on Jan 23, 2011 at 6:24pmOct '10
Re: Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
Obama blew it in 2009. Now Lebanon is returning to the Iran-Syria-Turkey Axis.
Jun '10
Re: Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
Ultimatums can be very effective provided you follow through on them. For example, "Dismantle your nuclear facilities by set deadline or we will do it for you."
There has always been speculation whether the incoming Reagan team gave Iran an ultimatum or whether the Iranians came up the idea on their own that it was a splendid idea to release the hostages on the same day as Reagan's inauguration. The coincidence was rather startling, what? We may never know...I think those close to Reagan at the time may never say...unless Peter would like to make a revelation on Ricochet.
Edited on Jan 23, 2011 at 7:34pmJun '10
Re: Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
Further...Unfortunately, some brutal regimes only understand threats of force. Iran has proven time and again that it is a brutal regime. They have repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel. They have supplied Hezbollah with missiles and other ordinance. They have provided Revolutionary Guard advisors to Hezbollah units along Lebanon's southern border with Israel. They have provided Revolutionary Guard advisors to Hugo Chavez and may have been shuttling weapons technology to Venezuela. So, honestly...what is there to discuss? Do we not know Iran's intentions by now? The sanctions are not working. In fact, Iran is now the presiding authority for OPEC. Have you checked the price of oil lately?
History has shown what appeasement has led to. Getting promises from Ahmadinejad is very much like getting promises from Adolf Hitler. They are worthless. Iran continues to play a very dangerous game and Obama has posed no threat to them. He is perceived as weak, naive and at times anti-Israeli himself.
I'm afraid unless Iran's nose is bloodied over something adventurous that it has already done or is threatening to do, they will continue to pose a dangerous threat to Lebanon and to Israel.
Edited on Jan 23, 2011 at 7:54pmJun '10
Re: Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
"...carries substantial political significance"? What would this be exactly? It's fairly apparent that the harsh spotlight has revealed Iran's bad faith and reckless behavior for some time now...and rather than shrinking from the spotlight they are basking in the glow of it. In fact, they're thriving. With their surrogate, Hezbollah's help, they are about to topple Lebanon...after which an attack on Israel could only be days away.
Jul '10
Re: Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
Sadly, Obama is the world leader in empty ultimatums and deadlines. So that is off the table. The Chinese just made fun of their Presidential host and his country in interesting ways, and their Presidential host and his entourage was too dense to notice and respond appropriately.
Stuxnet appears to have bought some time, but nobody really knows how much.
There needs to be a response, tied to a new approach to policy touted by Obama but publicly tapping seasoned hands that get this stuff. I hate to say things that could help this guy cuz he is such a bloody useless putz, but my country is at stake.
And yes, we need to do some creative smacking around of folks to put this all back in the box. While making it clear that we are putting our financial house in order.
Jul '10
Re: Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
'Course there is. At least regarding the overt oppo.
except time.
Can't imagine why that would matter, though. It's not as if the regime has a specific, unaccomplished, objective that could change the rules of the game.
Right?
May '10
Re: Here's Why We Keep Talking to Iran
Meanwhile in Iran today they hanged two activists involved in the protests of 2009. You remember the protest, the one where Pres. Obama said little and did even less for real freedom.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hO7xHNkWfxNRyOUTK87v5o3ef4kw?docId=CNG.85bc84cf65dec965e2307bfe85784c7f.61
Lots of talk as the Iranian's shore up their weapons and sponsored IEDs in Afghanistan. Surely a few missiles on the presidential palace, the Revolutionary Guard HQ, and President A's family would prove a salutary lesson instead of more diplomatic chair shuffling
Edited on Jan 24, 2011 at 7:15am