Can We Still Talk To Iran?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in The War On Terrorism, The WorldThat’s what Kevin Drum is wondering, and I think he has a some compelling evidence to back up the claim they want to negotiate.
It started on May 6, 2003, shortly after George Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. On that day the Associated Press reported without elaboration that Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman had confirmed that “Iran has exchanged messages with U.S. officials about Iraq through the Swiss Embassy, which represents U.S. interests in Tehran. He declined to give details.”
True, that was 3 years ago. But given US intelligence chief John Negroponte’s recent admission that Iran is still years away from actually getting a nuke, don’t we think it’s a better strategy to start talking now so we can avoid another fight that would only further inflame the hatred in the Middle East for our pre-emptive policing?
And let’s not forget that recent polls show that the American public is very skiddish about military action. Yes, we don’t want Iran’s leaders to get access to nuclear weapons, but if they’re years away I’m thinking that direct diplomacy is better than brute force.
Regardless of the anything that’s on the table right now, here are some things to think about. If Iran were to EVER strike Israel with a nuke, they’d return the favor ten fold. Yes, Israel would suffer significant damage, but the country of Iran would nearly be wiped off the map completely. There is no mutually assured destruction in this scenario and Iran knows it. So honestly, I think all of their talk is sabre-rattling…the same tactics that North Korea uses to gain favor/money/aid. True, North Korea doesn’t have the spectre of extreme Islam hanging over them, but I really don’t think Iran is stupid enough to not realize the precarious position they’re in presently. And yes, they have the oil, but are their leaders really willing to sacrifice the entire nation just to strike Israel? Personally, I don’t think the Iranian people would let that happen.
Of course, only time will tell if this logic is sound. But for now why not go forward with a strategy to talk to these people, regardless of what nutty $#!+ they’ve said, and work out some type of nuclear compromise. I mean, are we really so naive to not realize that eventually ever single modernized country will get their hands on nuclear materials of some form to create energy and weapons? We’ve got to plan for that world, and right now our leaders have their eyes on a scenario that even their own intelligence chief says is years off. A smarter strategy is needed for this continued struggle against the militant Islamists and we can start with Iran now…before it’s too late.
This entry was posted on Friday, April 21st, 2006 and is filed under The War On Terrorism, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 21st, 2006 at 6:20 am
Well, WE may think it is a better idea to negotiate, but I’m not sure our leaders do.
April 21st, 2006 at 7:46 am
All this talk about military action in the immediate future is coming exclusively from media pundits. All Bush says is “all options are on the table.”
Official diplomatic relations with the U.S. may not be apparent, but you know stuff is going on behind the scenes, plus the U.S. is involved in the European delegations.
If one were to say, “shouldn’t we avoid military action until the last possible moment if negotiations fail?” I would respond, that is exactly what the Bush administration is thinking regarding Iran, as would any president.
April 21st, 2006 at 8:38 am
Iran may be trying to respond to our anti-terrorist stance, in which we basically assert our right to preemptively attack any state that sponsors terrorism. We’ve already removed the head of state from Iraq, and identified Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, needing regime change. The Iranians seem to be trying to respond from a position of strength. I’m sure they realize that we are not in a great position to mount a military attack on a country that is unified, has a strong army and is four times the size of Iraq. They are also well aware of the unpopularity of the conflict in Iraq and of our political leaders. Basically, they are just calling our bluff.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:28 am
You know, I would have believed this 3 years ago, but not now. I don’t think that Bush and company think they should HAVE to negotiate with these people. But couple that with the fact Iran is indeed calling our bluff, and we could be dealing with mere stubborn pride on both sides. Don’t know if this is the case, but I just don’t trust that things are going on behind the scenes on our end anymore. Not since we’re so quick to dismiss these things.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:15 am
ahmadinejad is a messianic, genocidal whack-job, so no we cannot talk to him. I believe only military action is going to stop him from acquiring nukes.
April 21st, 2006 at 11:28 am
Also, it should be noted that much of our “Star Wars” technology? Yeah, that came from Israel. Israel has been developing anti-missle systems for years. I’m pretty sure they were never bound by the ABM treaties, so they’ve been going at it for years. Unless Iranian nukes are actually smuggled into their country by clandestine means (which may very well be harder to do in Israel than in the US), I’d be willing to bet that there’s actually some chance that nukes launched via Iran’s comparatively primitive delivery systems won’t even reach Israel. And surely Iran knows that.
Which leaves the question: So why does Iran actually want these nukes?
April 21st, 2006 at 11:50 am
One of the choices of the Bush administration has been to refuse regional powers like regional powers. The success of this policy has been seen in N. Korea where we recently took steps we could have taken years ago *before* they most likely built bombs.
Respect and like it or not power earns respect in real world analysis can do a lot. Resentment and a sense of inferiority that countries like Iran have can aggravate situations. Which is what we’ve chosen.
This doesn’t mean that negotiations will succeed, but pretending Iran will not play a role in the region increases odds of confrontation and escalation. It feeds the apparent madness of certain leaders and reinforces their position. Perhaps if we talked before this individual was elected then things would be better.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Since Rice has taken control of foreign policy we actually have been making various compromises with Iran. The latest one was that we agreed with the Russian proposal to allow Iran to enrich Uranium on Russian soil under supervision. I don’t get where this “we refuse to negotiate” stance comes from, since for the past year or so under Rice that’s what we’ve been doing.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Ahmadinejad knows that every time he makes some outrageous statement about wiping Israel off the map or bringing the U.S. harm and pain, the oil markets get jittery, sending prices skyrocketing worldwide. This gives him a great sense of power, because he knows that high oil prices will send our economy into recession. We still need to try to talk to Iran, but they have long since stopped trusting us (like since 1953 when we deposed a popular leader who disrupted the oil supply). They may even see us as an empire in decline—we have the military power but we really can’t use it without destablilizing the entire region. He’s enjoying our weakness, brought on by our addiction to foreign oil.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I think these plans have stalled. Look at this story…
Simply put, if we’re channelling our diplomacy through other countries who have different feelings about Iran’s intentions, then that diplomacy is worthless. As it stands now, I think the US needs to get on board with letting Iran go forward with uranium enrichment, monitor the hell out of them and call their bluff if they prove to be liars. But right now we’re playing a game that we simply can’t win by suggesting on one hand we’ll let them have nuclear power, but on the other saying that a nuclear Iran can not happen.
April 21st, 2006 at 1:34 pm
You think we will be more succesful convincing Iran to let us “monitor the hell out of them?” Do you honestly belive them when they say their intentions are peaceful?
April 21st, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Successful negotiations depend upon some honesty on both sides. Based on how Iran has negotiated with the Europeans and played the Russians I sincerely doubt that any desire for negotiation expressed on their part is genuine.