Why would Iran talk to us?
One of the important recommendations of the Iraq Study Group is that the US needs to begin engaging with countries such as Iran. The point is well taken that during the Cold War there were summits held between leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union. There was even a direct line “hotline” between Washington and Moscow that was developed after the Cuban missile crisis. How quaint this idea must seem in today’s environment.
Some argue that of course we could talk with the Soviets. They were at least reasonable and predictable- not fanatical like our enemies today. I tend to not look at this time with such rose colored glasses. Does anyone remember “Red Dawn“? There was a general feeling that the Soviet Union was determined to spread its influence around the world… and yes, if you believe the makers of Red Dawn, even invade the US. Despite the consensus that these were dangerous people not to be trusted, we did talk to them.
Now we find ourselves with different enemies. Some say that regimes such as Iran can not be bargained with. They are simply too fanatical. This is ridiculous. The Iranian regime, like all nation states, at the very base level is intent on self preservation.
Many critics of the ISG argue that Iran really has little reason to want to help us in Iraq. They argue that if we are at such odds with each other, wouldn’t Iran be quite happy with our military bogged down in Iraq? Yes, this is a valid point. However, one thing that Iran doesn’t want is an all out civil war that can expand to a regional conflict. This is where Iran’s self interest comes into play. Although the Shias have become the dominant force in Iraq, the Sunni minority could potentially drag other Sunni dominated countries into a civil war – most importantly Saudi Arabia. You can quickly see how neighboring countries could be pulled into this conflict depending on their Sunni/Shia makeup. Yes, although Iran likes us bogged down in Iraq, a full scale Iraq civil war is not in their interest.
Moreover, there’s precedent for Iran helping the US when they see it in their interest. They did help us against the Taliban in Afghanistan, granted under a more reasonable leader than Ahmadinajad. Unfortunately, we responded to their help by labeling them members of the Axis of Evil. Certainly, there was much to criticize about Iran. However, we are still paying the price today for this diplomatic sledgehammer. Yes, words matter.
President Bush has said that we are willing to talk to Iran as soon as they stop their enrichment activities. The Iranians have said that they won’t talk with such preconditions. It’s time to get rid of the preconditions. As the ISG suggests, leave the nuclear issue with UN. This may not work. The Iranians may still rebuff us. But we’ll never know unless we give it an honest effort.
Related posts:
[...] Ben Rhodes and David Isenberg have matched wits on the ISG Report (here, here, and here), and Brian Vogt has offered some great observations as well. This debate might seem tiresome, but there are over 140,000 American servicemen and women in Iraq, plus tens of thousands more serving in other capacities (including foreign service officers and contractors). We are spending $8 billion per month, and the costs in lives lost and disrupted cannot be measured. Iraq is the defining foreign policy challenge of our time. It hangs over every other policy that we might wish to see enacted or changed. We cannot escape this debate. It cries out for bipartisanship, the very principle on which PSA is founded, and it seems appropriate that we would engage the debate right here, even at the risk of overdoing it a bit. [...]
Pingback on December 22, 2006 @ 1:27 pm