When Diplomacy Isn't

Brian Beutler describes efforts to hold US-Iranian talks strictly limited to the Iraq issue to be a "charade" since "as long as America and Iran are so bitterly at odds, the countries' strategic objectives in Iraq will run counter to each other." Exactly right. US-Iranian enmity isn't rooted in disagreements about Iraq. Rather, we find it difficult to cooperate with the Iranians with regard to Iraq precisely because the overall state of US-Iranian relations is so poor.

Insofar as our goals in the Middle East include overthrowing the regime in Teheran and, short of regime change, doing everything possible to destroy the Iranian economy then, naturally enough, the Iranians are going to seek to thwart our goals. After all, they hardly have any choice of the matter.

Comments

The problem I have with this point of view is that skilled diplomats ought to be able to deal with the Iranians, even in the present climate. The art of diplomacy is getting the other side to see things differently, to make them appreciate what is in their own interests. There is also a tremendous difference between what nation-states project as their own interests and what they perceive to be their own interests.

Now, if you want to argue that the US doesn't currently employ any skilled diplomats, well... that's another post entirely.

Posted by ProfD | May 28, 2007 7:21 PM

"Insofar as our goals in the Middle East include overthrowing the regime in Teheran and, short of regime change, doing everything possible to destroy the Iranian economy then, naturally enough, the Iranians are going to seek to thwart our goals. After all, they hardly have any choice of the matter."

While I'm not an Iran war hawk, and while I don't disagree with the above quote, it's worth noting that even if the US had zero interest in regime change in Tehran, there would still be plenty of reasons for the Iranian government to be interested in thwarting US aims in the region.

Or in other words, while the present administration has pointlessly inflamed US-Iranian relations, our relations with Tehran wouldn't be peachy even under a competent administration.

Posted by Petey | May 28, 2007 7:27 PM

ProfD writes: "The problem I have with this point of view is that skilled diplomats ought to be able to deal with the Iranians, even in the present climate. "

The most skilled diplomats won't be able to get anywhere if the Iranians believe the Bush administration will ignore them. I think that's part of the problem - the Iranians no doubt know that State doesn't carry any weight with the belligerents in the Bush administration.

Petey writes: "our relations with Tehran wouldn't be peachy even under a competent administration."

On the other hand, Iran was pretty cooperative after 9/11 but before Bush's asinine 'Axis of Evil' speech. That was also before the election of Bush's Iranian twin.

Posted by Jon H | May 28, 2007 7:50 PM

"naturally enough, the Iranians are going to seek to thwart our goals. "

In other words, the Iranians are simply implementing the Bush doctrine.

Posted by Jon H | May 28, 2007 7:53 PM

Heh. Maybe the sort of opinion offered in this post is what Haim Saban had in mind when he supposedly said that all American Jews should serve a stint in the IDF.

Anyhow, re having skilled diplomats: Our current ambassador in Iraq, who conducted the talks with the Iranians, Ryan Crocker, seems like an exceptionally well-experienced, well-qualified, and courageous diplomat. Bush has made some lame appointments in his presidency, motivated by affirmative action, cronyism, and in some cases both (e.g., Attorney General Gonzalez). Bush has also made some first rate appointments, and Crocker is one of them. Too bad he didn't get appointed to his current post until this year.

Posted by Fred | May 28, 2007 7:59 PM

Iran was extremely cooperative after the U.S. first toppled Saddam, when they sent peace feelers to us via the Swiss (this was, of course, after the "Axis of Evil" speech). Iran was cooperative because they were scared shitless: Bush had just toppled the governments of countries to their east and west in less than two years, and done so with relative ease. That would have been a great moment for Bush to reap the diplomatic advantages conferred by his two wars and sign a grand deal with Iran, normalizing relations with them after assuring an end to their nuke weapons program and a commitment from them to be helpful in stabilizing Iraq. Had Bush done that, he'd look like a genius today, and the decision to go to war in Iraq would look smart.

Now, of course, that moment has passed as Bush has been weakened politically by the mess in Iraq. Iran is being difficult now not because we are "trying to destroy their economy" but because they see us as weak, and our weakness is provocative to them.

Posted by Juan | May 28, 2007 8:06 PM

Hmm. The Iranians have stated numerous times that they intend to see Israel wiped off the map. Given that Israel is an ally of the US, I fail to see how any level of "skilled diplomacy" is going to get us anywhere with them.

Not to mention that the regime's starting point was an act of war against the US.

Posted by James Robertson | May 28, 2007 8:07 PM

I think they were foolish to talk to us. I don't believe for a second all our problems in Iraq lead back to Iran, so when they agree to a bunch of things and the situation doesn't change an iota they get blamed for dealing in bad faith. It's a lose/lose proposition and I don't know why the Iranians would want to agree to it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 28, 2007 8:08 PM

James Robertson wrote: "The Iranians have stated numerous times that they intend to see Israel wiped off the map."

When you look at Ahmedinejad, do you see double? Because he's the guy who said that. Not 'The Iranians'.

Also, Ahmedinejad doesn't run the country. Please educate yoself.

Posted by Jon H | May 28, 2007 9:03 PM

James also wrote: "Given that Israel is an ally of the US, I fail to see how any level of "skilled diplomacy" is going to get us anywhere with them."

That's a just a chickenshit cop-out.

WTF does Israel have to do with our problems with Iran, really?

Ahmedinejad has personal issues with Israel, and we're supposed to ignore our own national security on that basis alone?

Really? We're supposed to act against our national interest on behalf of Israel? WTF have they done for us, lately? Or, you know, ever?

They can't even contribute freakin' troops.

If they're such an important ally, why is it that the support only goes one way, and they've been known to spy on us?

Posted by Jon H | May 28, 2007 9:15 PM

I don't think I agree with Butler if his point is that unless the US and Iran first repair the entire "overall state" of their relations, then there is no chance of productive cooperation in the area of Iraqi stabilization, and talks are just a charade. Certainly it would be a good thing if the US and Iranians could repair their relationship, and arrive at some grand bargain resolving all of the issues outstanding since 1979. But it's not realistic to expect this to happen all at once. The best way to start is to build some small foundation of mutual trust on one issue of common concern, and grow from there. Iran and the United States do actually have a common interest in stabilizing Iraq.

Sometimes agreeing ahead of time to confine talks to a very narrow range of topics is a good way to get started. At this early point, a conversation that moves quickly to points like "Hey, what about those clandestine operatives in my country working to undermine my government!" or "Hey, what about that nuclear program!" is likely to degenerate just as rapidly into fruitless reaffirmation of large and antagonistic positions.

Now maybe the talks are just a charade. Maybe these talks are just the Bush administration's way of taking some domestic heat off while it prepares to let Iran have it. Or maybe some in the administration have honestly concluded that there is no way to get out of Iraq without Iranian assistance. We'll have to see.

I think we also have to bear in mind that both governments are constrained in their freedom of movement by the existence of domestic constituencies that are likely to make a big fuss at this point about the slightest signalling from their government that it might be prepared to compromise on their pet issue in the Iran-US relationship. That's another reason why cooperation must start with some small tangible result to boost the standing of the pro-cooperation camp in each country.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 28, 2007 10:33 PM

Actually, the Iranian and American long term interests in Iraq aren't really too far apart. Both of them want a Shi'ite government that dominate with enough force to eliminate the need for further intervention from the US. The odds on a Shi'ite government cooperating with Iran are pretty good, even if it isn't highly ideological. A political settlement, or a government that is moderate enough to let the civil war burn itself on the ground rather than inflame it makes it less likely that either major power -- US or Iran -- will be sucked back in.
The problem is that both US and Iran are run by frikkin extremists, and 1) they don't perceive their nation's interests and 2) they are likely to draw in other issues or refuse to compromise on minor issues.
The best Iraq could probably hope for is a civil war conducted at its current militial scale rather than one conducted systematically with the power of the state. If there were different regimes here and in Iran, it could hope for a reduction in violence.

Posted by RW | May 29, 2007 12:17 AM

I think the CIA overthrowing Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 counts as an act of war against the Iranian people. I think every day the Shah was in power after that was an act of war by America against the Iranian people. So we've been waging war against them for 54 years, and they have been waging war against us for 28 years.

Boy, that's sure worked out great for us.

Posted by super390 | May 29, 2007 12:17 AM

The US submitted to active diplomacy with the Soviet Union, the arch enemy during the cold war, because there was no other choice, given that the Soviet Union had an arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at the US.

The problem in the case of US-Iran relations is that the current administration, operating under the delusions of Bush foreign policy, not only starts off with a self-defeating ideological stance of not talking to “evil” regimes (an inversion of Reagan’s policy towards the “evil empire”) but also pretends that its overwhelming military advantage in weaponry can somehow cow the Iranians, seen as a third rate government run by a bunch of religious zealots, into submitting to US objectives in Iraq and the ME region (witness the current naval and air-force buildup in the region).

The Iranians are smart enough to see through this threat, recognizing their own well developed capacity to strike back in Iraq if it did come to that. Meanwhile their pursuit of nuclear production capability (ostensibly for “peaceful” purposes) is clearly intended to alter the balance of power.

The result is a stalemate in which skillful diplomacy might make a difference and break through the logjam. But there is no way this could happen with the Bushies in charge of the effort.

Posted by Justin | May 29, 2007 12:17 AM

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

Arash Norouzi

'Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made.'

'On Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran, newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at a program, reportedly attended by thousands, titled "The World Without Zionism."'

'To quote his exact words in Farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."'

'The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said.'

'The full quote translated directly to English:

'"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

'Word by word translation:

'Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).'

Posted by David Tomlin | May 29, 2007 12:19 AM

Insofar as our goals in the Middle East include overthrowing the regime in Teheran and, short of regime change, doing everything possible to destroy the Iranian economy then, naturally enough, the Iranians are going to seek to thwart our goals.

Not "the Iranians". The Khamenei regime will naturally seek to thwart us if our policy is to change their regime. But not "the Iranians".

Posted by Al | May 29, 2007 12:53 AM

That said, Brian Beutler's post is idiotic. Yes, the US and Iran have wider disagreements than Iraq. But what reason is there to think that we cannot work on simply the Iraq issue, putting our other disagreements aside?

The fact that our problems with Iran aren't "rooted in disagreements about Iraq" means absolutely nothing with respect to whether we can come to a meaningful accomodation about Iraq. For diplomacy to be successful, one doesn't need to solve all problems simultaneously.

Posted by Al | May 29, 2007 12:59 AM

But what reason is there to think that we cannot work on simply the Iraq issue, putting our other disagreements aside?

Those other disagreements might cause the Iranians to think that limiting U.S. influence in Iraq is a higher priority than stabilizing Iraq.

Posted by David Tomlin | May 29, 2007 11:02 PM