« Supporting the Troops | Main | Jindal's Win »

Talking to Iran

22 Oct 2007 01:49 pm

Toward the end of a great column on Iran, Fareed Zakaria's references the convenient truth about Iranian senior policymakers -- they want improved relations with the United States, citing the story of James Dobbins, the only person who's ever been actually sent to try to cooperate with Iran: "Dobbins says the Iranians made overtures to have better relations with the United States through him and others in 2001 and later, but got no reply. Even after the Axis of Evil speech, he recalls, they offered to cooperate in Afghanistan. Dobbins took the proposal to a principals meeting in Washington only to have it met with dead silence." Gareth Porter has reported on Iranian overtures from as recently as 2003, and you can read Flynt Leverett on the whole history of this sort of thing.

Unfortunately, even the politicians who do favor more robust diplomacy are so concerned with making themselves sound tough that they wind up obscuring this point. The case for diplomacy, however, isn't that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could use the evil eye on Ayatollah Khameini and make him back down. The case for diplomacy is that US-Iranian conflict is a negative-sum enterprise, that US-Iranian cooperation would be a positive-sum enterprise, and that recent diplomatic history suggests that important elements in Teheran recognize this reality and would welcome a diplomatic opening. Can we be sure that verifiable nuclear disarmament is a price they'd be willing to pay for normalization of relations? We cannot, but it seems likely. And if the US and Iran were settling our differences over the nuclear and regime change issues, then suddenly we'd find that we both share an interest in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan and checking al-Qaeda. But as long as conflict over nukes and regime change continues, neither side can afford to let the other get the upper hand in either country, probably dooming both to chaos.

Share This

Comments (15)

FYI: I assume "both" in the last sentence references Afghanistan and Iraq, but it's not immediately clear.

Bush and company have essentially succeeded in labeling Iran's government as evil. Of course it's a government with many human rights issues, but once you label it evil it makes any possibility of discussion out of bounds.


ya know, if we all chipped in, and maybe held a few bake sales, we could buy the Iranians a nuke or two. I am sure both the Russians and the Chinese have a few they would be willing to part with, for the right price.

Voila, problem solved. Iran has their nukes, the threat of invasion from the Empire disappears, and we can get serious about establishing US-Iranian diplomatic relations.

Now was that so hard? What are you contributing to the bake sale? I have a very nice apple cobbler.

I thought I was losing my mind. I read "James Dobbins" as "James Dobson".

"but once you label it evil it makes any possibility of discussion out of bounds."

Reagan called the Soviets evil and we still talked to them.

Mrs. Mrs. Mrs. is a moron moron moron. Hate on Mrs.

Mrs. Mrs. Mrs. is a moron moron moron. Hate on Mrs.

so should we put you down for cookies, pie, or brownies?

The overtures are a tactic, not a fig leaf.

The regimes of the Middle East, particularly Iran, have a history of using large powers against each other, often so that they can play off of them and ultimately get what they want.

They are now firmly in America's cross-hairs, and it's not a good place to be. The Russians can't really protect them. It makes sense that they make "overtures," but until they are substantively willing to change their policies we should probably remain leery of appeasing them.

If they want to talk, they should halt their nuclear program.

Kevin, the "bad dog" approach to international relations really worked out well for the bush administration with north korea, didn't it? i assume that's why you want to pursue it again: because you are secretly an iranian agent seeking to assure that the iranians end up with nuclear weapons....

New York Review of Books also has a good column about Iran's willingness to negotiate

New York Review of Books also has a good column about Iran's willingness to negotiate

url: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20651

If they want to talk, they should halt their nuclear program.
Yes if they want to negotiate, they should agree to all our demands first.

Zakaria, isn't he the guy who went on a retreat sponsored by DOD to figure out how to sell us the Iraq war and then as an editor at Newsweek sold us the war? Seems to me he is a bit late on the rationality bit. Given the numbers of dead from his last brainstorm maybe he should just go away and do about 100 years of penance.

I know, you are at the gates of the Village, and it would not do to call out the scum who have the keys.

I sent this to Matt last night, but of course he can't be bothered to mention that even though he referenced Flynt Leverett...

This is the real story of how the White House blew off peace in the ME offered on a plate by Iran...

The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House
Doesn't Want You to Know
http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

Heading:

Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration say the U.S. has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise. It'll be Iraq all over again.

Matt even the UN is starting to notice
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74892


Comments closed November 05, 2007.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.