February 22, 2007
Should the U.S. talk directly to Iran?
CNN’s Christiane Amanpour recently sat down with an unnamed senior official in the Iranian government. According to the Iranian official, Tehran wants to mend fences with the U.S. (more commonly known in the Iranian government press as “the Great Satan.”) The official went so far as to suggest that the U.S. and Iran should form a strategic partnership against a common enemy---al Qaeda.
Amanpour’s interview leaves room for optimism---and skepticism. If an official from one of the United States’ most implacable adversaries is suggesting a dialogue, this cannot be interpreted as anything but good news. But the significance of the official’s comments is nevertheless open to debate. The Iranian government has always contained moderate elements. This was true even in the days of the Islamic Revolution. In Khomeini’s time, there was dissension within the Iranian ranks about the path that the Ayatollah had charted for the country. Some members of the Iranian parliament wanted to take Iran in a more moderate direction---but these voices were overruled by Khomeini and his supporters.
Similarly, things were looking brighter in Iran exactly ten years ago, when Iranian voters swept the reformer Mohammad Khatami into office. For a few years, a genuine rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran seemed imminent. But Khatami’s moderate views on foreign policy and internal freedoms provoked the ire of the clerical establishment. Khatami’s reformist agenda was soon derailed by Iran’s radical mullahs.
The current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has rolled back personal freedoms in Iran, increased Iranian support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and embarked on a nuclear weapons program. Ahmadinejad has also cranked up the public vitriol, declaring that Israel should be wiped off the map, and that America is the source of all Iran’s problems. Just a few weeks ago, he presided over a public rally where demonstrators shouted Marg bar Amrika! (“Death to America!”)
But none of this means that we can’t---or shouldn’t--- talk directly to Tehran. The Cold War offers some useful parallels here. Richard Nixon made his historic trip to China in the middle of the Mao Zedong’s bloody Cultural Revolution. Henry Kissinger talked directly with the North Vietnamese even as the Vietnam War raged on. And every American President from F.D.R. to George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) had a significant relationship with the Soviet Union, despite the U.S.S.R.’s sundry acts of mischief throughout the world. Richard Nixon (then Eisenhower’s vice president) even engaged Khrushchev in a debate about the relative merits of capitalism and communism--- even as the Soviet leader was blathering about burying the West.
The Bush Administration has always preferred to communicate with other nations through public sound bites (i.e. the 2002 “Axis of Evil” speech) rather than dialogue. George Bush has so far refused to have any direct talks with Iran. This is certainly not foreign policy according to the book of George Bush Sr., or even that of Ronald Reagan. Let us not forget that Reagan publicly referred to the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire;” but he didn’t refuse to talk to Soviet leaders in private, where cooler heads could prevail.
The Cold War was won through a combination of toughness and conciliatory gestures, and that is probably the best path to take with Iran. On one hand, Iran should not be permitted to acquire nukes---Tehran’s record on terrorism is simply too incriminating. On the other hand, though, there is no reason why Bush shouldn’t talk to Ahmadinejad.
Once again, I appeal to history: if Kennedy could talk to Khrushchev and Nixon could talk to Brezhnev, then Bush can talk to the current leader of Iran. Bush might not be able to convince Ahmadinejad to change his ways, but it’s worth a try. We can always take more extreme measures against Tehran if we determine that there are no other options.
Notes:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/21/btsc.iran.amanpour/index.html
