The Iranian Minefield
September 29th, 2008 by Jason
In the WSJ, Michael Oren and Seth Robinson weigh the perils of negotiating with Iran. They write that to be credible, any talks must include the cessation of uranium enrichment and an end to support for terrorism. However, they concede that no combination of U.S. concessions and incentives is likely to induce Iran to change its policies. And the cost of engagement is high:
“Rather than improving U.S.-Iranian relations and enhancing Middle East stability, any American offer to dialogue with Iran is liable to be interpreted as a sign of American weakness, and not only in Tehran. Public opinion throughout the area will conclude that America has at last surrendered to the reality of Iranian rule. The damage to America’s regional, if not global, influence may prove irreversible.”
To avoid this, negotiations must be “accompanied by intensified sanctions and a credible military threat.”
Posted in Diplomacy, Iran, US foreign policy |
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
September 29th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Generally speaking reality continues whether one surrenders to it or not. That is to say, I don’t think that recognition by the U.S. will dramatically impact the regime’s strength. I’m not sure the best way to encourage Iranian democracy, certainly we don’t want to get in a relationship with them like we have with Europe, but ignoring them and hoping they go away hasn’t had a great track record.
September 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I agree that it may not impact the regime’s strength in the long term, but I know that some reformers in Iran are very concerned that engagement could strengthen Ahmadinejad just when he wants it most–in the runup to next year’s presidential election. They feel it will embolden him just long enough to sink any chances of electoral success for the moderates.