Optimism after Geneva Talks?

All eyes and ears focused on Geneva as the international community met with Iran to discuss the country’s nuclear program. Robert Costa at the National Review reports the talks ended with an agreement for a second round later this month and lead U.S. negotiator William Burns met with his Iranian counterpart Saeed Jalili for a one-on-one breakout session.  While Greg Bruno of the Council on Foreign Relations cautions that ”it’s not entirely clear what might constitute genuine progress,” he also notes the “post-Geneva consensus is decidedly upbeat” after Iran promised to cooperate “fully” with U.N. inspectors. 

Trita Parsi, quoted by Laura Rozen, agrees with Bruno and suggests “there is actually some promise here” with negotiations. She cites the Iranians giving permission to the Swiss to visit the captive American hikers, the agreement to let the IAEA inspect the Qum nuclear facility, Secretary Clinton‘s confirmation of Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and yesterday’s visit by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to Washington, D.C, the first of its kind since 1979. These developments bode well with President Ahmadinejad‘s proposal for third party uranium enrichment, a suggestion previously offered by the international community, and Foreign Minister Mottaki’s description of the “constructive” atmosphere of the Geneva talks.

Moving forward, President Obama has plenty of advice, support and criticism to heed. John Bolton, quoted by Costa, criticizes the negotiations as “Groundhog day, over and over again” as the Iranian regime stalls for time. But such conservative views have faced intense scrutiny. Matthew Duss writes in the Huffington Post that such Bush-era policies led to “an Iran far more dominated by hardliners, far less inclined to compromise, in a far more secure and influential position in the region, and much closer to a nuclear weapons capability.” President Bush’s former lead Iran negotiator, Ambassador Nicholas Burns, warns that advocates of a more militaristic strategy “could not be more mistaken.” Furthermore, in an interview with Middle East Progress, Burns affirms, “I very much support President Obama’s strategy” of engagement while imploring the President to now take a “tough-minded strategy” that will include engagement, sanctions and inspections. Finally, Robert Dreyfus at The Nation argues the U.S. should negotiate without any artificial deadlines, but he also cautions to the administration to focus on the nuclear energy, suggesting talk of human rights will end up “sending the Iranian delegation up the wall, for no good reason.” Dreyfus’s insistence on a narrow scope contradicts the European objective “to prepare for meaningful negotiations on all issues.”

Much debate focuses on the next step if and when negotiations fail. Ari Shavit of the Israeli Haaretz describes why Israel will not likely use military force in the near future, citing specifically the illegitimacy of the Iranian regime among other reasons. Patrick Clawson and Mehdi Khalaji of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy examine the effectiveness of potential sanctions, concluding sanctions should not hurt ordinary citizens and the U.S. should present them as a “logical consequence” of Ahmadinejad’s policies in order to leverage the Iranian people against the regime. Djavad Salehi-Isfahani of the Brookings Institution debunks two questionable assumptions that existing sanctions caused Iran’s weak economy and that weakness spurred the opposition movement. He describes potential sanctions as a “godsend for President Ahmadinejad” who will use them to enact his populist agenda and consolidate support.

Some analysts have begun to express dismay at the lack of options. Michael Tomasky laments in the Guardian, “The Obama administration’s strategy toward Iran isn’t a good one. But a good one doesn’t exist.” In addition, The LA Times editorial staff suggests “the world needs a contigency plan for containing the atomic mullahs” if the middle road fails between belligerency and accommodation.

As always, human rights remain at the top of agenda for many commentators. Responding to Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett‘s proposal to seek a “strategic realignment” with Iran, Patrick Clawson observes such a move would “kick the opposition in the teeth,” concluding the Iranian regime does not want it and nor should the United States. In The Huffington Post, Shirin Sadeghi fears the international community will “look the other way at the dire circumstances of the Iranian people because Iran’s strategic importance and regional influence.” Sadeghi urges the United States to respect Iran’s sovereignty while simultaneously pressing the regime to follow international law and human rights.

Finally, there are signs that Ahmadinejad’s hold on power has weakened recently. Meir Javedanfar points out that the Iranian President did not receive the usual “rave reviews from the Iranian press” after his speech at the U.N. General Assembly. Furthermore, Joe Klein of Time Magazine describes Ahmadinejad’s “apparent cluelessness” last Friday morning when President Obama announced the presence of the Qum facility, making Ahmadinejad not ”seem very powerful.” Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad has also announced he will not seek to change the Iranian constitution and run for a third term.