Ilan Goldenberg makes some good points disputing my recent Iran posts. He may be right that holding off top-level negotiations until after Iran’s June elections would be offensive to the Iranians–and also convey the impression that we’re backing a horse in that race. But I’d be wary about dealing with Ahmadinejad before the elections, since that would convey the impression that we take him seriously. We shouldn’t. Any negotiations should start off low-key, with Iranians known to be close to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and with none of the candidates for president.
And while Goldenberg is also right that working out a new deal with Russia–a bilateral reduction in nukes, the suspension of the U.S. anti-missile system in return for real Russian cooperation with UN sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program–will take some time, there are other things that can be done immediately, like sending a U.S. Ambassador back to Damascus. Also, we should begin looking for ways to re-engage the Iranians in the stabilization of Afghanistan. All I’m saying is that the table needs to be set for productive talks. That means engagement across the board, in ways that are direct and indirect, ways that challenge Iran’s favorable status quo with Russia and Syria, and ways that may be advantageous to Iran–and us, by the way–in Afghanistan. We need to convey a complexity and suppleness in our diplomacy, a comprehensive sense of Iran’s region and needs, if we expect to be taken seriously.
Even if we do all of the above, it may yield nothing. But during the Bush Adminisitration we did none of the above and it yielded worse than nothing–an empowered Iran.