Home » Blogs » Blake Hounshell's blog

Obama's Iran dilemma: when to engage?

Mon, 12/01/2008 - 10:48pm

There seems to be a consensus in Washington about the United States' need to engage in talks with Iran. But how and when? Peter Baker reports on the debate brewing over this latter question:

Two leading research groups plan to issue a report Tuesday calling on him to move quickly to open direct diplomatic talks with Iran without preconditions.

The report by the groups, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations, urges Mr. Obama to put all issues on the table with Iran, including its nuclear program. The proposal calls for "swift early steps" to exploit a "honeymoon" period between his inauguration and the internal political jockeying preceding Iran's presidential elections in June.

The report breaks with experts on Iran who say Mr. Obama should wait until a clear winner emerges in Iran and calls instead for "treating the Iranian state as a unitary actor rather than endeavoring to play its contending factions against one another." The report also calls on him to back Israeli peace talks with Syria.

Karim Sadjadpour, a prominent Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has been arguing that the United States should "refrain from any grand overtures to Tehran" until after the Iranian elections. Sadjadpour worries that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president, would otherwise be able to say that his hardline policies brought the Great Satan to its knees.

The trick, then, is to show enough leg that you help bring a more responsible government to power in Tehran, but not so much that the United States looks weak. A delicate task, no doubt.

UPDATE: The report is here. 

Blake Hounshell | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

What dilemma?

by kidzib on Tue, 12/02/2008 - 10:21am

I don't see any dilemma here. The think tanks are correct in pushing for talks without preconditions; they're just talks, though. Mr. Sadjadpour is also right in rejecting immediate "grand overtures" - but I hardly think direct talks would count. I think any moves towards a normalization of relations with Iran, starting with the opening of an interests office, would count as a "grand overture." If we made those moves pre-election, then presidential candidates will inevitably trade barbs over who is most likely to cave in and turn soft on the Americans. If, however, we make those moves post-election, the candidates will instead be arguing who is best poised to repair the troubled US-Iran relationship and take Iran off the international sh*t list. I would also add that no grand overtures should be made whatsoever if Ahmadinejad wins reelection. It would be moronic to award any government of his. The next Iranian president will probably be Larijani, who is a hardliner but also razor smart and can be worked with.

TALK NOW

by Sam on Tue, 12/02/2008 - 11:39am

1- Iran's internal politics is not much affected by its foreign relations.

2- The President, doesn't have all the power in Iran, much of the power is concentrated in the hands of Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, (Its a good idea for the media to learn and remember his name!)

3- With all respect Mr. Sadjadpour is either wrong or affiliated in some way to some opposition in within Iranian Government (either Conservatives or Reformists), AhmadiNejhad has hurt them several time more than hurting ordinary people.

4- The problem of Iran with the West and US in particular is about the model of the world and the region. In its Regional view, Iran does not want to accept A region, without a regional super power, in peace with Israel, and the US military presence in Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern countries. In its world view, Iran does not accept the ruling power of UN Security Council and always tries to play an equilibrating game with competing powers, a model that used to work well in the Cold War period, and perhaps will work again in 40 years from now!

5- The best time to talk with such a country is when it's weakest, aka! NOW! of course it will help AhmadiNejhad, but so what! US has its own interests and its the best time to pursue them. This doesn't contradict with no. 1 & 2, AhmadiNejhad behaves crazily, but is brave and smart. He is much more independent than former reformist Khatami. His ties with Khamenei has weakened, he is partially cornered within Government and under pressure by Parliament, but he is still Popular and he will bargain well for his re-election.

6- The best strategy is for Department of State to start talking to AhmadiNejhad, while at the same time, people in the Senate, and perhaps office of Vice President Biden (who is regarded as a more reliable American in Iran) to talk to Parliament, i.e. Larijani and other closer alies to Khamenei; and about the reformists? forget about them! they are dead, and don't forget, these reformists were in charge of the 1980's hostage crisis.