Here is the second edition of my Double Take series, where I choose a specific piece of opinion writing and toil with its core tenets. In this edition, I focus on "The Need for U.S.-Iran Talks" by Roger Cohen published in the New York Times on November 12th, 2012.
America's foreign policy, while packed with humanitarian and democratic ideals has always needed an external threat, some exclusive foe, a perennial boogey-man to use as an international foil and give a reason to fight. It doesn't seem surprising given the fact that the nation was born out of war and established union from the same forge. Now, Iran is specified as the current threat for the United States to contend with, with nuclear access being the major fulcrum at the heart of it all.
The article develops into an assessment of and argument for diplomatic contact between D.C and Tehran. I tend to agree with this particular disposition, of course with some particular limitations that must be addressed before any decision is made, diplomatic or not. Diplomacy is, as Mr. Cohen explained it, an exchange of interests. What the Obama administration has been doing by imposing economic sanctions is slowly building diplomatic capital with which to use in diplomatic talks; by offering to relieve sanctions, they can expect something else in return. This is an appealing approach simply because all else has not pushed anything forward as of yet. Sanctions themselves, while harsh, has not stopped Iran from upping the rhetoric and nuclear research. At the same time, countless speeches by heads of state at the U.N have produced the same amount of positive progress. Direct talks are the only thing that's left short of armed conflict, and while that may not give a solid chance of success, it does buy some more time between the present and that aforementioned armed conflict.
The tricky business with this is that unlike other diplomatic missions in the past that have dealt with America's established foes, none have had other independent countries as interested and as influential as Israel is with whatever talks there are between the U.S and Iran. Not only that, but Israel is perhaps the country with the most political influence over American political leaders by far, especially when elections roll around. Unfortunately, the anti-China side that Nixon faced does not feel itself to be actively lobbying for the survival of an entire country, making Aipac's opposition as any pro-Israeli opposition much more formidable. Even more so than a lack of direct diplomatic cables between the U.S and Iran.
It is crucial however that whatever diplomatic talks come about between D.C and Tehran that they not only focus on the very real world issues facing the two countries, but also acknowledge a real lack of understanding nuclear morality in the Middle East. Apart from some rogue states, every other major area of the world has in some way, shape or form a plan with regards to nuclear armament. A talk with Iran must also include some talk about dealing with the region in terms of nuclear proliferation. In that sense, I see it as finally one good opportunity to do so without the Western World making itself appear unabashedly imperialistic which will just derail any talks with any Middle Eastern countries. That may just be the "courage" that Obama needs, as any negotiations about Middle Eastern nuclear policy will also by definition shed light on the Israeli nuclear program, which has been a clear and somewhat justified point of contention by Iran and other neighbors.
Overall diplomacy is an exciting prospect, mostly because it can either accomplish nothing and maintain the status quo which while not amazing is still relatively more peaceful than war with Iran, or it can accomplish something great, which would only propel other non-nuclear but still explosive conflicts to the forefront of resolution. So yes, diplomacy is important, but it's not so much out of choice as the article presents it. Instead it's the last peaceful option available to both parties in dealing with a nuclear Iran.
More importantly, it is more feasible than war as well, given that as the article states, war is unpopular domestically as it may as well be in Iran, and that a coalition of the willing may be found in economic sanctions but not in invading Iran. The drone point that Mr. Cohen brings out is a good example of this; a hawkish America would have used that as an excuse to go to war and would have been justified given the circumstances of the drone mission in international waters. Instead, it was chosen to not even follow up on such a thought, which is a great signal as to how willing the United States is to go to war.
Eventually it comes down to one final thing; how willing the individual leaders of each country are to seeing peace prevail. The Cold War was not won, it was solved by the few leaders who figured out that peace was more important above all else. In the American case it was more important than living up to ideals of military grandeur, whereas for the USSR it was more important than national and ideological pride. Call me optimistic, but the fact that global destruction was averted over talking points leads me to believe that a positive solution can be found through American-Iranian diplomacy.
America's foreign policy, while packed with humanitarian and democratic ideals has always needed an external threat, some exclusive foe, a perennial boogey-man to use as an international foil and give a reason to fight. It doesn't seem surprising given the fact that the nation was born out of war and established union from the same forge. Now, Iran is specified as the current threat for the United States to contend with, with nuclear access being the major fulcrum at the heart of it all.
The article develops into an assessment of and argument for diplomatic contact between D.C and Tehran. I tend to agree with this particular disposition, of course with some particular limitations that must be addressed before any decision is made, diplomatic or not. Diplomacy is, as Mr. Cohen explained it, an exchange of interests. What the Obama administration has been doing by imposing economic sanctions is slowly building diplomatic capital with which to use in diplomatic talks; by offering to relieve sanctions, they can expect something else in return. This is an appealing approach simply because all else has not pushed anything forward as of yet. Sanctions themselves, while harsh, has not stopped Iran from upping the rhetoric and nuclear research. At the same time, countless speeches by heads of state at the U.N have produced the same amount of positive progress. Direct talks are the only thing that's left short of armed conflict, and while that may not give a solid chance of success, it does buy some more time between the present and that aforementioned armed conflict.
The tricky business with this is that unlike other diplomatic missions in the past that have dealt with America's established foes, none have had other independent countries as interested and as influential as Israel is with whatever talks there are between the U.S and Iran. Not only that, but Israel is perhaps the country with the most political influence over American political leaders by far, especially when elections roll around. Unfortunately, the anti-China side that Nixon faced does not feel itself to be actively lobbying for the survival of an entire country, making Aipac's opposition as any pro-Israeli opposition much more formidable. Even more so than a lack of direct diplomatic cables between the U.S and Iran.
It is crucial however that whatever diplomatic talks come about between D.C and Tehran that they not only focus on the very real world issues facing the two countries, but also acknowledge a real lack of understanding nuclear morality in the Middle East. Apart from some rogue states, every other major area of the world has in some way, shape or form a plan with regards to nuclear armament. A talk with Iran must also include some talk about dealing with the region in terms of nuclear proliferation. In that sense, I see it as finally one good opportunity to do so without the Western World making itself appear unabashedly imperialistic which will just derail any talks with any Middle Eastern countries. That may just be the "courage" that Obama needs, as any negotiations about Middle Eastern nuclear policy will also by definition shed light on the Israeli nuclear program, which has been a clear and somewhat justified point of contention by Iran and other neighbors.
Overall diplomacy is an exciting prospect, mostly because it can either accomplish nothing and maintain the status quo which while not amazing is still relatively more peaceful than war with Iran, or it can accomplish something great, which would only propel other non-nuclear but still explosive conflicts to the forefront of resolution. So yes, diplomacy is important, but it's not so much out of choice as the article presents it. Instead it's the last peaceful option available to both parties in dealing with a nuclear Iran.
More importantly, it is more feasible than war as well, given that as the article states, war is unpopular domestically as it may as well be in Iran, and that a coalition of the willing may be found in economic sanctions but not in invading Iran. The drone point that Mr. Cohen brings out is a good example of this; a hawkish America would have used that as an excuse to go to war and would have been justified given the circumstances of the drone mission in international waters. Instead, it was chosen to not even follow up on such a thought, which is a great signal as to how willing the United States is to go to war.
Eventually it comes down to one final thing; how willing the individual leaders of each country are to seeing peace prevail. The Cold War was not won, it was solved by the few leaders who figured out that peace was more important above all else. In the American case it was more important than living up to ideals of military grandeur, whereas for the USSR it was more important than national and ideological pride. Call me optimistic, but the fact that global destruction was averted over talking points leads me to believe that a positive solution can be found through American-Iranian diplomacy.
Liked what you read? Want to know when the next post is up? Then join the Academy Facebook Page to stay up to date on everything Academy.
