The Spectator

The neo-con case for talking to Iran

The neo-con case for talking to Iran
Text settings
Comments

Bob Kagan, one of the smartest and most influential American foreign policy thinkers, has a compelling piece on how to deal with Iran in the Washington Post. 

Here’s how he starts:

“Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- and there is much to question in the report -- its practical effects are indisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action against Iran during its remaining time in office, or credibly threaten to do so, unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action. A military strike against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities was always fraught with risk. For the Bush administration, that option is now gone. 

Neither, however, will the administration make further progress in winning international support for tighter sanctions on Iran. Fear of American military action was always the primary reason Europeans pressured Tehran. Fear of an imminent Iranian bomb was secondary. Bringing Europeans together in support of serious sanctions was difficult before the NIE. Now it is impossible.” The point about the Europeans and sanctions is, perhaps, a little sweeping. But it would certainly be correct if applied to the international community as a whole. Stephen and Daniel Finkelstein are right: Iran mothballing its weapon programme in 2003 is an argument for sanctions. But sadly the United Nations does not work logically and the rest of the world will conclude that if Tehran has suspended its nuclear weapons programme then there is no need to tighten sanctions on the regime.

Kagan’s conclusion is that it is time for the Bush administration to talk to Iran. His view is that much of the world thinks that the real obstacle to solving the Iran problem is American intransigence; by offering to talk Washington destroys that argument. Second, talking is not the same as appeasing. As Kagan says, “There's no reason the United States cannot talk to Iran while beefing up containment in the region and pressing for change within Iran.” Finally, by starting talks now Washington denies Tehran one of the things it wants most: time. 

If the Bush administration doesn’t try and open talks then the next administration probably will, and certainly will if the president’s a Democrat. So the same result will be achieved but just with Tehran gaining an extra year.