Iranian Ploy

Charles Krauthammer, writing in today's Washington Post hits this one exactly right. The latest ploy by Iran to demand direct negotiations with the US is a ploy. That there is suddenly an outpouring of support among leftists and European commenters shows exactly how cynical so much criticism of the Bush administration has been. The US was excoriated for unilateralism leading up to the Iraq war. Now we're being told unilateralism is the way to go. We were reviled for not consulting Europe, now we're being told that Europe would rather we leave them out of it.

Mark my words. The momentum for U.S.-Iran negotiations has only begun. The focus of the entire Iranian crisis will begin to shift from the question of whether Tehran will stop its nuclear program to whether Washington will sit down alone at the table with Tehran.

To this cynical bait-and-switch, there can be no American response other than No. Absolutely not.

Just yesterday the world was excoriating the Bush administration for its unilateralism — on Kyoto, the ABM Treaty and, most especially, Iraq — and demanding that Washington act in concert with the "international community." Just yesterday the Democratic nominee for president attacked President Bush's foreign policy precisely for refusing to consult with, listen to and work with "the allies."

Another day, another principle. Bush is now being pressured to abandon multilateralism and go it alone with Iran. Remember: In September 2003, after Iran was discovered cheating on its nuclear program, the United States wanted immediate U.N. action. The allies argued for a softer approach. Britain, France and Germany wanted to negotiate with Tehran and offer diplomatic and economic carrots in return for Iran's giving up its nuclear weapons program. The United States acquiesced.

After 2 1/2 years of utter futility, the E.U. Three had to admit failure and acknowledge the obvious: Iran had no intention of giving up its nuclear ambitions. Iran made the point irrefutable when it broke International Atomic Energy Agency seals and brazenly resumed uranium enrichment.

This is so transparently an attempt to shift the debate away from Iran and it's wrongdoing that it should be – and probably really is – obvious to anyone who is demand the US agree to this. This is smoke and mirrors. Krauthammer's suggestion on what conditions might make it reasonable to negotiate are spot on:

Entering negotiations carries with it the responsibility to do something if they fail. The E.U. Three understood that when they took on the mullahs a couple of years ago. Bilateral U.S.-Iran talks are the perfect way to get Europe off the hook. They would preempt all the current discussions about sanctions, place all responsibility for success on the negotiations and set America up to take the blame for their inevitable failure.

It is an obvious trap. We should resolutely say no.

Except on one condition. If the allies, rather than shift responsibility for this entire process back to Washington, will reassert their responsibility by pledging support for U.S. and/or coalition military action against Iran in the event that the bilateral talks fail, then we might achieve something.

If Europe agrees to back the US publicly in the use of force if negotiations fail it will become less likely, not more likely, that the use of force will be actually needed. If Iran knows that a united US and Europe will deal with it militarily if they fail to negotiate in good faith, Iran will be much more likely to come to terms.