Talking To Iran
The New York Times is reporting that there are internal debates within the administration over whether to open talks with Iran or not. Many of the senior officials are against doing so, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Sources for the story were granted anonymity, so it is difficult to decide what level people are debating it at this point. It would seem to be some high level Europeans that are in favor of it and possibly some mid to mid-upper Americans (that's a guess from the way the article phrases a few things).
But since the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the crisis over the seizure of American hostages in November that year, the United States has avoided direct talks with Iran. There were sporadic contacts during the war in Afghanistan, in the early stages of the Iraq war and in the days after the earthquake in Bam, Iran, at the end of 2003.
European officials say Ms. Rice has begun discussing the issue with top aides at the State Department. Her belief, they say, is that ultimately the matter will have to be addressed by the administration's national security officials, whether talks with Iran remain at an impasse or even if there is some progress.
But others who know her well say she is resisting on the ground that signaling a willingness to talk would show weakness and disrupt the delicate negotiations with Europe. Ms. Rice is also said to fear that the administration might end up making too many concessions to Iran.
Rice's position is spot on in this matter. If the US talks to Tehran, they will interpret it as weakness. Period. There is only one way in which we could do so and not appear weak, as Charles Krauthammer said yesterday. If European powers endorsed talks as a last resort and promised military support if the talks fail, then we would not be seen as weak. Ultimately that unified threat of force would make it less likely that force would need to be used.
Showing weakness would increase the probability of war to a near certainty.
By Laney, May 30, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
Krauthammer is trying to start a war against an enemy of Israel. He has done this before. Anyone who notices will be called an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist.
By Gaius, May 30, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
That’s a pretty outlandish conspiracy theory you have going there, Laney. He’s a columnist for heaven’s sake.