March 19, 2004
Why We Should Not Negotiate With Iran
Pejman Yousefzadeh makes some pretty convincing points as to why negotiations with Iran over inspections of their nuclear capabilities would undermine the reformist forces there and strengthen Khamenei. It seems unlikely that negotiations with a fundamentalist regime such as Iran's could produce anything beneficial to our interests. Of course, if the Iraq-hawks are correct, then shouldn't our willingness to attack Iraq have the Iranian ayatollahs cowering in fear and ready to abandon their nuclear programs? Or maybe they realize that our forces are over-extended and our nation isolated from the international community, leaving us unable to launch new wars even if the population were to support another. If Iran fails to act according to US demands does that discredit the deterrent with which the Iraqi war has supposedly gifted us?
Well I didn't get a chance to read all the links and admittedly, I don't know all the facts. I thought Yousefzadeh's argument reasonable enough, although his T.R. quote is pretty repulsive to me.
But I tend to disagree with this argument. First of all, as Drum points out, negotiation does not equal appeasement. Negotiating with Iran on nuclear weapons does not "bestow legitimacy" on the regime--it shows that we are sane. It is certainly in our interests to keep up inspections in Iran and keep them honest. Frankly speaking, we SHOULD be concerned about them developing nuclear weapons. Considering our recent actions, it may be the mullahs' only hope of survival.
But for me there is a lot more to the Iran issue. I think the recent "elections" in Iran, where reformist parties boycotted, is another fiasco directly related to Bush foreign policy. The ouster of the Taliban (which was, of course, in the interest of both Iran and the US) should have led to better relations (and I don't mean endorsing the mullahs-I mean mutual respect with healthy dialougue and criticism) and it didn't. Simply put, the idiocy of calling Iran "evil" and America's bogeyman status undermines the legitimacy of pro-democracy forces within Iran. First of all the reformist prime minister found himself siding with the mullahs against Bush's idiotic accusations and warmongering. In addition, the typical reformist is forced to argue along the following lines--they like American (or Western) democracy yet disagree with American imperialism. This doesn't exactly make for good propaganda.
Would negotiation have helped? I think so. First of all it might have conferred further legitimacy on the reformist prime minister. It's not like the mullahs are ever going to say "We're endorsed by America" or "If you like America, you should like us". What do these people think is going to happen? Coke bottles with Khomeni pictures? Allah's amusement park? Give me a break. American culture and the mullahs are enemies--the people know this. The people want change, but they also need to know that Americans are willing to respect their culture and religion.
Constructive engagement helps give moral legitimacy to our (publically stated) problems with the aspects of the Iranian constitution and democracy that are a sham. It is (or would have been) perfectly possible that, eventually, the military elements will/would sympathize with the reformists or simply recognize the mullahs are finished. And voila--there you have it. A bloodless revolution without the necessity of foreign intervention and the inevitable resentment that goes along with it.
Now, of course, the situation has deteriorated drastically. I have no clue what we should do now. But I tend to think there's still some hope.
Think about it--does the fact that democracy is basicaly a sham in Russia (or China) necessiate disengagement? Powell is actually allowed to write op-eds saying Russian democracy is flawed big-time. The Russian media report it and the people respect what he has to say. But since we officially oppose EVERYTHING about Iran, why should Iranians care what we think?
Finally, the hypocrisy of this whole "Iran is evil" argument, in the eyes of both Iranians the rest of the world, irritates the hell out of me. Iran is (or was) one of the only nations in the Middle East that even ALLOWS demonstrations for democracy. It is, with the possible exception of Turkey, the most democratic and Western-oriented political culture in the Mideast. Sure, their western orientation has faded over the years under the mullahs, but that doesn't mean it was snuffed out. It is actually coming back. An ethnologist friend of mine who specializes in Iran assures me that the level of education, culture, and openness of opinion in Iran is way, way beyond what our media outlets would allow us to see. And that Iranian Islam is NOWHERE near as extreme as Wahabiism or other extremist elements. In fact, there are a lot of things the West can learn from Iran, starting with their music, thier poetry, and their legendary sense of hospitality.
Personally, I would prefer a discussion here in the US that began to take the unique culture and history of Iran into account (starting with the burgeoning film scene) and did not merely deal in abstractions about whether "democracies" should overthrow "non-democracies" etc. etc. This is a dead-end of talking points and willful blindness, eventually leading to war.