Redstate

with this idea of negotiating directly with Iran.  Two broad reasons why:

1.  As you noted, Iran is a proven supporter of terrorists organizations.  Under at least one pillar of the Bush doctrine, that puts Iran squarely in our crosshairs.  To negotiate with a regime like that, in my view, undermines our moral authority in the struggle at hand against Islamofascism and terrorism.

Regimes like Iran and North Korea, I believe, have everything to gain and nothing to lose by negotiating one-on-one with the United States.  Unless by "negotiation" you mean "presenting non-negotiable demands", out of any negotiation comes pluses and minuses for both parties.  If we are to reward Iran, a country that we have called a member of the Axis of Evil, a country that clearly supports terrorism, and a country that enjoys next to no support from its populace... I see that has an enormous win for the mad mullahs of Tehran.

2.  If we are to seriously negotiate, as opposed to NHL-style "presentation of demands", then we have to offer the mullahs something.  Whatever we do offer, those "carrots" confer legitimacy on the Iranian regime.  In light of the massive changes sweeping the Middle East right now, I'm not convinced that conferring legitimacy to the Iranian theocracy is the way to go.

Ultimately, our goal with Iran has to be regime change, not simply preventing nuclear proliferation.  We have the same goal vis-a-vis North Korea -- regime change, not just keeping the lid on the nuclear genie.  If direction negotiation is the way to regime change, I'd like to know how.

-TS

I understand your concerns with Iran and share your views that Condi and W need to ensure the Iranians don't achieve membership into the nuclear club. However, I think Condi and W have handled this perfectly so far. They need to give diplomacy a chance and the Europeans a chance to make up for their mistakes with regards to Iraq.

I would like to challenge Condi and W concerning the Russians. How is it that we are allowing the Russians to provide Iran the resources to develop a nuclear weapon? Condi and W need to get tougher in their negotiations with Putin to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology.

In addition, do you really think the Israelis will let Iran become a nuclear power? This administration is playing the Iran situation more strategically in that I believe it will come down to an overnight strike by Israeli F-16s to end Iran's nuclear ambitions. Condi and W will seem surprised and outraged by this on the surface but in their plans all along.

well, actually we made certain demands of the Taliban.  The thing is, if we're willing to negotiate with Syria, which is every bit as much a terrorist-harboring country as Iran, why not Iran?  It's been 25 years since the hostages were released, but there's been too much inertia to make any change to our stance.  Also, any direct negotiations we make should be pretty hardline and demanding.  Perhaps throw in a kicker for democratic reforms, which could open the door for regime change.  One other thing, if we do this then we've inoculated ourselves from harangues by the liberal establishment, both national and international.  Not even Clinton went so far as having direct negotiations.  This may be one of those situations where, like over 30 years ago, Nixon could open channels with China but no Democrat could.

I don't think we should rely on Israel to fix this.  The Iranians learned from Osirak.  Their facilities are dispersed and subterranean and hardened, so I don't think Israel has the resources or the firepower to launch a successful strike.  We're the only ones who can thoroughly vaporize the Iranian nuke program.

What Iran wants from the U.S. is a commitment that  we will not attack Iran. Well of course we're not going to attack Iran, unless things get a lot worse, you say, so what harm is there in giving them such a commitment?

Well, just like North Korea, Iran will keep developing nuclear weapons anyway. We'll find out about it one day. But when we threaten then to attack them for breaking their deal, the U.N. is NOT going to side with us. They'll use our pledge not to attack Iran to let Europe and the dictators of the third world claim we are once again being imperialist Americans, breaking a promise not to invade poor little Iran.

And while we are sucked into the negotiating pit, we will look like the hardasses just like we looked like hardasses to the world when we insisted Saddam let the weapons inspectors actually do their job. Intrusive weapons inspections are not smiled upon by the U.N. because they breach so deeply into the sovereignty of the nation being inspected. And the U.N. today is all about smaller countries protecting their sovereignty. So if we take the necessary hard-line stand and insist on provisions which will make any agreement truly enforceable (remember Reagan's "trust but verify"), we will NOT have the support of Europe and the U.N.

Besides, any agreement with Iran will not be worth the paper it's printed on, as they are currently violating several treaties that they are parties to. Remember what North Korea did to us after Bill Clinton did a deal with them.

would we negotiate?  What points?  What Quid Pro Quo?

How much of America's position on Iraq are you willing to compromise?  Why?  For what?

There are moments in nations' relationships with others when it is time to go eyeball-to-eyeball - when 'negotiations' offer nothing - not even time.

This is one of them.

If we have not accepted the reality by now that diplomatic pro forma exercises in futility are worse than worthless, they are dangerous - when will we learn?

School yard bullies do NOT go all soft and mushy the moment they receive the big cow eyes, solid reasonings in sotto voce, and are entertained by pumped up posturing.

School yard bullies generally go all soft and squishy the moment they understand that reactions to their very next bullying act will likely earn them a bloody nose - or worse.

Did we learn anything from the experience with Saddam Hussein?  I mean - if Shawn Penn wasn't able to make the man see the error of his ways . . .

Negotiations with Germany in the late 1930s  resulted in the Phoney War, and then only briefly until the real thing came along.

and let's go to simpler times...were you around during The Iranian Crisis:AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE-DAY 444! That's all we ever heard until that point. Iran proved something to the world and showed muslim extremists how they could hold the American government, people, media, etc. hostage. You also add the real fear factor.

I think you forgot their signing the pact with the Soviets. Now we have to trust the Soviets to monitor all the plutonium, uranium, etc. This from those who brought you Chernobol! Iran sponsors Islamic Jihad and it's funny how they claimed responsibility for the recent suicide attack.

Sorry if I went off this, but has anyone asked the Iranians if they would negotiate with us directly? They still harbor resentment and distrust towards us, and I don't think they stopped calling us The Great Satan!

Of course, I have no problems whatsoever with making demands of the mad mullahs of Tehran.  "Stop your nuclear program now, or ELSE!" is fine by me, but that isn't negotiation.

I do not know to what extent we are negotiating with Syria, so I can't comment on that.  Suffice to say that if it were to be revealed that we promised Baby Assad billions in foreign aid and membership to the WTO in exchange for pulling out or Lebanon, I would be... nonplussed.

The main thing about Iran is that I get a very strong sense that the people of Iran are getting rather sick and tired of the Islamic Revolution, as it were.  It may simply be a matter of time before what's happening in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, the PA, and elsewhere erupts in Tehran as well, with people power sweeping the mullahs from control.  I sincerely hope our clandestine services are funding the heck out of any dissident movements or democracy movements in Iran, that's for certain.

As to the harangues by the liberal establishment... maybe it's just me, but I feel that no matter what Bush or Condi does, they would be harangued.  The liberal establishment is kinda like the Islamists in that way -- it isn't what we DO that pisses them off, it is what we ARE that does.  So no matter what, I think Bush and Condi expect the NYT and its fellow travelers to bash on them.  We should not be concerned.

As to the analogy with China, I think the big difference is that the Iranian theocracy may very well be on the edge of collapse.  Chinese communism never was.  In addition, when Nixon went to China, it was a brilliant move to divide the Russian communists from the Chinese.  The Cold War, after all, was raging.  We don't have such externalities now.  We can't very well triangulate Iran away from Syria, could we?

Bottomline: I don't see the benefits to us or to our foreign policy of a one-to-one negotiation with Iran.

-TS