Say Anything Blog

I admit I am sometimes flabbergasted by how many people think that talking to your enemies is a Bad Thing [tm].  They neglect the fact that most of our enemies are not a single monolythic entity, and that talking to them often favors less hardline elements of those nations that are more favorably disposed to us.  (Put another way, intransigence and an unwillingness to even hold talks with them plays into the hands of the hardliners.) This certainly is the case with respect to Iran, where President Ahmadinejad and his brinksmanship politics has lost him a lot of favor with more moderate elements of Iran (including, interestingly, with the mullahs themselves), and where there is a very strong pro-American (mostly pro-business) constituency within the country.

Cripes, you don’t have to go any further than Libya, where things indeed are much more monolythic, to point to successes of diplomacy over ... whatever the alternative is called, when you turn your back and refuse to ever talk to them.  Many Iranians understand they have more to gain with collaborating with the US than competing with it.

Carrick: The leadership of Iran is the problem, not the people of Iran.  Unfortunately, in a totalitarian regime, one has to talk with the totalitarians, not the people, and that is the problem.  Why would we believe that Mahmoud will be a)honest with us, and b) would keep his word in any agreement? Those are two very good reasons not to “talk” to such dictators.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

R108, the Iranian government is much more multifaceted than a typical totalitarian government, such as that of Libya.  Nonetheless, even in a strict totalitarian regime, progress is possible, and that is my point.  Libya is a prime example.

Libya is no longer pursuing the nuclear option.  It is possible that we could make similar progress with Iran, if we don’t take a completely hardline approach.  You seem to be advocating a non-particpatory approach to the Iranian problem.  As I’ve pointed out, the one who wins from that is hardliners like Ahmadinejad.

Libya is no longer pursuing the nuclear option.  It is possible that we could make similar progress with Iran, if we don’t take a completely hardline approach.

As I remember, it was our hardline approach in Iraq that yielded the concessions from Libya, not any type of negotiation with the totalitarian leader of Libya. My comment clearly stated that it was futile to negotiate with the leadership of Iran; I clearly stated that it didn’t apply to the Iranian people.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Carrick,

I have to agree with R108 here.  The Libyan WMD program was a joint Libyan, Egyptian, Iraqi project, funded in large part by the Iraqis with OFF money.

What got Ghaddafi’s attention was the invasion of Iraq (threat carried out, please note!) and the killing of Saddam’s two sons Uday and Qusay.

Ghaddafi, who suffers from cancer, has every intention of turning the reins (or is it reigns) of power over to his son (much like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarek).  In exchange for giving up the WMD program and allowing the US complete access to the desert mountain facilities, Ghaddafi received a promise that the US would not interfere with the succession of Ghaddafi’s son once his father is gone… a promise which carries a lot more meaning coming from an administration that backs up its threats, and presumably its promises, than from one known to say anything (no pun intended) to acquire or retain power.

Bill Clinton’s promise to “bring the perpetrators to justice...” was so much hot air, as everyone from Tehran to Tunisia was well aware.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

BatOne, I’m not arguing about the details, just whether negotiation works or not.  It works better when it’s backed up with muscle, no doubt.

Bringing up Clinton is an unfair comparison, because his version of negotiation amounted to giving the enemy everything and more they wanted at the start, then hoping a miracle would happen, and we’d get something in return.

In the case of Iran, Ahmadinejad has become very unpopular in his own country, with his hardline position.  A hardline stance on our side simply justifies and in my opinion solidifying his position, which was my other point.