Posted on 03/22/2008 5:40:38 AM PDT by nuconvert
Unconditional Talks with Iran Could Lead to War
Mar. 21, 2008
Talk to almost anybody in Washington about foreign policy these days and you are likely to hear that Iran is the number one "international problem" for the United States. Pundits and politicians are unanimous that dealing with the Islamic Republic will be one of the key issues of the presidential election campaign.
The question is: what to do about Iran?
It is clear that the leadership in Tehran, boosted by last week's parliamentary elections, is in no mood to offer concessions.
The choice facing policymakers is between standing up to the Islamic Republic, even if that would mean military conflict, and acknowledging its right to pursue whatever policies it desires even if that meant threatening the vital interests of the Western democracies and their regional allies.
To avoid that choice, Senator Barack Obama, the front-runner as the Democrat Party's presidential nominee, has announced that, if elected, he would invite the Islamic Republic's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for "unconditional talks."
This means that Obama would reverse the Bush administration's policy on Iran and ignore three unanimously approved United Nations Security Council resolutions that call on the Islamic Republic to suspend uranium enrichment as a precondition for talks.
However, Obama is no longer alone in his call for "unconditional talks" with Ahmadinejad.
Last week, Henry Kissinger, a foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain, the Republicans' presumptive nominee for president, also called for unconditional talks with Tehran.
A few days after Kissinger's change of position, it was announced that Admiral William J Fallon, Commander of the US forces in the Middle East, had resigned because he disagreed with the administration's policy of keeping the military option open against the Islamic Republic.
Fallon is reported to have opposed plans for intercepting Iranian ships suspected of carrying dual-use products. Instead, the admiral urged his political bosses to think of talking to Tehran.
Then it was the turn of Dennis Ross, a former US peace-broker in the Middle East, to call for unconditional talks with Tehran.
Ross proposed that the talks be coupled with increased sanctions against Tehran with the help of the European Union, Russia and China. To achieve that, he proposed concession to Russia including scrapping US plans to install anti-missile units in Poland and the Czech Republic. (EU and China would also receive unspecified concessions from the US in exchange for harsher sanctions on Iran.)
All this talk of talking to Tehran may well sound eminently reasonable.
However, even if we ignore Ross's weird suggestion to make Tehran angrier by imposing harsher sanctions while inviting it to negotiate a deal, the "talk to Iran" idea is problematic for other reasons.
The first problem is to decide what the talks are going to be about.
The Islamic Republic has never said it was not prepared to talk.
It has been engaged in a dialogue with the EU since 1980 and maintains a cordial conversation with many other countries, among them Russia and China. It has also held secret talks with the US, in 1979, 1985-86, and, more recently, 1999-2000, in addition to public sessions over Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 20007.
The only thing that the Islamic Republic is not prepared to talk about is stopping its uranium enrichment programme as demanded by the Security Council.
To avoid that hurdle some advocates of the "talk to Iran" policy suggest that the uranium enrichment issue not be mentioned. Instead, as Kissinger has put it, the US and its allies should ask Iran to scrap the military aspect of its nuclear programme, thus permanently abandon its right to develop atomic weapons.
The problem is that the Islamic Republic has never admitted it had a programme to build the bomb.
What Kissinger demands is that the Tehran leaders first admit that they ad been lying all the time and had had plans to build the bomb but are now prepared not to do so.
Can Kissinger seriously expect the Iranian "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi to make such an admission?
Even if Tehran leaders were prepared to admit they had been lying, and that they would scrap a programme that they had claimed did not exist, they might still find it hard to offer the undertaking that Kissinger and others demand.
Why should Iran become the only country in the world to abandon the right to develop nuclear weapons?
After all, it is not illegal to acquire the technology to make nuclear weapons or even to manufacture and deploy them.
Some countries, such as Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan and most recently Libya, have voluntarily abandoned that right and scrapped their military nuclear programmes. Nevertheless, even they have not foresworn their right forever and could decide to revive their nuclear programmes any time they wished.
In other words, the "talk to Iran" chorus suggests that Tehran be asked to do something that no self-respecting government would contemplate.
The method that the "talk to Iran" chorus suggests could have disastrous results for all concerned.
It could persuade Tehran that it had already won and that it could ignore the three Security Council resolutions without risk. After all, unconditional talks means that the major powers have dropped their demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment before engaging it in substantial negotiations about future relations.
Also, Tehran may offer concessions on a range of issues, for example sacrificing Hezballah and Hamas and even Syria, in exchange for a tacit acceptance of its nuclear ambitions by the US and its allies. That would put the Western negotiators in a quandary: granting Tehran a big and irreversible prize in exchange for smaller and reversible concessions. Tehran could activate or de-activate its Syrian, Hezbollah and Hamas pawns any time it wished as it has done with Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. However, once Tehran has the bomb no one would be able to put the genie back into the bottle.
The only way the Islamic Republic might abandon its nuclear ambitions is under duress when it realises that the cost of making a bomb, if that is indeed the aim, is much too high in terms of economic suffering, diplomatic isolation and/or military defeat.
Seen from Tehran, the idea of "unconditional talks" looks like a form of surrender by Western powers.
It could strengthen the most radical elements within the regime who could then dismiss their critics as cowards or traitors.
There is another, perhaps more important problem, with the "unconditional talk" policy. It could be tried only once.
If it fails to persuade Tehran to offer the only concession that matters, that is to say stop making raw material for a bomb, the only choice left for the US and its allies would be surrender or the use of force.
In one of those ironies of history, advocates of "unconditional talks" with Tehran may make war more not less likely.
The solution to the Iranian nuke problem and the regime's support of terrorism, is to get rid of the regime. And NO amount of talk with the regime, is going to do that.
I am greatly disappointed that the current administration has not done more to replace the Iranian regime. I know there’s a lot about the situation that I am not privy to, but gosh it seems like with all their internal discontent there must something we can do to get rid of that regime.
The world would be a better place without that bunch being in power and doing everything they can to mess with us.
Nutjob wants nukes: give him 3 of ours,,,ka-boom,,,ka-boon-kaboom!!!
Ann Coulter already answered this question. Invade them, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.
Laws are made by governments. To make it illegal to acquire nuclear weapons would require a world government. I sort of like the way things are now, where it's like a hundred guys in a bar, and everyone knows who's packing. If you got one guy who's crazy drunk and about to pull out an Uzi, you all get together and take him out. What's so hard to understand about that model?
Unconditional talks with Iran would be seen as a Western sellout to those in Iran who oppose the current regime. Mr. Nobama is perfectly willing to check his testicles at the door.
Gee if we only had a President who had the foresight to somehow get American troops stationed on a couple of their borders. Oh wait!
Unfortunately, we missed an excellent opportunity right after we went into Iraq 5 yrs ago. The regime was totally unprepared and the people, seeing us bring down Saddam, were just waiting for us to do the same for them.
Now, the regime has had 5 yrs to buy military equipment, strengthen their forces and defenses, within and outside of Iran, and though they’re obviously still no match for us militarily, it would be a lot messier now.
This Administration - particularly the State Dept. - has listened to some very bad advisor’s on Iran - People who for years have advised against regime change. I think it can be done, though I don’t see how it’s possible to do before Bush leaves office, unless the Republicans win the election in Nov., so that the necessary work can be continued.
“Unconditional talks with Iran would be seen as a Western sellout to those in Iran who oppose the current regime”
Correct
.....The solution to the Iranian nuke problem and the regime’s support of terrorism, is to get rid of the regime. And NO amount of talk with the regime, is going to do that......
Which is to say........
The solution to the Iranian nuke problem and the regime’s support of terrorism, is to get rid of the regime. And NO amount of talk with the regime, is going to do that.
I swear it looks like we are simply incapable of seeing the ‘big picture’.
I am convinced that 90% of our problems stem from the incompetent, in some cases downright treasonous, people in place at State left over from the Clinton administration. And then of course there's the CIA, that's another kettle of fish. I can't imagine what possessed W's mind to cause him to hang on to all those Clinton leftovers. I could see it for a year or two, especially with all the obstructionist tactics that were used to make the transition as difficult as possible, but after that I would have had a Spring cleaning. Either the Clintons have something on W, or he's just too nice a guy.
I am also convinced that time is running out for us to get a handle on that arm of Islam that feels it their Alah-given duty to impose their centuries old way of life and religion on the entire world. I don't understand how we can not see what a disaster it will be for them to get their hands on nuclear weapons, even if just to use them to make dirty bombs. The only thing they understand is a good, firm smackdown. Anything less is seen by them a weakness. They know that if they had the ability they would strike us without hesitation with anything and everything they have, so it's human nature for them to transfer that idea to us.
Unconditional Talks with Iran Could Lead to War...
why worry...b. HUSSEIN will talk with them!!!!
Every time we let them get by with something like capturing those British sailors or threatening our battle groups we're just setting the stage for more problems.
They are simply cowards who don't have what it takes to take us on except by hiding behind civilians and going after civilian targets. The world needs to see them, once for all, for what they are, cowards.
When 3/4 of the other guys in the bar are on the crazy drunk's payroll, it's going to be hard to get any sort of a consensus.
Mark
Mr. Nobama is perfectly willing to check his testicles at the door.
______________________________________
What testicles? He never had any.
Great, Old Henry can argue about the shape of the table for a few weeks.
Reagan despised Kissinger and vice versa. I loved Ronald Reagan. Kissinger can go ahead and retire any time he’s ready.
I agree completely with you, mind games and arming and funding anti mullah groups. Hopefully that is going on right now.
If it is going on right now it’s sure being kept under wraps! Every report seems to indicate their economy is a mess and the people are just short of revolt, but we never seem to see or hear of anything going on that would destabilize the regime.
I said last year that I would warn them that their work to develop a nuclear capability was putting them at great risk for an accident. Then I would have dropped a nuke on them and told the world, “What can we say? We warned them, but they wouldn’t listen!”
Problem solved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.