OK Iran, Let's Talk!

Better late than never. The White House and Iranian Foreign Ministry have announced that the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad will meet soon to discuss the situation in Iraq. The move comes five months after the Iraq Study Group recommended that the Bush administration approach Tehran about cooperation in Iraq. Sunday's announcements came a week after Condi Rice and the Iranian foreign minister both said during a conference in Egypt that they were ready for an exchange. For the White House, the gesture toward Tehran, after all its "axis of evil" talk, amounts to a stunning reversal.

If this is the beginning of meaningful U.S. talks with Iran after a 28-year freeze in relations--and that remains a big if--that doesn't mean that achieving meaningful results will be easy. Each side has bottom lines that will be difficult for the other to accommodate. Yet, the Baghdad talks will be a beginning, and at the least may help avert an accidental war. Given the Bush administration's serious difficulties in Iraq, it is hard to envision the U.S. achieving anything approximating success if Iran's interests are not taken into account. That will be easier said than done, however. Iran was a formidible regional power before the Iraq war; with Saddam Hussein's regime gone and Iran's friends in power in Baghdad, Iran's influence has been rising further.

A solid read on what this all means comes from Gary Sick, professor and executive director of Columbia University's Gulf/2000 Project, who was President Carter's principal aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and hostage crisis. He circulated the following take on the U.S.-Iran talks to Gulf 2000 members:

Both the US and (less stridently) Iran continue to maintain that their upcoming talks will focus only on Iraq, not on the nuclear file or on such matters as terrorism or the Arab-Israel dispute. I understand that this is dogma -- at least in Washington -- though I must admit I do not really understand why. If we need to gain Iran's cooperation on Iraq so urgently that we must actually talk to them about it, why is that not true on all of the other issues that we raise whenever we discuss Iran?

Perhaps the system will not bear anything more than this limited opening. In my view, getting the two parties into the same room at the same time with even a limited agenda is quite an accomplishment, given the fact that the US had said only a few months ago that it would not consider such a thing unless Iran met a series of conditions (which they have not). It is reminiscent of the recent Bush administration experience with North Korea, where we had said we would never have direct talks or "do a Clinton"-style agreement, and then we did exactly that. And no one (except the hardliners in the US and Iran who are watching this process with utter anguish and disbelief) was the least bit troubled.

Contrary to those who viewed the US military buildup in the region as a prelude to an attack on Iran, it seems quite likely to me that it was intended to strengthen the US negotiating position in preparation for talks. To me, the crucial turning point was the Iranian capture of the British sailors; if the US was simply waiting for a pretext to escalate into an attack on Iran, that was the perfect chance. But instead, the US suddenly provided Red Cross access to the five Iranian Revolutionary Guards who had been arrested and disappeared into the US secret prison system in Iraq, and then an Iranian diplomat (who had been kidnapped off the street by Iraqi security forces that many thought were closely tied to the CIA) was miraculously released just as Iran relinquished the captive Brits.

If you think that was a pure coincidence, then perhaps you also believe in the tooth fairy. From my limited perch, the Iranian operation appeared to be a demonstration of how they could respond indirectly -- but effectively -- to US provocations without escalating to a full-fledged confrontation. And the US response demonstrated that they understood the point. Then we began talking about talking...

In short, I am convinced that the US has concluded that a military attack on Iran would be a disaster -- for Iran and for the region, needless to say, but perhaps more importantly for President Bush and the Republican Party and its chances to influence or control US politics for the next generation. The alternative is engagement, which is what is happening regardless of the words that are used by the White House.

This process of seeking diplomatic settlements with North Korea, and Iran (the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil since Saddam is no longer with us) and of actively pursuing a negotiated solution to the Arab-Israel dispute is a remarkable shift -- what an old military colleague of mine once described as "an imperceptible 180-degree turn." I personally ascribe this to the combined influence of Condoleezza Rice at State and Bob Gates at Defense -- both old-line cold warriors out of the realist tradition. In particular, the appointment of Gates to Defense has shifted the balance of power in the administration against Cheney, who can still fulminate and
utter threats, but who is on the defensive, along with his allies on the right.

The big question is whether Bush is actually on board for this ride or is just willing to let it go for now in the absence of any better options. If he is unwilling to make any of the hard decisions that would be required for any real progress with Iran on Iraq -- and on the many other issues that I think will inevitably arise in the course of direct negotiations -- then there is little reason to be optimistic.

The Iranians have been angling for direct talks since at least May 2003, after their initial collaboration with the US on Afghanistan dissolved into the "Axis of Evil." Now they have it. Will they be sufficiently smart and unified (given their own poisonous internal disputes) to make it work? It is very difficult after more than 27 years of hostility and vitriol to believe that either the US or Iran is capable of a more enlightened approach to bilateral problems.

The opportunity is there. Is either side able or willing to grasp it, in light of their domestic political battles? Don't count on it. But the odds are marginally better than they were last week.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo