Her own summation of the article:
"In short, stop talking about talking and start talking with Iran."
Huh? "Talking" is not a policy. You have to talk about something, tosomeone. Do you talk to Khamenei? Ahmadinejad? Moussavi? When do you start talking? When the "dust settles" is hardly a clear answer. Will the American public even support dialogue after the current bloodshed? Do you engage in private talks? Do you talk through an interlocutor, e.g. the Swiss? Will the hardline leadership, assuming it is able to consolidate its power after this current bout of protests, even be receptive to talking?
And then the real issue- what do we talk about? It is a waste of time to talk about the nuclear issue with Ahmadinejad (I doubt Khamenei would enter negotiations). Making Iran nuclear is the cornerstone of Ahmadinjad's platform and is broadly popular in Iran. We have no common interests when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation. There is, however, always progress to be made in cooperation over Iraq and Afghanistan, two places where American-Iranian interests coincide.
But after the events of the past two weeks, the U.S. really has nothing to talk about with Ahmadinejad, or even with Khamenei. I wish things were different, because I always favor engagement. But the times call for containment. American problems with Iran are endemic within the current power structure.
What does containment mean? It means prying away Syria, continuing to support the March 14th coalition in Lebanon (which won again in the last elections), working to improve Arab-Israeli relations, improving Russian-American relations, and keep selling arms to the Saudis.
Thankfully, the Iranian people have ripped off the facade of the Islamic Republic and exposed its government to be nothing more than a loathsome sham. Ultimately, we'll have to contain Iran and wait for the current regime to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. But "talking" isn't a policy by itself, and as far as I am concerned, there is nothing to talk about as long as the current leadership remains in power.
-Jon
Comments
Jon,
I generally agree with your critique I have two bones to pick. First, I think containment is an even less promising strategy that engagement. Simply put, it is only a matter of time before can build a nuclear bomb--technically speaking. The only hope for a roll-back is to change the regimes political calculus, which has to involve increased engagement. The question you raise is of who we should talk and what we should say is valid and I hope to post my ideas once I get more than five minutes to sit down and write.
Second, and it is a minor point, I wouldn't consider expanding arms sales to Saudi Arabia a containment strategy. To me it seems more like counterbalance strategy and a dangerous one at that. We do need to reassure our allies in Saudi Arabia of our commitment to their security but we don't need to load the chamber for World War III. That said, the Saudi will probably just buy from China if we cut back but that's is a debate for another time...
