The Redhunter

Frank Gaffney outlines at least three reasons why negotiating with Iran is a bad idea

First, such negotiations will legitimate one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet. By acceding to the pressure to accord the mullahocracy in Tehran the status of equal partners and members in good standing of the “community of nations”....

Second, embracing Ahmadinejad and his mullahs in this way can only alienate our natural allies: the people of Iran. They have lately been demonstrating a growing willingness to challenge the Islamofascists who have oppressed them for so long.

Third, the adoption of the negotiating track effectively forecloses other options for dealing with the danger posed by the Iranian regime. In particular, efforts to bring about its downfall will be precluded. Diplomats predictably will insist that nothing be done — for example, through covert operations, more far-reaching and effective economic sanctions, military preparations, or political warfare — that will jeopardize the prospects for successful negotiations.

All three are good reasons not to engage in high-level public negotiations, but the last one strikes me as being particularly important. Several months ago I proposed several actions we ought to take that fall short of military strikes, but do not involve "negotiations" either. They include a human rights campaign, support for democratic movements inside Iran, propaganda, and giving them their own insurgency to worry about.

But Gaffney is right; diplomats will put a brake on any covert or overt actions. They won't even want a public human rights campaign for fear that it would "disrupt sensitive negotiations".

The Administration used to insist that it would never negotiate with states which sponsored terrorism. Iran is supposed to be part of the "axis of evil." What has changed? Andy McCarthy asks the same question

Other than the fact that we have now caught the Iranians red-handed killing Americans in Iraq and that the Iranians have made plain that they have no intention of foregoing their nuclear ambitions, what has changed in the last six months to suddenly transform these uncompromising, murdering extremists into negotiation material?

The only answer I can think of is what I stated above, that the administration is in full pander mode.

Talking vs Negotiating

Let's get one thing out of the way right now; there's a difference between "talking" and "negotiating". We "talk" with everyone. This is something you do in the back room of the a third party embassy somewhere in a rarely-traveled corner of the world. I'm certain we're "talking" with Iran right now, using the back room of the Canadian embassy in Madrid or something like that. Secret trips also count, such as when Kissinger's secret trip to China in 1971.

But when people say "negotiate" they mean the public stuff that occurs when high-ranking diplomats disappear behind closed doors and come out to a throng of journalists eagerly snapping photos and pushing microphones in their faces. This is a whole 'nother matter.

Defined this way, you simply don't enter into negotiations unless you're pretty sure of what the result is going to be. So when President Nixon made his public trip to China in 1972, he knew what was going to happen because Kissinger had laid the groundwork the year before.

But walking into high-level negotiations without this groundwork is like walking onto a minefield. This is what happened in 1986 when Reagan and Gorbachev got together at Reykjavik Iceland. The whole thing essentially blew up, and each came home to bad press. In the long run I think it became clear that Reagan got the better of Gorbachev, but my point is the danger in entering into high-level negotiations when the groundwork has not been properly laid.

What Do You Even Say To Them?

For those who say that we should negotiate with Iran I have one simple question; what exactly are we supposed to say to them?

I ask honestly, because for the life of me I don't know. "Please stop sending weapons into Iran"? "Please stop your nuclear weapons program"?

Negotiations can only succeed when there is the possibility of reaching common ground. Each side gives a little, and in the end the end you meet somewhere inbetween. But the US and Iran have diametrically opposed views on the future of the Middle East. The US wants a pluralistic Iraq, the better which to spread liberty around the region and thus combat jihadism. Yes, we also want a steady supply of oil but we'd pretty much get that in any event (they've got to sell it to someone. An embargo hurts them in the long run too). Iran wants to create a Khumeinist superstate that can compete the Sunni jihadists. I do not see the possibility of meaningful agreement.

If any commenters can enlighten me please do so. I insist, however, that you avoid generalities and tell me exactly what you would say and how you think they'd react.

There's a fierce debate going on right now over at The Corner on just this. Andrew Stuttaford says that we should negotiate with Iran, and the others are beating him up over it. Mark Levin asks essentially the same question that I put to Stuttaford in an email today; "So, Andrew, I'm curious, these discussions you argue for, what what you say and to whom?" Stuttaford hasn't responded yet, and I'll be at CPAC the rest of this week so might not be able to check aback for awhile. However, Andy McCarthy has posted a hilarious parody of how talks might go.

Meanwhile

Iran continues to ship arms to the terrorist insurgents in Iraq. I'm sure the far left is dismissing this evidence because "Bush lied!" on WMD.

Two weeks ago the Financal Times published an internal European Union document in which officials conclude that negotiations with Iran will probably fail and that "at some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme."

Just thought you'd like to know.