Make an offer
Toolbox
Published: August 24, 2006
Iran is sending mixed signals about whether it wants to enter serious negotiations about the future of its nuclear program. The United States needs to test whether Iran truly is serious. But in order to do so, the United States must also be serious.
It is important for the United States and the West to refrain from panic about Iran's potential for developing a nuclear weapon. But it is important to take seriously the danger such a weapon would represent to Israel and the United States. There is a tendency to hope that possession of a nuclear bomb would encourage new sobriety on the part of its possessors, but hope on matters of nuclear annihilation is not enough.
Still, seriousness about the Iranian threat need not lock the United States into a self-defeating attitude of hostility and belligerence. We are not yet at the brink, and if there are ways to stay away from the brink while curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions, it would be irresponsible and foolhardy not to pursue them.
And it seems there are other avenues. As columnist Trudy Rubin has written, Iran made overtures in 2003 to discuss a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, but the Bush administration was not interested. In the spring of this year, Iran's supreme leader endorsed talks with the United States, and Rubin heard from many Iranian officials that Iran was seeking recognition and acceptance from the West.
Were these overtures mere diversions, phony olive branches, designed to fool the United States into concessions? President Bush never found out because he never followed up.
Rubin advises making an offer Iran cannot refuse. That offer is recognition and acceptance in the community of nations.
The main obstacle preventing the United States from pursuing talks with Iran appears to be Bush's indecision about whether to pursue regime change in Iran or to seek to change Iran's behavior. Thus, Bush refuses to extend security guarantees to Iran or to promise that the United States will not attack or undermine the regime. And by refusing to rule out an invasion, Bush defines the United States as Iran's enemy and pushes Iran into a corner where belligerence against the United States is the only policy that makes sense.
Bush's recalcitrance with regard to Iran parallels his recalcitrance on the issue of torture. He does not want to admit the slightest restraint on his power of action because it would seem like weakness. But does the United States really intend to invade Iran? War planning is said to be under way, but rather than widen the present cauldron of Middle Eastern chaos, which would probably not even achieve our goals (see Lebanon), why not pursue a less belligerent policy that might yield a positive result?
If the United States accepted Iran into the international community, the onus would be on Iran to behave responsibly. That could mean agreement to curb its nuclear program. If Iran reneged, we would be back where we are today. Nothing gained, nothing lost.
As long as Bush treats Iran as the enemy, it will act like an enemy. Creating the conditions that will yield a peaceful resolution is the job of a leader, and at this crucial moment, leadership is what we need.
13