Decision ‘08

Why Not Talk To Iran and Syria?

QUESTION: One of the…recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report was the idea that the United States should talk to Syria and Iran. Now, you’ve dealt with this — I’ve heard your language on this before, but I — part of the argument is that during the worse period of the Cold War, the United States talked at very high levels with the Soviet Union, even when the Soviet Union was engaged in all sorts of proxy wars against the United States throughout the world. And yet we’ve not had a figure of your stature talk to the Syrians for a long time. I think I was there when Powell went in 2003. In Iran it’s been, you know, it went back when I was in college. So what is the –

SECRETARY RICE: You’re that young Glenn — (laughter) –

QUESTION: Yes, I think so. Anyway, what is the roadblock there? What is the difficulty with simply sitting down and talking with them and making — in the way that we did with the Soviet Union?

SECRETARY RICE: Okay. Well, let me make three points. The first is that on Syria, you’re right, Colin Powell talked to them. When the President was reelected Rich Armitage talked to them. It’s not a matter of not talking to them; it’s a matter that they never act.

QUESTION: I think they would say that you’ve lectured them and there was no real good –

SECRETARY RICE: Well, there are certain things that about which there should be no give and take, like stop supporting terrorists is a kind of non-negotiable demand. So, yes, I think we have talked to the Syrians. On the Iranians, well, we would have ended 27 years of policy. I think I put it very, very — I thought in fairly colorful language. I’d meet my counterpart any place, any time. All they have to do is suspend their enrichment — which has been, by the way, a demand of the international system going back a couple of years ¿ that¿s so that the talks don’t become a cover for continued enrichment activity that just practices how to resolve the engineering difficulties that would then allow you to go industrial-scale production. So the offer is there. And by the way, we didn’t say you could talk only about the nuclear issue; we said we could talk about anything. But they couldn’t take up that offer.

Now in the current context, I think the problem is that you have to ask if Iran and Syria are, in fact, have decided that it’s in their interest to have an Iraq that is more stable than the one now, even if it’s not full stable — more stable than the one now, I assume they’ll act. I assume they’ll do it. And that we aren’t the ones who have to tell them to do it.

The other explanation is they’re looking for compensation to do that and that’s a problem. Because when you go to the table, particularly in the circumstances now where you’re going and saying, please, help us with the stability of Iraq, the potential that what they’re really looking for is compensation. And then you have to ask — it’s very high — and they you have to say, what is that compensation? Well, on the Syrian side, I suspect that the highest priorities are being played out in the streets of Lebanon including about the tribunal, including about Syrian power in Lebanon. And on the Iranian side, the Iranians have been pretty upfront about it. They’re not going to talk about Iraq over here and their nuclear program over there. And so do you really want get yourself into a situation in which you’re talking about allowing the Iranians to continue to acquire the nuclear technology that will allow them to build a nuclear weapon to try and achieve or try to get their support in Iraq where, if they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they’ll do it anyway. So I just — I think we have to come down from the level of talk to them and ask what’s really going on here.

Contra our good friend Peter, I find myself in basic agreement with the Administration position on this one…

8 Responses to “Why Not Talk To Iran and Syria?”

1 peter Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Rice’s explanation for not talking to the Iranians and Syrians boils down to the following:

1) We won’t talk to the Iranians because they won’t suspend their enrichment first
2) If it is in the Syrian or Iranian interest to help stabilize Iraq, they will do it regardless of whether or not we have talks
3) They are “looking for compensation”

I think that her thinking is short-sighted and counter-productive, for these reasons:

1) The end result of talking to the Iranians will hopefully be the cessation of their nuclear program. However, this is most of what Iran has to offer, and nobody enters a negotiation by bargaining away his chips before the talks start. By insisting that Iran give up its program before we will even start talking to them, we have given them an empty invitation. Moreover, it achieves nothing: they can merrily develop their nukes, as our refusal to have serious negotiations simply perpetuates the status quo. We’re not achieving anything by not talking to them – in fact, things are getting worse because time is on their side – so why not have talks with no pre-conditions?

2) If Syrians and Iranians decide that it is in their interest to stabilize Iraq – a big if – they are more likely to do so if we negotiate with them. Diplomacy is the art of finding out what your enemy’s interests are and applying leverage to influence their behavior. A breakthrough in one area may lead to a breakthrough elsewhere. However, if we are to be spectators and not participants, we have no ability to influence behavior.

3) Who cares if they are “looking for compensation?” So are we – we need their help in a number of areas, and they need our help in other areas (e.g., trade and technology). Having discussions is not tantamount to giving away the store – it is a recognition that each side can provide something to the other, and a successful negotiation will compensate both parties.

The administration has refused to talk to countries it considers unfriendly for six years, and this approach has achieved nothing. An unidentified foreign diplomat was quoted in the Times in a different context yesterday as saying that “there will be no diplomacy until Bush is out of office.” Time favors the Iranians, the North Koreans, and the Syrians. Why should we let things move backwards for another two years?
2 Mark Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
I disagree with your assertion that we have refused to talk to unfriendly nations. We are engaged in talks with North Korea right now (quite unfruitfully), and we made common cause with Pakistan to pursue our goals in Afghanistan. Iran is not just defying the United States with their program, it is defying the UN Security Council as well. This is a big deal; at the very minimum, they must suspend their program as a precondition. Likewise, Syria must, at a minimum, agree to the Hariri tribunal.

These are not bargaining chips, they are moral imperatives…
3 peter Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
The talks with North Korea are as part of a six-nation conference: we have consistently refused their request for one-on-one talks. Pakistan was not an unfriendly country when we increased our aid to them to get them to be a partner in fighting Al Qaeda (although calling them a partner overstates the case: the Taliban and local warlords control much of Northern Pakistan). We played both sides in the Pakistan-India conflict.

Iran may be defying the UN and Syria may be impeding a Hariri tribunal, and presumably they will continue to do so. There is no guarantee that negotiations will change their behavior, but it is reasonably certain that refusing to talk with them will simply maintain the status quo. If you want Iran and Syria to act more responsibly, how do you expect to achieve this by refusing to negotiate with them?
4 Mark Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Well, there once was a time when the UN at least had the guts to put some teeth in its resolutions - but admittedly, that’s gone by the wayside.

However, even sitting at the table with a country whose President denies the Holocaust and threatens the very existence of Israel is granting him a status that the slug does not deserve. Likewise, Syria’s meddling in Lebanon shows quite clearly what kind of ’stability’ they would bring to Iraq.

Talking for the sake of talking doesn’t interest me. There should be a clear goal in mind, not just chit-chat…
5 Mark Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
And I understand your point that we must bargain our way to Iran’s willingness to give up its nuclear program rather than set it as a precondition - but what can we possibly offer that will make Iran give that up willingly? Our support for Israel is not for sale…
6 peter Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
The Iranian economy is in the tank (despite high oil prices) and their infrastructure is a disaster. Our leverage comes in dropping trade sanctions and allowing companies like Microsoft, Citibank, and Apple to do business there. Would they agree to a grand bargain which stops the nuclear program and participates responsibly in rebuilding Iraq in return for trade and technology?

We’ll never know unless we try…
7 Mark Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Well, I admire your optimism, if nothing else…
8 peter Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
I’m not sure if I would call it optimism — sometimes the task is to find the least bad option, and in this case I think that would be negotiation.

If you want to argue that we are best served by refusing to talk to Iran and Syria, then you have to make the case why the status quo (or some other option) is more likely to succeed than negotiations, and I’m not sure if that case can be made.