Iran's drive for nukes might not be primarily about respect, but that's clearly a big part of it. Given that Tehran is gunning for a little r-e-s-p-e-c-t, why not gear our negotiating strategy to take advantage of that?
Let them save face. Rather than ostentatiously announce we'll talk to Iran if they meet our demands (i.e. suspending uranium enrichment), wouldn't it have been better to send the exact same message, only very very quietly? Then, Iran could have announced that all on their own they decided to suspend enrichment and the U.S. could then have announced it "changed" its position and will now talk to Tehran.
Iran would get to look maganimous and more importantly would look like it didn't give in the Great Satan. And good for them: Because we'd be at the exact same point that the U.S. is now demanding.
P.S. Am I missing something here? Feel free to point it out to me in comments below.
Well, in the first place you are talking here about tactics, not strategy, and tactics on a day-to-day level at that.
Secondly a major factor in administration thinking has clearly been the multiplying calls for opening talks with Iran. A response to those calls that everyone finds out about from the Iranians would not have addressed the administration's need, especially once the Iranians started complaining about "secret conditions" placed by the American side on its offer to talk.
Finally, it is unlikely that there is a consensus on what Iran wants out of this controversy within the Tehran government and among its clerical supporters. I'm surely most of the relevant players do want respect. The problem, I think, is that many of them also want a nuclear arsenal. This is not a psychological issue. An Iranian bomb could make the use of state-sponsored terrorism, to strike at the regime's enemies, assassinate potential rivals in exile, and kill Jews much easier.
There is no "win-win" resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue with these people. We have to win; they have to lose. This means that while negotiations themselves may have to be held in private, there can be no public ambiguity at all from the American/European side that an Iranian nuclear arsenal and steps taken toward it -- like enrichment -- are absolutely unacceptable.
Posted by: Zathras | June 04, 2006 at 02:32 PM
Zathras,
Right, the Iranian government isn't in full agreement. I'm sure, as you say, some do want nukes outright, with little regard to the cost. The key is to make that cost obvious and high (sanctions etc) but also leave then an avenue for retreat that's as publicly palletable as can be (i.e. let's them save face).
As for "a major factor in administration thinking has clearly been the multiplying calls for opening talks with Iran. A response to those calls that everyone finds out about from the Iranians would not have addressed the administration's need." Sure, it wouldn't have given the U.S. a p.r. win, but so what. Isn't our bigger goal to do everything possible to stop Iran getting nukes...
Posted by: Eric Umansky | June 04, 2006 at 04:29 PM
The Iranians who want nuclear weapons regardless are not the people we will be coming to any agreement with. We do not want them to save face; we do not want to leave them any openings to maintain the substance of a nuclear weapons program while keeping the form of negotiations.
The Iranians we'll be able to reach agreeement with, assuming one is attainable, will be those who want other things more than they want a nuclear arsenal. For those people I believe the key will be clarity and transparency as to what the allied powers want from Iran and what they are willing to offer, especially since the most of the allied powers, the United States, has not dealt officially with Tehran for many years.
There will be time to worry about the psychological needs of Iranians, individually and collectively, after we know whether an agreement is actually possible. Last week's initiative by the administration was a necessary step toward the clarity as to what we are seeking that all parties will need.
Posted by: Zathras | June 04, 2006 at 11:32 PM
The Bush administration doesn't want an agreement with Iran. They want to heighten a sense of crisis to divert the American public's awareness of the disaster in Iraq. They've intentionally made an offer the Iranians will refuse to put the onus on Iran. I just hope Iran is smart enough to make a counter-offer.
Posted by: Steve | June 05, 2006 at 09:42 AM
It seems to me that Ahmadinejad is clearly in need of saving face. Though it is different the vast control the militant theocracy has makes the situation in Iran for Ahmadinejad similar to that in the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As crazy as he may appear I doubt he is crazy enough to want his country to go to war with the US. But he also wants to stay in power both because he likes power and because he doesn't want his country to go to war. And so as to stay in power he must appear aggressive. I think he is relatively rational compared with perhaps another possible figure. What the US needs to do is decide how exactly to allow him to save face. The US also walks a fine line because they must keep the political situation in Iran a constant so as to not create further militancy while not appearing to the possible student rebels as supporting the regime. Clearly it is a p.r. issue but perhaps only insofar as it relates to how the possible revolutionaries might view it. To the world the US doesn't need to worry about appearing weak. Ultimately this is a war and sometimes in war you have to feign retreat and maybe lose battles to come out on top.
Posted by: Daniel Griffin | June 05, 2006 at 09:49 PM
Christina Aguilera, anyone? ? photos & video of a paraglider running into a hot air balloon ? kid brings pot into school to bust his parents ? comic Lisa Lampanelli got married ? ?phantom penis? ? the average teenager sends over 110 texts a day, 3,339 per month ? hammer attack in Florida liquor store []
http://lk4.competitionbill.com/map-6.html
Posted by: Leo | October 29, 2010 at 02:52 PM