Talking With the Enemy

Lately there seem to be few issues on which the presumptive presidential nominees, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain, can agree. But if there’s one subject on which the two are in accord, it’s the potentially grave threat that Iran’s uranium enrichment program poses to the Middle East region and beyond.

On and off the campaign trail, Obama and McCain have strongly disagreed on how to deal with Iran’s nuclear issue and whether entering into talks with so-called “rogue nations” would fall under the category of diplomacy or appeasement.

In separate speeches delivered earlier this month at a policy conference hosted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobby that works to strengthen relations between the U.S. and Israel, both candidates condemned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weaponry and support of terrorist groups.

Is it ever appropriate to talk with leaders of countries such as Iran or North Korea?

McCain appears to think not. In a dig at his opponent, he said, “Rather than sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them, we must create real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on. Essential to this strategy is the [United Nations] Security Council, which would impose progressively tougher political and economic sanctions.” He also proposes restricting Iran’s ability to import refined petroleum products and severely limiting the country’s gasoline imports.

McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, says the two candidates have a fundamentally different approach to diplomacy. “Sen. McCain believes we should work our diplomacy with Iran very closely with our European allies, particularly France, Britain, and Germany,” Scheunemann says. “None of those countries have expressed any support for unconditional meetings with Ahmadinejad. The leaders of those countries have not met unconditionally with Ahmadinejad, the supreme leader, head of the Revolutionary Guard, or any other leaders that Obama might believe is appropriate for a meeting with a U.S. president. In fact, they have placed a condition on any higher level meetings, and the goal of their discussions with Iran has been to get Iran to stop the enrichment of uranium before proceeding to higher level talks. …It may not be the only position to take, but [McCain] certainly would not advocate changing that position without a very close consultation with our allies, rather than a unilateral statement of presidential summitry, which Obama has pursued.”

Obama believes that under certain conditions it makes sense to talk with enemy nations. In his AIPAC speech, Obama also criticized McCain, who he believes would continue what he refers to as the failed foreign policy of the Bush administration. He also debunked the idea that he would enter into unconditional talks. “Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be

willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing, if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States,” he said. “We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives, including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.”

Such pressure would include joining forces with other nations to isolate Iran by expanding financial sanctions, banning petroleum exports to Iran, and boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

The Obama camp argues that Iran has been able to strengthen its position in the Middle East region and pursue its nuclear program without restraint because of the U.S.’s focus on Iraq. One of the Illinois senator’s senior foreign policy advisers, Susan Rice, who served as assistant secretary of state under former President Bill Clinton, says that both Bush and McCain would prefer to engage in military action with Iran or continue with the failed status quo of refusing to deal with the country directly until it suspends its nuclear program. The latter option, she argues, is “circular logic” because suspension of the nuclear program would be one of the main objectives of any negotiation with Iran.

“Obama’s approach is, rather than

stay in that doom loop, to combine more robust sanctions, both unilateral and multilateral, with direct diplomacy with due preparations, but without self-defeating preconditions,” Rice says. “There are numerous options for strengthened multilateral sanctions, whether through the [United Nations] Security Council or in conjunction with our European partners, if additional Security Council sanctions prove impossible,” she adds. “The critical difference is that Obama would combine the leverage of sanctions with a willingness to engage with Iranian leaders after extensive preparation and lower-level work at an appropriate time, and if and when it serves U.S. interests. Obama would not place counterproductive preconditions on America’s willingness to meet with Iran, even at a high level. We do not take the view that Iran has to suspend its nuclear program before we talk to it about suspending its nuclear program.”

Stephen Zunes, a University of San Francisco professor who specializes in Middle Eastern issues, says that current policy toward Iran is hypocritical because Israel has refused to place its nuclear facilities under the trusteeship of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as it is required to do under U.N. Security Resolution 487. In addition, he says, North Korea threw international inspectors out of its country and started to develop nuclear weapons.

“If you were Iran and found your country listed as a member of the ‘axis of evil’ with Iraq and North Korea, and noticed Iraq had gotten rid of its nuclear weapons, allowed U.N. inspectors in, and got invaded anyway, occupied,

and had its government overthrown, what would the message be? What would you learn from that?” Zunes asks. “In other words, if they do have nuclear weapons ambitions, it’s probably as a deterrent to try to prevent them from being invaded.”

Zunes believes that Obama’s approach would be the more productive of the two, taking its cues from past presidents such as Richard Nixon, for example, who engaged in negotiations with leaders of China and the Soviet Union. “I think he would basically hear them out and find out where they’re coming from,” Zunes says. “He would see if there’s some kind of compromise to be met where Iran’s legitimate needs and concerns can be addressed and America’s needs and concerns can be addressed without allowing Iran to continue its provocative and illegitimate behaviors on various fronts.”

In his opinion, Iran is years away from producing nuclear weapons, although it has a program that could one day be used in military applications.

McCain has often pointed to Obama’s views on how to handle thorny issues such as Iran, withdrawal from Iraq, and others, as examples of his opponent’s inexperience and inability to handle such weighty problems if elected. But, Zunes says, “Most senior diplomats and international relations scholars from left, right, and center tend to agree with Obama. I think the real naiveté is in thinking that the failed policies of the Bush administration will work and that we shouldn’t try a different approach.”