March 17, 2004
WHY GO BACKWARDS?:
US stalls on Iranian offer of reform deal (Guy Dinmore, March 16 2004, Financial Times)
The US has for 10 months been stalling over an Iranian offer of landmark talks that would see the Islamic republic address Washington's concerns on nuclear weapons, terrorism and Israel - because of divisions within the Bush administration. [...]What has become known in diplomatic circles as Iran's "grand bargain" was first communicated to the US State Department through the "Swiss channel" on May 4 last year. Switzerland represents US interests in Iran. The communication quoted a senior Iranian official as laying out a "road map" to normalise relations, which have been hostile since the Iranian revolution of 1979.
Under the plan, Iran would address US concerns over nuclear weapons and terrorism, co-ordinate policy on Iraq and consider a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In return, Iran expected a lifting of sanctions, recognition of its security interests, dropping of "regime change" from the official US lexicon and eventual re-establishment of relations. "There was a lot of detail to be worked out," said one American familiar with the proposal. "They proposed concrete steps on how to work on this. The substance of the agenda was pretty reasonable."
However, Washington has given no formal response to the offer. Instead, the Swiss foreign ministry received a rebuke from the US for "overstepping" its mandate.
Why would we cut a deal with the totalitarians in a place where a significant internal reform movement already exists and the regime is so embattled? Posted by Orrin Judd at March 17, 2004 1:22 PM
Exactly right, Orrin. We should not be normalizing relations with these theofacists, but instead announce continuation and stengthening of sanctions and a call for regime change.
Posted by: jd watson at March 17, 2004 6:36 PMExcept that the internal opposition appears to be fairly weak, and significant reforms may be decades away.
As long as the US is officially an opponent of Iran's, America can be used as a scapegoat.
If we engage Iran, in the short run it might confer legitimacy on the ruling clique, but in the long run, it strengthens the democratic elements of Iranian society.
Don't forget, good will towards America, among the common people, is higher in Iran than it is in many European countries.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 18, 2004 6:03 AMMichael:
That's how we always convince ourselves to support such regimes, but in fact treating them as illegitimate seems to work better.
Posted by: oj at March 18, 2004 7:41 AMUnfortunately JFK recognized the legitimacy of Castro's regime as part of his Cuban missile appeasement.
Posted by: oj at March 18, 2004 8:26 AMBecause we still have some momentum left from the Cold War emphasis on "maintaining stability", i.e. "Status Quo at all costs". Not at the top (Bush), but at the professional-diplomat State Department bureaucrat level, who never seem to realize "THE SHAH ALWAYS FALLS."
Posted by: Ken at March 18, 2004 12:25 PM