Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Russian President Vladimir Putin apparently does not like being lectured to by Dick Cheney. Before running off to break bread dipped in oil with an odious thug, the Vice President of the United States decided it was a good idea to lay a little verbal smackdown on ol’ Pooty-Poot. Cheney delivered these lines in a speech in Vilnius:

America and all of Europe also want to see Russia in the category of healthy, vibrant democracies. Yet in Russia today, opponents of reform are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade. In many areas of civil society — from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties — the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people. Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries. No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation. And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements.

Russia has a choice to make. And there is no question that a return to democratic reform in Russia will generate further success for its people and greater respect among fellow nations. Democratization in Russia helped to end the Cold War, and the Russian people have made heroic progress in overcoming the miseries of the 20th century. They deserve now to live out their peaceful aspirations under a government that upholds freedom at home, and builds good relations abroad. [Emphasis added by me.]

Gee, a fine time to smack the Russians in the face. If I were the suspicious type, I would think that Cheney was trying to eliminate any possibility that the Russians might be able to work with the Americans in resolving the crisis with Iran. But, hey, I’m not the suspicious type. Perhaps the Vice President was just being avuncular and giving some friendly advice to an immature child about choices one should make in life.

The Russians apparently were not impressed with Cheney’s sanctimony:

"Cheney’s speech looks like a provocation and interference in Russia’s internal affairs in terms of its content, form and place," former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin expressed annoyance that Russia had not been invited to the conference of former Soviet republics and allies.

Vladimir Putin, in his state of the nation address, was decidedly not acting like Pooty-Poot:

"Where is all this pathos about protecting human rights and democracy when it comes to the need to pursue their own interests?" said Putin, who also used a fairy-tale reference to criticize the aggressive U.S. course in global affairs.

"We are aware what is going on in the world," he said. "Comrade wolf knows whom to eat, it eats without listening and it’s clearly not going to listen to anyone."

I think it is time that Mr. Bush look into Mr. Putin’s soul again. I am thinking that Comrade Pooty-Poot just threw sand in Mr. Bush’s face and that the two soul mates may be breaking up.

Perhaps in an attempt to salvage the relationship with his soul brother Mr. Bush could sing this ode to Pooty-Poot.

The response of the United States to the letter sent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad amounts to the Superpower version of "Talk to the hand". In my previous post on the subject I had suggested that perhaps a better approach might be to actually talk to the Iranians. But the Bush Administration seems to never miss an opportunity to look monumentally incompetent on the international stage. Thus, with characteristic bravado the Administration dismissed the Iranian letter (the first of its kind from Iran since 1979). I am sure that the chicken hawks in the Administration are patting themselves on the back for their machoness in rubbing the noses of the Iranians in the dirt. The rest of the world however saw the Iranian letter and its rejection by the United States as a missed opportunity. From the Administration’s point of view there is really only one thing left to do: Bomb Iran.

It wasn’t always like this. Back in 1998 the Clinton Administration sent a similar letter to Iran through the Swiss Government in an attempt to begin direct talks with the Government of Iran. CNN reported at the time:

The Clinton administration recently sought to open a government-to-government dialogue with Iran, sources said, sending a secret letter to Iranian President Mohammad Khatami through diplomatic channels in the second week of August.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the sources said Iran did not reply through those same channels, but U.S. officials viewed Khatami’s moderate statements about respect for the American people, made last month and again in a CNN interview this week, as the answer to the U.S. overture.

…

The letter to Iran, sources said, contained no provisos and simply asked the Iranians if they were ready to conduct talks with the United States.

The sources said such a letter would have been signed by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. It was written, they said, after a long administration debate in which one camp argued that Washington should wait for Iran to make the first approach.

In the world of diplomacy events can sometimes move at a glacial pace. With that in mind, the letter from Ahmadinejad may actually have been a reply to the 1998 letter. There may also have been back channel talks between Iran and the United States during the Clinton years:

Contrary to a Washington Post report Friday, sources said, the Swiss channel has been much used for practical communication, not just angry ideological exchanges.

The Swiss government represents U.S. interests with the Iranians. The sources said the Swiss Embassy in Washington regularly spends up to 20 percent of its time on Iranian contact on behalf of the United States. [Emphasis added by me.]

I am probably not in much danger of being incorrect if I believe that these back channel contacts with the Iranians ceased when George W. Bush became President of the United States. The new Administration apparently treats diplomacy as if it’s an unwanted stepchild. They pay lip service to diplomacy being the first option while they are busy undermining it. Secretary Rice, our chief diplomat, had this to say about talking with Iran:

Rice asserted yesterday that "the absence of communication is not a problem with the Iranians" because there have been plenty of proposals advanced through the Europeans and the Russians. But, alluding to Iran’s alleged failure to respond constructively to those proposals, she asked: "What is to be gained if Iran is not prepared to show that it is ready to accede to the demands of the international community?" [Emphasis added by me]

The chief diplomat of the United States is not doing her job. Instead, she has out-sourced U.S. foreign policy to the Europeans and Russians. This Administration wants us to believe that we are in the midst of a dangerous nuclear standoff with Iran and yet it is not even willing to communicate with Iran. Mr. Bush’s assertions that the United States considers diplomacy the primary option vis-à-vis Iran rings kind of hollow in light of Dr. Rice’s bizarre statements.

The Washington Post reports today that Foreign Policy experts from both sides of the aisle as well as foreign diplomats are speaking out and urging the United States to resume direct talks with Iran. The Germans, one of the Europeans who Dr. Rice is relying on, are venting their frustration with Washington:

Germany is one of the three European Union countries that have jointly held inconclusive talks with Tehran. German officials have made little secret of their belief that diplomacy will not succeed without direct U.S. intervention. Ruprecht Polenz, the influential chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the German parliament and an ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, lashed out last Friday against the administration’s policy after returning from a two-day visit to Iran. "Washington’s refusal to join direct talks with Iran won’t make it any easier to achieve a diplomatic solution to the current nuclear dispute," he said. [Emphasis added by me.]

Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who last month wrote an opinion piece jointly with 5 former European foreign ministers urging President Bush to open direct talks with Iran, explained rather succinctly how diplomacy should be practiced:

But Albright said yesterday that the letter, despite its invective and religious musings, should be viewed as an opportunity both for a dialogue with Iran and to influence world opinion. She likened it to President John F. Kennedy’s choosing to selectively respond to — and ignore — conflicting messages from his Soviet counterpart during the Cuban missile crisis.

"In diplomacy, you make your opportunities," Albright said. "Acting in a dismissive way doesn’t get you anywhere." [Emphasis added by me.]

I find Madam Albright’s comparison to President Kennedy’s deft handling of Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis to be very appropriate and instructive here. The Administration would do well to heed these calls for dialogue.

The Bush Administration however does not respond well to good advice. The Bush Administration is likely to dig in further on its hardline stance against Iran. In doing so it is likely to further isolate itself in the diplomatic dance with Iran. The military option, for the Bush Administration, will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. War with Iran is the likely outcome as long as this Administration and its policy of petulant diplomacy continue.

Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has sent a letter to President George W Bush. The letter outlines "the Iranian nation’s views and comments on international issues as well as suggestions for resolving the many problems facing humanity" according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) of Iran. The United States has swiftly and unequivocally rejected the letter:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swiftly rejected the letter, saying it didn’t resolve questions about Tehran’s suspect nuclear program.

"This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort," Rice told The Associated Press. "It isn’t addressing the issues that we’re dealing with in a concrete way."

The Bush Administration reacted predictably to this letter from Iran. Thus, in one calculated and nuanced gambit the Iranian Government has isolated the United States diplomatically.

I am reminded of similar letters from Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to President John F. Kennedy at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy’s handling of the letters from Khrushchev stands today as a triumph of diplomacy and demonstrates the power of effective diplomacy in resolving high stakes conflicts. Kennedy understood what this Administration appears not to grasp: that the need for communication is greatest at times when the crisis is at its most severe. Kennedy outmaneuvered Khrushchev by ignoring the belligerent tone of one of Khrushchev’s letters and addressing the conciliatory tone of another. In effect, Kennedy offered Khrushchev a stark choice: either war or a face saving climb down from war. Khrushchev as we all know now chose the only real option available to him.

Like Kennedy, today this Administration is confronted with a similar letter. Iran’s letter should be viewed as an opportunity by the United States. Iran has sent the letter to the United States in an attempt to gain the diplomatic upper hand in this conflict. Regardless of the content or motivation of the letter, it will be seen around the world as an olive branch from the Government of Iran. It is an opening and an invitation for the United States to open back channel communications with Iran. The Bush Administration should seize upon this opportunity by responding diplomatically and directly to Iran. Doing so has two primary benefits. First, it denies Iran the diplomatic upper hand. It shows that the United States is prepared to resolve this matter diplomatically. A positive response by Washington isolates Iran in any future escalation of this crisis. Second, the letter should be viewed as the first step in resolving this crisis diplomatically. The Bush Administration should take advantage of this letter and use it as a springboard for the opening of direct talks with Iran. This crisis with Iran will either be solved diplomatically or through violence. It is in the interest of the United States that this issue is resolved diplomatically.

Diplomacy is a tool that the United States must maintain in its arsenal. Diplomacy is called for most when dealing with states that are hostile to the interests of the United States. Diplomacy is not a game that is only played amongst friends. The goal of diplomacy is the imposition of one’s will on one’s adversary. In that, diplomacy and war have similar goals. There is little room for diplomacy if the governing doctrine of the United States will continue to be "us" versus "them" and any dialogue with "them" is seen as weakness. It is the "them" that we most need to engage and in doing so outmaneuver "them". Engaging the enemy in diplomacy is not a sign of weakness but of strength. The Bush Administration would do well to remember that before it is further isolated on the world stage.

It appears that Iran has won this diplomatic battle. There will be many more to come. If the United States and President Bush are serious about resolving this crisis diplomatically, it must start practicing the craft. Sitting in one corner like an indignant school boy and complaining how evil Iran is only isolates the United States further and helps strengthen Iran’s position in the crisis.

The United States has been given a choice: war or diplomacy. There really is only one viable choice. Whether the Bush Administration will choose wisely remains in great doubt.

The United States has threatened a nuclear strike on the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Government of Iran has responded to this threat by publicly humiliating the United States. Iran has declared that it has officially joined the Nuclear Club. Though Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, its announcement that it is now capable of enriching uranium puts the United States, and the international community, on notice that Iran is rapidly becoming the newest nuclear power in the world.

In his latest column in The Washington Post, David Ignatius compares the current impasse with the Cuban Missile Crisis. He writes about the choices President Bush is presented with:

[Professor Graham] Allison argues that Bush’s dilemma is similar to the one that confronted Kennedy in 1962. His advisers are telling him that he may face a stark choice — either to acquiesce in the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a dangerous adversary, or risk war to stop that nuclear fait accompli . Hard-liners warned JFK that alternative courses of action would only delay the inevitable day of reckoning, and Bush is probably hearing similar advice now.

He argues that an attack on Iran will undermine America’s pre-eminent position in the world. He cites Zbigniew Brzezinski to drive home the point:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, makes a similar argument about Iran. "I think of war with Iran as the ending of America’s present role in the world," he told me this week. "Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it’s still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we’ll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

While I agree with Mr. Ignatius and Mr. Brzezinski that an attack on Iran will further undermine America’s relevance in the world, I disagree with the suggestion that we are not already there. I think it is a direct consequence of the war in Iraq that Iran and to a similar extent North Korea are able to throw dirt in America’s face with impunity. By threatening war we have rendered impotent our ability to wage war. Our adversaries know this and know that the vast diplomatic playing field between war and peace belongs to them.

While Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis realized that the goal of war is to achieve your will and not war itself, the Bush administration considers war as an end by itself. Kennedy deftly employed the tools of war, gunboat diplomacy, and the art of political communication in combination to achieve the primary goal - to avoid a nuclear Cuba. His genius, as Mr. Ignatius points out, was to realize that the other side does not necessarily want war. Kennedy cultivated this notion and pounced on it in one brilliant act in high stakes diplomacy: he received two contradictory messages from the Soviet Union, one belligerent one conciliatory, he chose to ignore the belligerent and act on the conciliatory. That single act shifted the dynamics of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The detente that followed can be traced back directly to this triumph of uncommon common sense alone.

The Bush Administration, by contrast, has played the diplomatic game with the subtlety of a jackhammer. It may work well in movies, where you draw a line in the sand and your opponent quickly crumbles and grovels at your feet, but in the real world a show of force is underpinned by multiple of acts of mutual compromise. The Administration however, due to its misadventure in Iraq, has lost the ability to make a credible show of force. When the United States says that we will strike you militarily if condition A is not met, the opposing party knows that this is not a starting point of diplomacy but an inflexible ultimatum. The choices for the adversary now are either capitulate or wage war. From anyone else’s perspective except perhaps that of the United States, the sounder choice is to prepare for war. It is better to fight a war under these circumstances with the final political outcome in doubt than to capitulate with its assured outcome of defeat. This is not to say that the United States cannot win militarily against Iran, it certainly can. But war is not about military victories. War is a political act and its final outcome must be measured with a political yardstick. By that yardstick, a prospect of an American victory in Iran is remote.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran has in recent days struck both a conciliatory and a belligerent tone in his public remarks. This is not a sign of an unstable personality, as many in the Administration appear to believe. It is, on the contrary, a sign that Iran is practiced in the art of diplomacy. The Bush Administration should now be at a moment of decision. Past experience suggests that the Administration perhaps does not realize this and may already have made the decision to go to war. That is a shame. This crisis offers the United States the opportunity to truly remake the Middle East - but perhaps not in the way they had originally envisioned. Iran is destined to be, with an assist from the United States in Iraq, a major power in the Middle East. The United States has an opportunity here to get ahead of this development and broker a new status quo in the Middle East that can usher in an era of regional and global stability. This development is in our National Interest, far more so than a full-scale war in the Middle East.

It is now time to move the conversation to the achievement of this new order in the Middle East.