Détente With Iran

By Ankush

The new issue of Foreign Affairs features a great essay by Ray Takeyh calling for détente with Iran.  By virtue of limitations of time (on television) and space (in print), it is rare to see such a lucid piece on Iran that deals thoughtfully with all of the complexities of our current predicament.

Takeyh's critical observation is that, for our purposes, the important division in Iranian politics is not the one between conservatives and reformers but, rather, the one between the hardliners and pragmatists within Iran's "new right." In the former camp is President Ahmadinejad (whose influence is deliberately exaggerated by the Bush administration), while in the latter is Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, as well as a number of people who in recent years have risen in the ranks of the country's government. The pragmatists, Takeyh argues, can be strengthened if the US commits itself to "open direct negotiations" with the purpose of normalizing relations with Iran. Interestingly -- and this goes to the whole question recently of whether people who counsel against military action are actually arguing we take that option "off the table" -- Takeyh argues that there is "no realistic military option against Iran" but, later, claims that the argument that we should pledge not to attack Iran "reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Islamic Republic perceives its power and its place in the Middle East today." I can't do the whole thing justice so, as the kids say, take some time out to read the whole thing, while the rest of the country is closely following the latest movements of Anna Nicole Smith's body.

I would add, however, that in evaluating the foreign policy visions of the Democratic presidential contenders, I'm most interested right now in seeing some leadership on the issue of Iran.  As someone who opposed the Iraq war, I'm less interested in the half-assed apologies, the debates about apologies, the star power of the candidates, or their almost incoherent ramblings. Obama's opposition to the Iraq war clearly says a great deal about his instincts, but, with respect to moving forward, he and the other Democratic frontrunners have more or less coalesced around a similar, core position on the necessity of withdrawal from Iraq, and it's entirely possible that by November of next year, even the Republican candidate will be advocating as much.  Iran isn't an existential threat to world peace, nor does it pose the same difficulties as Iraq did in 2002, but this issue provides the candidates with an opportunity to demonstrate who has truly been searching through the rubble of the Iraq war for lessons about how to approach the world.

Update: In comments, Atrios picks up on some poorly chosen words on my part and asks, "what difficulties did Iraq pose in 2002?"  Basically what I was trying to say was that the two situations aren't analogous, which is obvious but which I wanted to make clear because what I wrote might've otherwise suggested a reductive comparison on my part.  Every country with which the US is on poor terms poses "difficulties" -- policy problems -- in a very generic sense, and the seriousness of those problems will vary.  (Sanctions against Iraq weren't in place for no reason, and of course there was a humanitarian problem in Iraq.  The question was whether to do anything about it.)  As I wrote above, I opposed the war, and as I've written before, I get very annoyed when politicians who supported the war blame the intelligence for their poor decision (as if the information was irretrievably tainted, which it wasn't).