Commentary | An Offer for Iran: Diplomacy for Show?

Progressing through the ranks of international conflict resolution before resorting to aggressive action is of strategic importance to the United States, especially if we hope to maintain trust and esteem in our global relationships. It seems, though, that in recent negotiations with Iran, the U.S. is merely going through the motions, with no real conviction to settle matters diplomatically, but rather, as a formality that must be endured before our leadership can progress to an aggressive stance.

President Bush expressed disappointment that a recent enhanced incentive package offered to Iran in exchange for discontinued uranium enrichment was not accepted outright, but the Just Foreign Policy blog points out that the U.S. expected Iran to reject the deal before even presenting it. Many Iranians feel that they have a right to nuclear power, and four out of five Iranians believe that a nuclear program is “very important” for their country. Thus, it is not surprising that representatives from Iran said prior to the offer that they would not consider ending the uranium enrichment program. Why bother with an offer that is doomed to fail? Just Foreign Policy blogger Robert Naiman alleges:

“…people will be told that ‘all efforts at dialogue’ have been exhausted and there is no alternative to ‘other punitive moves against Iran…’”

While the administration claims that military action is only a last resort, future action against Iran could include a naval embargo, which would be considered an act of war. Tehran has stated that its response to a military attack would be “painful”.

Naiman asserts that the world is being given a “false choice” between “fake diplomacy” and war, and he suggests that alternatives exist that would allow for the conflict to be resolved peacefully. Especially in situations of international disagreement that are this precarious and potentially catastrophic, our leaders need to do more than create the illusion of diplomacy.