Diplomacy with Iran: If not now, then when?

Jan 25, 2012

By Mark Jansson

New sanctions have been imposed on Iran’s oil and financial sectors and are taking their toll on an already fragile economy, which has seen the value of its currency plummet. Although Iran has sometimes blamed the U.S. for its economic problems and, at other times, denied that sanctions are having any affect, there can be little doubt that the sanctions are taking their toll not just on the regime but also, sadly, the Iranian people. Hopefully, the U.S. will take advantage of this opportunity to entice Iran to the negotiating table and, finally, agree to something.

There was a time when the U.S. took care to note that sanctions were not aimed at Iran’s citizens. Apparently, those days are gone. All that seems to matter now is getting Iran to the negotiating table. Hopefully, that is in fact the intention. Otherwise, what’s the point of sending Iran’s economy into a tailspin?

However, there are reasons to wonder whether or not getting to the negotiating table is, in fact, the idea. Suzanne Maloney at Brookings thinks that, because Iran will see no interest in negotiating with a country that is intent on crippling it, U.S. policy is “effectively predicated on achieving political change in Tehran.” Certainly there are plenty of people who think that that should be our policy, though investigation into this very issue by Dan Brumberg and Steve Heydemann, comparativists who actually study authoritarianism with some rigor, concluded that sanctions were not going to lead to regime collapse.

But Maloney’s case also supports the idea that, predication and intentions aside, U.S. policy simply leaves the regime with no good reason to negotiate. Still, whatever the policy premise, the mixture of punishments and inducements can be changed if the U.S. sees an opportunity to do so in a way that will bring Iran to the negotiating table. That is, if the administration actually desires to do that.

However, Mark Hibbs pointed out a political problem for the administration that is even more troubling than the one Maloney describes:

Administration officials dedicated to serving the President will make sure that no outside-the-box thinking on Iran will go forward if it puts Obama’s re-election at risk . . . US policy on Iran is in the President’s lap, assisted by an interagency process which, as the 2012 election gets more and more attention, will be overshadowed by the designs of people who serve the President, and that means campaigning and strategizing to ensure his re-election.

Ultimately, Hibbs concluded that U.S. policy towards Iran will be driven by the desire to leave him invulnerable to criticisms from Republicans during election season that he has been soft on Iran. And that means a one-track policy of pressure and containment and “no creative thinking” about diplomacy that may jeopardize re-election.

There certainly wasn’t any creative thinking expressed during tonight’s State of the Union speech, which was largely self-congratulatory about the international pressure that has been brought to bear on Iran and reemphasized that no option would be left off the table to prevent it from getting a nuclear weapon. Obama did say that a diplomatic solution was preferable, but elaborated no further on that point.

This is a disconcerting state of affairs. In the first place, when foreign policy is subordinated to domestic political interests in a way that inhibits problem solving, it only encourages the kind of domestic insularity that, when seized upon, ultimately binds leaders and tortures international relations. Furthermore, the domestic political situation spells bad news for diplomacy given that Republican candidates have advocated for revved up covert action, including assassinations of scientists, and even outright regime change. If that’s the Republican standard for toughness on Iran, it would be hard to even come close to matching it while still being willing to agree to something diplomatically.

If domestic political calculations in the U.S. will dominate foreign policy, then rather than making toughness the sole basis for policy and benchmarking it against whatever Republicans say on the campaign trail, it is worth looking at some poll numbers on foreign policy and Iran to see what people actually think. Polls are polls, of course, and there are two huge caveats to the numbers that follow: (1) the economy will factor far more than foreign policy in the election, and (2) citizen perceptions can change, and can change based on how leaders frame and discuss issues. Still, the numbers are interesting.

According to a recent Washington Post-ABC Poll:

Most Americans think that Obama has done pretty well on foreign policy (47% approve; 45% disapprove) and in addressing the threat of terrorism (60% approve; 34% disapprove), especially compared to other issues, like the economy (38% approve; 61% disapprove)
There is not much appetite for war, as evidenced by opinions on whether or not the Iraq war was worth fighting (33% agree; 62% disagree), and whether or not it should have ended (78% agree; 21% disagree).

On Iran specifically, PollingReport.com has compiled a lot of very interesting poll results on public attitudes towards Iran and how the nuclear issue should be settled. Here are some of the more recent results.

Pew Research Center: “In your opinion, which is more important: to take a firm stand against Iranian actions, or to avoid a military conflict with Iran?" Take a firm stand (50%), Avoid military conflict (41%), Unsure/both/other (9%)
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: “If Iran continues with its nuclear research and is close to developing a nuclear weapon, do you believe that the United States should or should not initiate military action to destroy Iran's ability to make nuclear weapons?" Should (54%), Should not (38%), Unsure (8%)
CNN/ORC: “What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program: take military action against Iran now, use economic and diplomatic efforts but not take military action right now, or take no action against Iran at this time?" Military action (16%), Diplomatic and economic efforts (65%), No action (17%), Unsure (1%)
CBS News: "Thinking about Iran, which comes closer to your opinion? Iran is a threat to the United States that requires military action now. Iran is a threat that can be contained with diplomacy now. OR, Iran is not a threat to the United States at this time." Military action now (15%), Diplomacy now (55%), Not a threat (17%), Unsure (13%)
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics: “Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?” Support (65%), Oppose (25%), Depends/unsure (11%)

There are lots of ways to interpret all of this. Some of it lends support to the idea that Mark Hibbs described: that Obama is doing fine on foreign policy and should just keep doing what he’s doing. That may mean staying tough on terrorism and not taking any diplomatic risks with respect to Iran.

On the other hand, the data also suggest, pretty clearly in my opinion, that while Americans are supportive of being firm in principle and even keeping the military option on the table, they prefer diplomacy to military action – and diplomacy sooner rather than later. Certainly, there’s a case to be made that there’s less political risk to negotiating with Iran than what those who advance the “no creative thinking” mandate presume.

There are a few other political arguments to be made about why a little creative thinking, or at least a willingness to agree to something, won’t hurt.

First, being perceived as inert may be more problematic than being perceived as an appeaser. Politically speaking, it is possible that the real danger for the administration with respect to perceptions of foreign policy is that it will be seen to have accomplished nothing. That would be unfortunate given its track record. But the notion that the U.S. has been ineffective in its dealings abroad and hesitant to address security problems gains credulity the longer we go without any diplomatic momentum, let alone a solution, with Iran.

Similarly, presenting the public with a stalemate would seem out of character for an administration that has been so active. Being “in negotiations” with Iran sounds like the administration is actively working on a solution to the issue, whereas “imposing sanctions” sounds like the administration had to resort to punishment (again) because it could not find another way. Even as an incumbent, Obama can still run on the argument that he will do what his predecessors have been unwilling or unable to do. The president has demonstrated a willingness to pursue the most far-reaching sanctions ever imposed on Iran; demonstrating a willingness to agree to something would give his policy even more cogence.

Finally, as we know, the Iran challenge predates Obama by 55 years. This fact aligns nicely with a broader theme in the Obama campaign that the president inherited a lot of messes which take more than a couple of years to fix. Again, this would seem to afford the administration with considerable flexibility to pursue purposeful diplomatic engagement.

Of course, this leaves open the question of whether a negotiated agreement or regime change should be the goal of U.S. policy towards Iran. That question is worthy of debate. For now, it is worth noting that, historically, U.S.-instigated regime change in Iran has not exactly been one of smashing success.

Even if the U.S. truly wants a diplomatic solution, that does not mean that Iran does. And if Iran does not want to agree to anything, then that will certainly be Iran’s choice. But with the Iranian people feeling the effects of U.S. and European-led sanctions, there is a responsibility on the shoulders of the U.S. to not just “be open to” negotiations, but to actively pursue them, either bilaterally, through a P5+1 framework, or even in the context of 2012 WMD-free zone conference preparations.

If the point all along has been to make sanctions severe enough to force Iran to fully cooperate with the IAEA, then now, with Iranians hurting, is the time to follow through not just with talks, but talks with an interest in agreeing to something.

Furthermore, pandering to hardline views at this point by sticking to a one-track policy is not what the majority of Americans seem to want, and, given the predominance of economic issues in 2012 among other things, probably won’t do much to ensure Obama’s re-election. If anything, the apparent stalemate would allow Republicans to make an argument that the president, though tough, is ineffective in achieving results. Actively working towards a negotiated solution, on the other hand, would help Obama make the case that he is a problem solver who remains soberly focused on improving both U.S. and international security, and who has a plan that doesn’t involve war or unnecessarily diminishing the quality of life for Iranians.

Mark Jansson is the Deputy Director for the Project on Nuclear Issues. The views expressed above are his own.