The dirty details of Iranian negotiations

UPDATE: Also check out this piece by John Vinocur for IHT and this one by Daniel Freeman for the Wall Street Journal on the negotiating dilemmas facing the Obama administration. Stephen Rademaker published an op-ed in the NYT today about the looming negotiations between the U.S. and Iran.  While there is little doubt that some degree of negotiations will occur between the countries, Rademaker brings up an important point in looking beyond that initial wave of talks.  His argument is that Iran will say no and therefore the U.S. will end up taking some sort of comprise that allows enrichment, albeit with some conditions or regulations.  Looking to the broader implication of that compromise he argues,

 The same principle applies to enrichment. Once we accept enrichment in Iran, it will become impossible to deny the same arrangement to friendly governments in the region, let alone unfriendly ones like Syria. The result will be the proliferation of dangerous nuclear technologies that we have been seeking to avoid.  The risks will be even greater if we agree to convert Natanz into an international enrichment center. International partners will not invest in a primitive enrichment operation that relies on old and unproven technologies. They will insist on state of the art enrichment equipment, Western management and access to export markets - the absence of which has hindered Iran's enrichment progress up to now. By contrast, so long as Iran's nuclear enrichment program remains illegitimate and subject to international censure, it cannot serve as an attractive model for other countries.

Rademaker does make a persuasive case about the danger of allowing Iranian enrichment and its implications for the "proliferation cascade" throughout the Middle East.  The article does not, however, outline what the Obama administration should do with regards to Iran other than, "Obama must persuade Iran that he can afford to see negotiations fail."  The Iran policy over the past few years can hardly be called a success so it is pertinent for the U.S. to figure out heading into then negotiations what degree of enrichment, if any, could be allowed. As Pamela Falk at CBS news does a good describing, the next few months before the Iranian elections in June could provide an important wedge of time for the Obama administration.   If Obama can build on actions such as his interview on al-Arabiya, he could help catalyze the pragmatist elements of Iran that are sympathetic to Western values and culture to bring about a moderate leader that could make negotiation breakthroughs easier to achieve.