iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jamal Abdi

GET UPDATES FROM Jamal Abdi
 

Barbara Lee Pushes to End U.S.-Iran Silent Treatment

Posted: 03/23/2012 11:23 am

Here is one of those policies that makes you scratch your head and wonder how its taken this long for things to get this bad between the U.S. and Iran: American and Iranian diplomats are actually BANNED from making ANY contact with one another without prior authorization.

That's right--while the entire foreign policy establishment in Washington is running around in circles trying to figure out the magic solution to crack the U.S.-Iran riddle--Is it sanctions? Is it more war threats? Is it strikes? Dare we enter negotiations?--the two governments aren't even talking to each other at the most basic levels.

Thankfully, a commonsense and long overdue proposal has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and nine other Representatives to dispense with the absurd "no contact" policy on the U.S. side. The bill, the Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons and Stop War Through Diplomacy Act (H.R.4173) would finally lift the ban on talking to Iran. Not only would eliminating this policy put us in a much better position to resolve the standoff, it will put the onus on the Iranians to take the necessary steps to end their own restrictions on contact with the U.S.

While the silent treatment may be a good tool for passive aggressive teenagers to resolve tiffs with their siblings, it's utility as a tool of statecraft on the world stage is pretty dubious. When you're trying to prevent war, nuclear proliferation, and human rights abuses, it can help to have diplomats who are allowed to do their job rather than a policy of righteous indignation.

Former Ambassador James Dobbins--who has directly negotiated with Iran--argued for lifting the ban in 2009, saying it could "enable both sides to more accurately gauge the other's real intentions, interests and possible areas of flexibility" and eliminate some of the pressure and hype that has undermined high-level diplomacy. "No negotiation can yield results if the two sides feel compelled to hold a news conference every time they meet," wrote Dobbins.

To that end, H.R.4173 would also appoint a high-level U.S. envoy to lead and sustain direct, bilateral and multilateral talks with Iran. The goal would be to actually invest in pursuing our interests that are only achievable through direct diplomacy. These include not just resolving the nuclear standoff and preventing war--pretty important goals in their own right that have no military fix--but also delving into the equally critical issues like human rights that have never been on the table because we're not talking (and when we do, it is for 45 minutes and never broadened beyond the nuclear issue).

Ask Iranians who are actually on the ground whether sanctions and threats of war are doing any favors for Iran's human rights situation. Unlike what you'll hear from neoconservative "experts"--who want to bring freedom to the Iranian people even if they have to kill every last one of them--the current standoff has choked off Iranian civil society. For the grownups in the room, direct talks can ratchet down tensions and open up space within Iran for the human rights and democracy movement to flourish.

H.R.4173 also has another component that makes perfect sense but will upset the pro-war crowd: it takes war of choice with Iran off the table. The bill states clearly that--in lieu of an actual Congressional authorization for war--no U.S. government funds may be allocated to a war with Iran. This may be commonsense and technically already the law of the land; unfortunately, amidst the threat inflation and demonization of diplomacy occurring in Washington and Tehran, commonsense has been altogether too uncommon.

To tell your Member of Congress to sign on to the Lee bill, you can send a message here.

 

Follow Jamal Abdi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jabdi

 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:26 PM on 03/25/2012
'...USA & its partners have presented proposals allowing Iran to develop
peaceful nuclear applications WITHOUT the possibility of military uses.'
Iran has never stopped insisting that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. So to suggest that it has actually regected these so-called proposals is very misleading, if not a deliberate distortion of the truth. In any case, even if Iran did develop a nuclear bomb she wouldn't be any more of a threat than Pakistan which already has many nukes and a military known for its close ties with Al-Qaedah.
Israel itself is widely known to possess hundreds of nuclear warheads and missiles that could carry them not only to Iran but every European capital.
Yet, it is Iran that's being picked on for its non-existing bomb and its non-existing intention to blow Israel off the map.
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
http://www.raceforiran.com/ayatollah-khamenei-on-the-islamic-republic-and-the-%E2%80%9Cbig-sin%E2%80%9D-of-nuclear-weapons

I've nothing but utter contempt for the madcap mullahs, however, I'm even less impressed by warmongers who for their own dubious political ends are happy to see other people's sons and daughters coming home in body bags.
photo
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
02:32 PM on 03/24/2012
This policy of non-communication, possibility for understanding & common-interest, negotiations is an off-shoot of, & influenced by, the Israeli model of "no partner for peace" mantra of deception. For years Israel claimed (according to their own made-up standards) that there was "no Palestinian partner for peace", that was an intentional & pre-meditated tactic to stall while the Occupied Territories were colonized (stolen) by Israeli "settlers" in violation of International Law. The influence of pro-Israeli lobbyists & dual-nationality persons (many in US government) applied this policy to US affairs when it came to Israel’s ME "enemies" (i.e. any supporter of Palestinian rights or negotiations toward two-state solution to Israeli occupation and illegal colonization).

It should come as no surprise that the US holds such a self-defeating policy. Since the Islamic Revolution in Iran & imprisonment of US embassy citizens the rhetoric & pressure for revenge has been strong. We should go further back to our CIA coup against the Mossaddegh government and installation of the brutal dictatorship of the hated Shah. If we had not attempted to control democracy for our own devious ends, there might be a far different Iran today. Only by talking and dialogue can there be any understanding and rapprochement toward common development and an end to conflict; that MO predictably is often promoted and provoked by the entity that thrives on stalling illegal colonization of stolen land and no end to war and conflict.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14134
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
analyse this
Everything is temporary anyway
12:06 AM on 03/25/2012
F&F... for bald faced truth
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freenation
06:23 PM on 03/23/2012
"Unlike what you'll hear from neoconservative "experts"--who want to bring freedom to the Iranian people even if they have to kill every last one of them"

neoconservative freedom sham can be best seen as to how there is not a squeal from these folks when it comes to Bahrain protestors...
04:13 PM on 03/23/2012
Has Barbara Lee checked with AIPAC whether that is permissible. I guess she is not thinking of running for another term.
04:03 PM on 03/23/2012
Everything the corrupt bipartisan congress does is designed to make war with Iran inevitable and that is why we waste so many lives and so much money on unnecessary wars.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NTT
Fighting rants with facts
02:24 PM on 03/23/2012
I totally disagree. US diplomats are NOT banned from talking to Iranian negotiators. They are banned from doing so WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. That makes perfect sense, as it prevents a hostile regime from trying to exploit the inherent "weaknesses" of the US democratic system. The reason USA and Iran are not "talking" is NOT the legal ban. It is the fact that there is nothing to talk about: in the previous round of negotiations, USA & its partners have presented proposals allowing Iran to develop peaceful nuclear applications WITHOUT the possibility of military uses. The mullahs' regime has rejected those proposals. Currently, they have indicated (or so some say) a readiness to "discuss" based on those proposals -- and negotiations are set to take place. However, smart money is on the mullahs rejecting once again the peaceful resolution and using the "negotiations" as a mechanism to gain time. I'm not the only one who thinks so: even Obama indicated (albeit in diplomatic lingo) that this is a strong possibility. In which case, the military choice remains the only choice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Epilef2000
Cafe Con Leche Party
10:07 AM on 03/25/2012
The article mentioned that.
01:56 PM on 03/23/2012
The US policies in regards to Iran is going to ruin the US.

The US will soon enact sanctions on Chinese banks. Do you think the Chinese are going to like this? I don't think so. If they really our banker, just think about what that could mean to our economy.

We need to elect Ron Paul or we are screwed.
01:16 PM on 03/23/2012
I suspect the 2 sides are talking, ban or no ban.