U.S. Policy Reversal on Iran

One week after military maneuvers raised fears of war and the price of oil, a senior US official will meet with the Iranian nuclear negotiator. A deal may be in the works.

Twenty-two years ago, former National Security Advisor Robert "Bud" McFarlane carried a cake, a bible and pistols to Tehran in a failed Reagan administration effort to trade weapons for Iranian aide to the Nicaraguan contras. Now, another senior official in a Republican administration is hoping for better luck. In a stunning announcement July 16, the White House disclosed that Undersecretary of State William J. Burns will travel to Geneva this weekend to sit face-to-face with Iranian nuclear negotiator Said Jalili.

Tests of missiles have yielded to tests of diplomacy. Burns will meet Jalili with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana serving as interlocutor. The subject will be a proposed "freeze-freeze" deal: Iran would halt further expansion of its uranium enrichment program; in turn, the US and Europe will halt further sanctions on Iran.

This is a dramatic reversal of Bush policy. Just two months ago, President Bush warned that negotiations with Iran would be "appeasement." Bush officials had said they would meet with Iranian representatives only after Iran fully suspended its enrichment program. Iran had said that suspension would be the subject of the negotiations, not a precondition.

Bush blinked. He has dropped the precondition. Suspension might still be possible, but the "freeze-freeze" could be the half-way point that allows serious negotiations to resolve this now five-year stand off.

It mirrors the shift that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice engineered in 2006 that reversed a similar policy towards North Korea. Then China served as mediator, orchestrating a meeting in Beijing between Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill and the North Korean negotiator. This was exactly the face-to-face talks Korea had been asking for and the U.S. had denied. It worked. Twenty months later, North Korea is blowing up its nuclear reactor, not nuclear bombs.

The announcement also comes at the heels of major foreign policy addresses by both Presidential candidates. Sen. Obama laid out his plan for "aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy" with Tehran; Senator John McCain rejected the idea. Both the U.S. and Iran seem to be taking a page out of the Obama play book: Bush by sending Burns and Tehran by heeding Obama's warning to "negotiate now -- by waiting, they will only face mounting pressure."

Conservative hardliners are sure to scream betrayal, as they did on North Korea. But the seeming ascendance of the pragmatist approach within the administration may save President Bush from adding to an already dismal record of foreign policy failure.

Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione

Comments

[jhamm1]

Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's a pig!!

[Mojane]

Such a deal. You give up everything for us giving up nothing.

[Laserbeam]

And the White House is going to give Obama credit....­..when?

[MissT]

When hell freezes over or when pigs fly...whic­h ever comes first.

[HumeSkeptic]

Sure. It is a reversal. But it is a welcome reversal. I don't care what it means politically here, as long as it helps to avoid another unnecessary war.

Let's all hope for a peaceful resolution of issues with Iran. I am sure that a majority of American and Iranian people don't want war.
.

[Henry]

Well said. Couldn't agree more. Namecalling should be left to the sports fields.

[UltraClassic]

I'm waiting for commentors. I'm sure it will be the old "damned if you do, damned if you don't" reaction that is so typical of Bush haters.

I think a more accurate statement would be "even a blind hog finds and acorn every once in a while."

[mari2JJ]

Not the problem at all. The problem is that Bush was forced into doing this flip flo and I know it is necessary for you to skip over that little fact. But, that is exactly what is happening. If Bush had not been prodded to send someone to meet with Said Jalili, he would still be stuck with his ridiculous approach to Iran. Thank God for the brilliant prodding by this wise Democratic nominee. When he is good enough to blast Bush off his seat, you can tell how persuasive he is. Thanks Obama. You stood up for what is right and even blasted Bush-he-stubborn, right into doing it your way. hehehehe

[TheProverbialMan]

True. I didn't think anything like this would happen until Obama took office...b­ut hey, the sooner the better.

Obama himself just said "The Iranians should negociate now. Waiting will only make things worse."

He was right...ag­ain. The FISA issue had me myopic about what matters most: Foreign Policy. I agree 100% of everything Obama says on FP. Because damn it, he is right the first time, before anyone else was.

[ApolloSpeaks]

OBAMA'S PLAYBOOK? NO WAY!

What was taken out of Obama's playbook? Where is Bush meeting face to face with Ahmedinejad? What you see has more to do with electoral politics-getting McCain elected- than any hope of changing Iran's behavior and stopping their quest for the bomb. Iran's revolution and nuclear arms program are inseparably linked and nonnegotiable. Why would Iran stop now when the bomb will send their geopolitical leverage through the roof? Why would they stop when Europe will offer a nuclear armed Iran at least twice the incentives that were recently proposed?

If this weren't an election year the Bush Administration would never have removed N. Korea from the enemies/terrorist list. There is no other possible explanation for Bush doing this given the fact that Kim Ill is in noncompliance with all of his agreements­.The lowering of international tensions until Election Day is good for McCain, bad for Obama. The playbook is Karl Rove's.

[2bad]

get your facts straight sparky! obama didn't say he would meet only with ahmedinejad. face it, obama was right on track, as he has been on most things. he made the call months ago and the repugs are just wising up! they should listen to him more often instead of w. and mcbush just pounding their chests!

[ApolloSpeaks]

Talking about facts, what do you know about Iran and its leadership? As a general rule Iran's Supreme Leader only meets with Moslem leaders. The only exception in 19 years was with Vladimir Putin an ally of Iran and friend of its revolution. Khamenei would never compromise the sanctity and dignity of his office by meeting with the leader of the "Great Satan;" Islam's global enemy number one; the epicenter of world evil and infidel filth. A US President would have no choice but to meet with Ahmadinejad or his successor which is something no US leader would ever do, not even a President Obama as Iran's president is not his political counterpart.

[mulegino]

It doesn't matter if this is electoral politics or not. It is in America's national interest to have an ongoing dialogue with the Iranian regime, and back away from the brink of a catastrophic military conflict in the region, which could possibly lead to the collapse of the American economy and the slaughter of thousands of American troops in the region. In other words, if these negotiations come to fruition, it will be good for all parties concerned, AIPAC and the neo-con Cheneyacs notwithstanding.
Iran, even a nuclear armed Iran, is not a threat to the national security of the U.S.
There is not one scintilla of evidence that Iran harbors plans for offensive war against any other country in the region, including Israel. Its time for American presidents and American diplomats to start standing up for American interests-­preeminent­ly the interests of the American people.

[PTTY]

Barack Obama was right again, but the MSM will never give him credit.
This is so amazing, now the Bush will claim it has his idea and he was not taking advice from Obama.

Obama/Clinton 08

[starboymikey]

This is how the Bushies have handled every defeat in domestic and foreign policy: "Oh, that was really *our* idea."

Think of the recent GI Bill, which Bush and the neo-cons (who rabidly opposed giving fresh benefits to military members) immediately took credit for. John McCain, who was a strident opponent all the way until the end was even singled out for special credit, and Chuck Hagel, who supported the bill from the beginning got no mention at all. Neither did Senator Webb who sponsored the bill, for God's sake!

And what about the reversal of the cut in payments to Medicare providers? Bush vetoed the bill reversing that cut, and when his veto was overriden by a bipartisan, veto-proof majority, what does Bush say? He says how glad he is that payments to Medicare providers won't be cut, and that his veto was based not on his opposition to Medicare on principle, but on some technicality of how the bill was worded.

These guys are just totally Orwellian from top to bottom. They squirm out of embarrassing defeats by calling them victories and taking all the credit.

If they do sign a treaty with Iran, we will hear that only their strong stand could have made it happen and that Obama would never have been able to accomplish it ... because he wanted diplomacy instead of confrontation. Makes me want to pound my head on a desk.

[CitizenFace]

Very interesting. Call me skeptical, but I can't help suspecting that this exchange is a smokescreen.

After so much bluster, can Iran freeze its enrichment program in exchange for a freeze on FURTHER sanctions without appearing weak?

Should Iran turn down this offer--for geo-political expediency, if not previously claimed principles--it would give the administration the veneer of having exhausted efforts toward progress through "carrot-and-stick diplomacy," thus eliminating a major one of "all the options on the table." And we all know what happens after diplomacy fails...

Justification for war could thus be made that much easier, PLUS it would allow Republicans to rub their noses in Obama's plans for dealing with Iran. All they'd need then is some sort of imminent reason for war like, oh, say, an Iranian response to Israeli provocation.

Bingo, bango... we're at war by October.

[djarvis]

Good post, Joe. Apparently the Bush administration woke up and realized that Barack Obama was right all along in recommending diplomacy to deal with Iran. It makes George Bush look like a hypocrite, though, after he said in Israel that negotiating with Iran would be equivalent to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler by Neville Chamberlain. It also makes McCain look bad, because he agreed with the president about not offering negotiations with Iran.

[cornflower]

I'd say the Bush administration may have coordinated with the McCain campaign to undermine Obama. If they try "direct" negotiations as promoted by Obama and they fail, they can ridicule Obama's naivete in suggesting this approach and say they tried it and proved that it won't work. If they succeed, they can take a campaign selling point off the table, i.e. we did it already. you don't need Obama to do that. Also, they may have been pressured to do it by allies.

[joebhed]

Dear Joe C.
Big fan here.

Thanks for shedding some light on this seemingly non-existent item in the MSM.

Me thinks you are getting soft on the Bush non-diplomacy.
I see it more of a “hey, we tried everything, even sitting down with a bunch of terrorists” in order to achieve a diplomatic solution. I could be wrong. Hope so.

We know Jalili will make no real enrichment concessions. And, why should they since Iran already suspended enrichment efforts for two years and got a shrug of the shoulders from the west.

I do hope W apologized to McCain for pulling the rug out from under his “no-negotiations” position with Iran, which, regardless of the outcome, will undoubtedly help Obama look more like a statesman – even than he is.

At some point, these discussions must boil down to the fact that Iran has the right to enrichment under the NPT, and, if we’re worried, then the old adage fits here perfectly:
“If you can’t beat em, join ‘em”.

Joint Iran-E4+ enrichment, and Israel disarms.
Peace, for once.

[Mogamboguru]

Unfathomable!

AT LAST - the return of REASON to US-american foreign policy!?

What did Condi do to "Darth" Cheney? Sedate and gag him?

Good luck, Mr. Burns!

(BTW: This is the first time IN MY WHOLE LIFE that I wish a Republican good luck...!)

(Woah - this is just about too much: I need a drink ASAP...) 8-)

[jteschke]

What's probably happening is that the "grown-ups" have told them that economic collapse stares them in the face if they attack. I don't know how it will affect McCain's campaign, since he'll obviously "flip-flop" to support the new policy if this is more than a feint. Would McCain be stupid enough to profile himself as more of a warmonger than Bush? After all, he knows how to "win" wars. I doubt it, though. Would the decrease in militarist pressure cause the economy to quit tanking quickly enough for them to declare victory on that front as well as Iraq? How much of the change is caused by conditions on the ground in Iraq and the threat they'll be told to leave by the government they've created? It appears that, for whatever reason, reality is finally exerting its influence.
We've still got to hold them accountable for the years of failure even if this final gloss makes things appear less disastrous. I'm sure Barack will be effective in his world tour; in fact, that's another reason they're doing it: to deflect coverage from what would otherwise be a major story: Barack's successful world tour.

[Whitehouse]

As much as I think President Bush is a disaster, this is a good move. It sure feels weird to write something like this. Talking works better than not talking. That's how problems are fixed.

[LeftCoaster64]

Obama sounds more and more presidential every day!

[Alexandro]

think about it: wouldn't it be easier for them to justify an attack if they can claim that "we tried hard" but they just wouldn't listen?
While i support direct diplomacy i just don't trust Bush. Not on this or any other issue he had his hands on.