On Meeting with Ahmadinejad

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton participated in a substantive debate in Texas last night. They answered a range of questions from policy to politics, and both candidates did a fine job of answering the questions to the best of their abilities. One of the most contentious issues throughout this campaign that was expectedly brought up again last night was the idea of meeting with -- among other hostile leaders -- President Ahmadinejad of Iran. As someone who was born in Tehran and lived there for nearly 17 years, I'd like to weigh in on the issue right now.

The idea of a presidential meeting with Ahmadinejad was first raised in this campaign during the YouTube debate a few months back when a questioner asked if the next president would be willing to meet "without preconditions" with the leaders of Iran and a number of other perceived hostile leaders. Senator Obama answered yes, and I think that was the right answer. But I think there are a number of observations that we must make before explaining why a presidential meeting could be the right thing to do.

First, one has to make an important distinction between precondition -- the term that the questioner used -- and preparation. Preparations are the steps that need to be taken prior to a presidential meeting. These steps include setting the agenda, mutual communication about the desired topics for discussion and planning on the location for a meeting as the appropriate venue for breaking the three-decade long silence. Preconditions, however, mean something very different. The term has a policy implication and can be most appropriately interpreted within context to mean the implementation or execution of a substantive policy as a condition for the meeting to take place. For instance, President Bush has for years imposed such a precondition by demanding that Iran stop exercising its legal right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of enriching uranium if she wishes to speak to the American president.

When answering "no" at the original YouTube debate, Senator Clinton explained her position by saying that she didn't want to be used for propaganda purposes. But the question wasn't about preparation; the question was about policy precondition. Although she has demonstrated throughout the ensuing debates that she wants preparations and preconditions before meeting with Ahmadinejad.

But the distinction between preparations and preconditions brings me to the second point, which is that setting a precondition cannot be considered "diplomacy" or "negotiations" by any stretch of the terms' definitions. If one side is to tell the other side to agree to a position before having a chance to discuss the issue first, that is no negotiation at all. This would be equivalent to a judge demanding that a defendant pleads guilty to a charge in order to obtain the right to a trial. If the United States wants to maximize its influence around the world, it has to have the courage to talk to its enemies and argue for its desired outcome rather than demanding it without hearing the other side of it. That isn't fair. We have had a president who isn't willing to listen for the past eight years, and that policy has expectedly not worked. We have to learn our lesson from these years and begin listening to the world if we want to be listened to.

But the third point I want to make has to do with something that Senator Clinton said last night. When speaking about possible presidential talks with Cuba, Senator Clinton said that she would not meet with Cuba unless she sees certain changes, including the release of political prisoners and more democracy on the island. There are several aspects of such a policy that is fundamentally misguided.

One has to do with what her answer implies with respect to the way she views the position of presidency. She does not believe that a presidential meeting should serve the purpose of advancing American interests of democracy and human rights abroad. She rather seems to have an elitist view toward the position of the president, viewing a meeting with the United States as a reward, which would be granted to anyone who abides by the preconditions we set forth. This view, in turn, seems to be rooted in an underlying belief that the United States is above other countries. This is clearly an arrogant way of looking at the world and is certainly far from how leaders like Ahmadinejad view the office of a U.S. president. In light of President Bush's eight years of bullying and go-it-alone policies, the next president of the United States will have to understand that he or she has to not only speak with the leaders that we have so far refused to speak to, but we have to go farther than we would normally go in order to obtain the what little good will we had that has been lost and repair the damage that has been done to our image.

But the second and more important implication of Obama and Clinton's different positions on meeting with hostile foreign leaders has to do with the potentials that each candidate believes the office of the president has. Clinton seems to believe that the next president should use what, she seems to believe, is some inherent superior position to try to get other countries to comply with our demands just to earn the reward of normalizing relations with America. She believes Iran will democratize, end three decades of theocratic rule and release all prisoners just so Mahmoud can have a coffee with her majesty. Obama, however, seems to understand that the president has the potential to use the office in a more proactive way. By sitting down with Ahmadinejad to discuss the items on the agenda -- which no doubt have to include issues of human rights, women's rights, gay rights, religious minority rights, political prisoners and lack of democracy in general, along with possible economic and diplomatic incentives in the long-run -- we have a much better chance of succeeding.

Here in the United States, I meet too many Iranian republicans or centrist democrats. The main reason for their beliefs has to do with their experience. Most of them left Iran shortly after the Iranian revolution that ended the last shah's rule and before Iran's war with Iraq began. As a result, they understandably have a very hostile view toward the Iranian regime. But due to decades of being away from Iran, they are also significantly out of touch with the people's sentiments in Iran. That, combined with the fact that they know about oppression in Iran and feel homesick and powerless, leads them to be very sympathetic toward having a very hard-line and even military approach toward Iran. Following the California primary, there was a lot of talk of "Asian" votes going to Hillary, followed by Asian-American bloggers who offered their own theories to explain these statistics. But I think what no one seems to have acknowledged is that the Iranian population in California is the largest outside of Iran with an estimated 500,000 in the south of the state alone. It is this blogger's view that Iranians in California were the biggest single factor that gave the state to Hillary Clinton, whom they thought would be more likely to pursue a hard-line approach toward Iran.

But I and tens of millions who live in Iran have had a very different life experience. I lived through the war and still remember running to the basement with my parents every time sirens went off in warning of air strikes on Tehran. I certainly agree with most Iranian dissidents about the level of oppression in Iran. I lived under that oppression for most of my life and can still remember vividly the night when I was arrested by the religious police because of the crime of speaking with a girl I wasn't married to. But what I also understand is that the United States cannot bring democracy to Iran by either demanding it or militarily imposing it. The fact is that democracy is not an isolated incident like a chemical reaction, which could be brought about instantly by creating some sort of contained explosion. It is rather a step in a long-term evolutionary social process that is moved forth through education and national experience. To give a cheesy metaphor, it's kind of like love; you can't hurry it.

A presidential meeting between Iran and the United States (or lack thereof) would not make much of a difference in resulting in a lasting democracy in Iran in the long-run as neither will military action. But what a direct meeting can mean is that it can be an opportunity for us to acknowledge the crimes that the Iranian regime continues to commit in a public forum without the fear of anyone getting arrested or silenced and offer certain incentives that can push the regime to open up the system, loosen up restrictions on women and the youth and limit the role of the Guardian Council in deciding who can or can't run for public office.

But there is another effect that establishing limited relations with Iran without completely legitimizing the illegitimate power that Ahmadinejad and the unelected mullahs hold can have. Throughout my life in Iran, I always felt a sense of isolation from the rest of the world and believed that children of my generation felt the same way. I craved to know what it was like to live in freedom and always harbored a sense of desire in seeing Iran to have relations with the United States because I saw that as a clear source of inspiration for democracy activists in Iran. I have lived in the United States since 1999, but I never forget that sense of isolation that I felt throughout most of my teen years and know that that desire exists in the hearts of millions of Iranians who love freedom and want Iran to be a friend of the United States. It is time we elect a president who has had the courage to offer a fundamentally different approach in dealing with Iran because he has had the foresight and judgment to understand its long-term positive impact for the people of Iran and the United States.

Comments

[bellecloche]

Thanks for that great article.

[BUSHsurvivor]

OBAMA: I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda, and on that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time.

[altohone]

Always wise Sam.

Must disagree with your use of "centrist Democrats" though.

Using that term interchangeably with "right wing Democrats" is part of the reason the DLC'ers could enable Bush.

There's nothing centrist about pre-emptive wars of choice.

There's nothing centrist about following Bush's use of pre-conditions to avoid diplomacy.

Hillary is a right-wing Democrat, not a centrist.

[jdm58]

The issues of Cuba and Iran are very different. There are hundreds of thousands of Iranians who came to live in Southern California, and elsewhere, mostly at the time of the fall of Shah Pahlavi. Many left Iran to escape persecution or death for being Shah (and in extension, U.S.) loyalists. Some, like the Baha'i, left on the basis of religious persecution. Most were able to get their money and possessions out of Iran before coming here, and they had to qualify for U.S. residency under non-refugee status. The United States was not at risk of a military attack on domestic soil from Iran, as has been the case since Castro's communist revolution in Cuba.
There are millions of voters in Florida and elsewhere, who will protest most vehemently against initiating relations with Cuba. Many personally lost a great deal to the current regime, not a previous regime, as in the case of Iran. To initiate dialog with an elected government that is post-Homeini, is different to initiating a dialog with a regime that is still very much Castro. We would be signaling to the Cuban-American citizens of this country that what they lost by remaining loyal to America is no longer of importance to us. Is what Castro's Cuba stands for then, to be considered insignificant in comparison to amount of money that stands to be made if we open trade? Some of us still remember the planes and passengers frequently hijacked in this country in the '60's and '70's, with a destination of Cuba. Some of us remember the difficulties dealing with the murderers, felons and mentally ill prisoners who were sent here by Castro for "political asylum". How we related to Cuba at the outset of Castro's revolution, is not a stellar moment in U.S. Foreign Policy. But ignoring the human rights violations and events in the years that followed would be a slap in the face to the many citizens here, and their families, who suffered under his regime. It is a slippery slope for any candidate to travel, and one that Obama, if he is the candidate chosen, will have to consider, before taking any steps towards "preparations", or "preconditions".

[altohone]

Obama's approach drew a fair amount of support in the Cuban American community.

It certainly is hard to argue our decades long policy has achieved progress.

I don't think you need to worry about a new approach until after dicussions are held. Obama will seek a new consensus, but isn't about to act without the support of the community.

[Fairfloss]

I first thought, ah, Barack Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talking, both think they are charismatic. Or do they?

Ahmadinejad thinks himself a savior of some kind, I am not sure just what. He speaks often of the Caliph and I get the impression he sees himself as a spiritual leader and this is where he and the powerful Mullah's could have a parting of the ways.

While Senator Barack Obama is charismatic, he brings an air of authenticity and sincerity to the conversation. Unless, success changes him.

Senator Hillary Clinton, has never found her voice. She doesn't seem to know if she should be coy or tough. Neither suit her and she, quite frankly, is the one who needs to learn more. That is, if she is indeed, her own person and not just a front for Bill Clinton.

No one is ever ready to be President the very first day, unless they have been President before.

[moda31]

thanks for sharing this very interesting and insightful piece. it's definitely one of the best i've read on the topic.

[Stefano]

While I kind of agree with you, I can't help but think that Ahminjinadad would use the whole meeting as a propaganda tool. He will say how he has brought the Great Satan to its knees and forced them to meet on his terms. I honestly feel that the current leader of really can't be dealth with rationally. (But I am not advocating a hardline military approach)

[oldpotsmuggler]

Yes, indeed, "use the office in a more proactive way". In fact it's no exaggeration at all to say that we simply have no other alternative.

This issue is of paramount importance and has finally brought me to the position of believing that a President Obama would better serve the world than a President Clinton. And make no mistake, there is no longer any way that we can serve ourselves without serving the world. Things are now interrelated to a degree that leaves for no reasonable option other than our trying to stake a position of promoting the concept of, and leading the effort towards cooperative existence.

Will we be a leader of this new world order, and probably the leader? Of course! Being both the largest economy and the only true superpower means that full potential for organizing human affairs can never be realized without us. And the shedding of our arrogance is a necessary percusor to our being able to move back into the lead position.

Yes, talk! And talk, and talk, and talk, and make sure we do it mainly from the top. When the President becomes the wise and friendly face of the U.S. we can begin to have conversations that have waited for far too long already. And if our President is well chosen, what would be the sense in fearing that our dialogue with whoever is going to end up harming instead of helping?

[MajorKong]

As long as our policy towards Iran is regime-change (and it is) the Iranians have no incentive to negotiate with us. They're not going to negotiate themselves out of existence.

[Kenai]

You just put into words, the thoughts that I've had bouncing around my head for many years. In fact, the other night I was writing in my journal about how the role I felt America should play in the World. I agree with you 100%. You can't force peace with war. You cannot reconcile differences in silence. And your enemy cannot hit you if you're embracing him.

[HowardRoarke]

Hillary's foreign policy is just an extension of her personality and past experience.

She's plenty booksmart. She can go off and find the "right answer". But she has no talent or ability to work with others to achieve a goal. Her best accomplishments were solo.

We already have one unitary executive. Why would we replace him with another?

[MagisterLudi]

I think establishing communication with Iran is important. I completely disagree that Mr. Ahmadinajad should be the person afforded this opportunity. He completely disgraced himself in front of a world community with statement like:
" Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps,"
should be isolated as much as possible... They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred."

'nough said.

If Iranian rulers should bring forth a more intelligent and coherent person than the high level contact can be beneficial for both countries.

Re."They [old time immigrants] are also significantly out of touch with the people's sentiments in Iran."

So this poster conducted independent opinion polls in Iran and therefore fully aware of prevailing attitudes towards the regime¦ OR is he talking about anecdotal evidence largely based on personal biases.... hmmmmm.

Re."But I and tens of millions who live in Iran have had a very different life experience."

Live in Iran? Shouldn"t be the past tense "I lived in Iran.

[Kenai]

"Re."But I and tens of millions who live in Iran have had a very different life experience."

Live in Iran? Shouldn"t be the past tense "I lived in Iran."

Not if he's referring to the people who still live there...

[MagisterLudi]

"...I and tens of millions who live in Iran."

Usually writers who are straining to establish credibility write ambiguous sentences like this.

More truthful version could begin as:

"I believe tens of millions of people who live in Iran are.." or "While I no longer live in Iran..."

[MagisterLudi]

"I and others who live in Iran" can interpreted otherwise. Yeah, right

[Lon]

It should be noted that in both of the quotes from Ahmadinejad, the objection is not to the truth of the holocaust, but to the use which it is put.

The importance of myths in this context is not that they are false, but that they are not open to question, and that they then become the basis for other things without being questioned.

In both cases his point was that an atrocity committed by the Germans (and other Europeans) against the jews should not be the basis for creating an obligation on Palestinians in the middle east.

Obviously it would be better if he made the point by saying, of course this atrocity happened but it has nothing to do with us. Instead he makes the point by saying, we don't care whether it actually happened because it has nothing to do with us.

[MagisterLudi]

"They[Europeans] have invented a myth that Jews were massacredand place this above God, religions and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in a speech to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on Wednesday from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

Lon, You mean that there are several ways
to interpret this quote? Please enlighten us.

This I want to see.

[desmirl]

Not talking to people is what gets us into trouble. American presidents wouldn't talk to Ho Chi Minh, and it cost us 58,000 lives and untold billions of dollars. American presidents wouldn't talk to Saddam Hussein and look how that's working out. Talking is so much better than shooting - but when you're president and only pawns (aka young citizens) are getting killed, what's the prob?

[shm259]

Great article- couldn't agree more.

In fact I would argue that this once again reflects on the importance of words. Words when utilized effectively can be used to compel people to engage in actions they might otherwise reject.

Obama's words have already compelled young people (including myself) to get involved, words have compelled Republicans to vote democrat (I met a 92 year old woman in Wisconsin who has voted Republican her whole life and voted for Obama on Tuesday)- Words are the premise of diplomacy and negotiation- so citing Patrick Deval (which evidently I have to do now)- Don't tell me words don't matter.

[Stefano]

While I kind of agree with you, I can't help but think that Ahminjinadad would use the whole meeting as a propaganda tool. He will say how he has brought the Great Satan to its knees and forced them to meet on his terms. I honestly feel that the current leader of really can't be dealth with rationally. (But I am not advocating a hardline military approach)

[MagisterLudi]

Agreed. I have never seen A-dad talk TO interviewers, he always talks AT interviewers.
Some of his views are so hallucinatory that I expect him break into some Borat routine like: "I insist we not fly in case the Jews repeated their attack of 9/11. "

[Ork]

But what is better to have a chance of peace against a chance that Ahminjinadad could use the talks as propaganda, as opposed to, not talking leading to confontration or generational deal-lock without any chance of giving away a browny propaganda point?