The New Republic

Again, the Baker logic leaks at every level. Not just that Iran/Syria can't help, won't help, would ask too high a price even if they could/would, but also we have utterly no way to monitor compliance and punish them for non-compliance. Plus, all of this is being launched with no thought whatsoever to how we can and should improve our leverage-- military, mainly-- prior to entering talks. Rank amateurism or insanity, I don't know. Whatever, it's embarrassing. This dreary episode will be discussed in future textbooks on negotiating, in the chapter, How NOT to Negotiate.

- teplukhin

December 15, 2006 at 1:31pm

possibly with the help of Google Earth, will show that the United States does not have a land border with Iraq. This means that when the U.S. withdraws its forces, there will be few direct (I emphasize direct) consequences for us, whatever happens then. Syria and Iran, however (again, a quick glance will suffice), do have land borders, and they also have, whether they admit it or not, a substantial interest in not seeing an abyss of sectarian violence opening up next door. One that, as these things go, they could find themselves suddenly in charge of. To that extent, one of few items left in our pathetically depleted toolbox is a real threat to said countries that we will pull out and leave them to deal with the widening doorway to hell in Iraq. They do not want that. And isn't it so typical of this administration, that it has deployed threats and with-us-or-against-us bluster across the globe for five years, but the one time some threatening would actually be useful, it rejects the idea? Two more years of this incompetence! Aaarrggh!

- ironyroad

December 15, 2006 at 2:22pm

Cleary, it's not so much a "sectarian war" as a clash of various warlords and assorted gangsters. Iran provides some funding, sure, but they have next to no influence over those warlords. Asking the Iranians for help would be like the UK asking Clinton for help influencing Gerry Adams in the mid-1990s. Adams is his own man; so is Sadr. Iran has f-all to do with it.

- teplukhin

December 15, 2006 at 2:36pm

"This dreary episode will be discussed in future textbooks on negotiating, in the chapter, How NOT to Negotiate." Seems to me that Dubya pretty much owns that chapter. He is a master of the art of NOT neogiating. What I don't understand is why Bush is so pro-Iranian. First, he removes the single greatest threat to Iranian regional hegemony without asking anything in return from the Iranians. Now he wants to continue spending billions of our tax dollars and the blood of our sons and daughters to protect the Iranians from the chaos that would likely spill over their border if we just left. If he is going to be so easy to roll, I guess we really don't want this president negotiating with the Iranians.

- dhuey0

December 15, 2006 at 3:20pm

A gentle suggestion: redeploy our troops away from Baghdad toward the border regions, esp the border with you-know-who, change the force posture to emphasize bombers and apaches, set up a forward air base in Kurdistan. When we're no longer sitting ducks in Baghdad, and instead have our most potent weapons pointed squarely at Tehran, we can think about talking with Baghdad.

- teplukhin

December 15, 2006 at 3:31pm

no spillover into Iran. What, the Sunnis in Iraq will attack them? I know they have a death wish, but c'mon. There are 70 million Shia Persians waiting for that to happen. No, the chaos will occur only at the Sunni/Shia friction points, for lack of a better term. Just like it did at the Catholic/Orthodox and Muslim/Orthodox points in the Balkans. There was no spillover, even into Slovenia or Bulgaria. There will be sectarian cleansing before spillover. And I think it's already occurring. Again - if Syria and/or Iran wanted to be helpful in Iraq (however defined), they would have been helpful before now. What's stopping them? Talking to either or both gets us nothing, but will make the NYT editorial board happy. No, thanks.

- butchie b

December 15, 2006 at 3:36pm

"Again - if Syria and/or Iran wanted to be helpful in Iraq (however defined), they would have been helpful before now. What's stopping them?" The fear that America will turn on them once Iraq is stable enough to leave. I don't think we should assume that Iran and Syria will benefit if Iraq becomes Hell on Earth.

- Yminale

December 15, 2006 at 3:51pm

We have SOME common interests, and we have SOME leverage. We are NOT confident about our strategy in Iraq; we are NOT desperate for Iranian or Syrian help; and we are NOT certain that talking would be non-productive. We don't have to offer Syria the Golan. We don't have to promise Iran anything. We ought to talk with them and tell them what we want them to do. We should listen to their ideas. We should see if we can work with them at all. Iran is a mystery, but it is possible that our radicalism in the region has opened the door for Ahmedinajad's radicalism in Iran. Maybe if we were to engage them in dialogue we could put a wedge between him and the mullahs. Maybe if we engage Assad, we can pressure him to cooperate with us. Maybe is better than anything Bush has to offer. We have seen what not talking has produced so far. Let's try talking.

- purcellneil

December 15, 2006 at 4:09pm

Though its in the best intrest of Syrians and the Iranians to help us at least contain the violence Iraq, for the past 6 years we've done everything in our power to alienate them (the whole Axis Evil of thing). We can talk but without trust what can you accomplish.

- Yminale

December 15, 2006 at 4:22pm

there can be no hope of trust or even civility. The notion that "if they wanted to help, they would have" is just more Bush-think. Maybe they want something in return for their help. Maybe it's something we can deal with and maybe it isn't. But right now, our Fearless Leader's policy is that he won't speak to anyone he disagrees with. So there's no way of knowing what's possible. God, what an a$$

- miceelf

December 15, 2006 at 4:27pm

A voice of reason . . . crying the wilderness, but a voice nonetheless.

- dhuey0

December 15, 2006 at 4:29pm

"Clearly, it's not so much a 'sectarian war' as a clash of various warlords and assorted gangsters." No, that's Baltimore. Iraq is more complicated, bloody, and ominous.

- ironyroad

December 15, 2006 at 4:45pm

are truly worried - that is, if it in their national interest - about "chaos in Iraq" they would help quell said chaos regardless of whether or not they talked with the US. This they have not done. So, either a) they are NOT worried about the chaos that they have done so much to foster or b) they really don't care whether they talk to us or not. Or both. BTW, I know it comforts most of the folks here to blame Bush, but we've had a policy of not talking to Iran for over 25 years. Or did Clinton go to Teheran, and I missed it?

- butchie b

December 15, 2006 at 4:52pm

I agree but the problem with the Bushians is just what would they say? they have been so busy talking at the American people I have no trust in their ability to actually listen to anyone but their own hosanna chorus. Could you imagine a conversation between Ahmadinejad and Bush? Bush: ""This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." Ahmad: " The Iranian nation is a learned nation. It is a civilised nation. It is a history-making nation... You know and we know: you need us far more than we need you." Bush: "hm hmm, speaking of civilizing I said I was looking for a book to read, Laura said you ought to try Camus. I also read three Shakespeares. ... I've got a eck-a-lec-tic reading list." Ahmad "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

- blackton

December 15, 2006 at 4:54pm

Y'all are reduced to jokes and vague inanities because there's nothing that the Iranians can deliver, will deliver, have any interest in delivering, in Iraq. In other words, nothing of substance to negotiate. It's not about "talking", it's about agreeing concrete a) actions encapsulated in b) negotiating points. Until Baker or anyone puts forth some specific examples of a) and b), this talk of talks is just... talk.

- teplukhin

December 15, 2006 at 7:18pm

No it's about negotiating (a) a perception of common interests and (c) a desire to bring about or avoid certain eventualities, in order to reach (c) agreements. In order to reach (c) one has to explore (a) and/or (b) -- either overtly or covertly. What is not very useful is the position that no exploration of (a) or (b) will taken place until the (c) that the United States wants is delivered. Then, as a reward, we'll apparently engage in (a) and (b). It doesn't happen that way. We didn't negoiate the SALT treaties with the Soviets by demanding a SALT treaty and and refusing to negotiate until we got one.

- ironyroad

December 15, 2006 at 8:45pm

that should read "and (b) a desire to bring about . . . " in the first and second line above. It'd be nice if there were an edit window (10 mins or so) on this site!

- ironyroad

December 15, 2006 at 8:48pm

The great success of American diplomacy in the long Cold War with the USSR is often alluded to, but seems to have provided no benefits in terms of lessons learned. I wonder how you would deal with Iran, given your rejection of any diplomatic engagement with that nation. ?

- purcellneil

December 18, 2006 at 10:09am

...that you cannot negotiate if you have already announced what your intentions are. The Commission pretends that our threat to leave at date certain (2008) will be perceived as a threat to everyone around the table> And also that this threat will put the fear of God in both the Sunnis and the Shia who will beg us to stay whiled ending their fighting with each other. Maybe the Sunni minority will be threatened by the prospect. But, why the shia majority? In any event, the Commission report containted all the wisdom and shrewd thinking you expect from a report written by people more intent on proving their bipartisanness than actually solving a problem.

- ChanRobt

December 18, 2006 at 1:40pm

...was backed by the Damocles sword of nuclear weapons and the promise of annihilation. it was also backed by 40 plus years of resolutness. The big exception being when post-Vientam Democrats started losing their nerve and calling for concenssions to the Soviets at every turn. Luckily, Reagan did not listen to Ted Kennedy and the rest.

- ChanRobt

December 18, 2006 at 1:42pm

Neil, Obviously, in the Cold War we had a deterrent that was hugely effective, plus we had repeatedly signalled our willingness to endure huge and painful losses overseas in order to challenge the soviets across the globe. So when we negotiated with them we were dealing from a position of strength and seeking only to routinize and formalize our rivalry with the Soviets. The Iranians are not a major power, not an established power, not even a power at all. The only reason we have any interest in them is that they are clearly determined to exploit terrorist groups in order to wreak havoc on us and our allies. This demonstrated behavior plus the threat of nukes makes them of interest to us-- nothing more, nothing less. So if we're to talk with them, the terms of that ddiscussion need to be 100% focused on inhibiting 1) their nuclear program and 2) their use of terrorist proxies. They know, and responsible intelligent US officials know, that Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with these core issues. There is no linkage between Iraq and Iran's nuke/terror drive, and no way to force a linkage. Try putting together some negotiating points and you'll see instantly how ridiculous this is: "Iran agrees to halt its nuclear drive, in exchange for which"... what? We exit Iraq? But the ISG said we're already going to do that, with all due haste! In any case, I thought the anti-Bush line was that, by bogging ourselves down in Iraq, we did the Iranians a huge favor. So why would they wish us to leave? Absurd. Now let's assume that you could somehow link the fish and the bicycle and make the above absurdity disappear. Even then, it makes no sense to negotiate carrots without first assembling some very potent sticks. To my mind it would make far more sense to sit down with Iran when and if we have a forward air base on Iran's borders, loaded with bombers and apaches pointed squarely at Iran. Which, you may recall, was precisely the position that we used, again and again and again, in the Cold War. And beyond. When Clinton set up talks with Milosevic, he invited him not to the White House, not to a plush retreat like Rambouillet (as Chirac did), but to Dayton Air Force Base in Ohio. If you still haven't gotten the point, let me spell it out for you: our trump card is always overwhelming air superiority, aka the very credible threat-- promise, really-- to bomb the bejesus out of our interlocutors should they fail to comply with their promised actions. US air power works, has worked brilliantly in recent years (Kosovo, Iraq NFZ), and can work again. But we shouldn't even think of negotiating anything with Iran until we've assembled the means necessary to play this trump card, preferably within 150 miles or less of Baghdad. (Hint: Kurdistan will make a perfect long-term US ally).

- teplukhin

December 18, 2006 at 2:51pm

"If you still haven't gotten the point, let me spell it out for you" Nice. I understand that you would like to use our military power, and specifically air power, to pressure the Iranians. You believe we could pressure Iran through air bases we might build in Kurdistan. I doubt that we can make a credible threat to use force, and I further doubt that we will actually use force against Iran. I believe your prescription is a precription for inaction - because we have no intention of attacking Iran. They know that, so there is no benefit to such a bluff. The American people will not support such a war. Furthermore, what will you promise the Kurds? Consider what we have already promised the Turks, and how destabilizing it will be if we grant the Kurds their most ambitious dreams. I think your notion is at least as dangerous as the fantasy that drove the Iraq war. Iran is very happy to see us floundering in Iraq, but they have reason to fear the consequences of our withdrawal. That is the only trump card we need (or have) and it is a reasonably good basis for talks.

- purcellneil

December 20, 2006 at 12:27am