Particularly serious is Obama’s uncertain handling of the Iranian nuclear challenge. The dialogue with Tehran has not worked so far, and there is no evidence that the administration made a full-scale effort to make it happen. The sanctions did not change the Iranian determination to continue with a nuclear-enrichment program. Increasing the severity of the sanctions, as the administration is planning to do (with full Congressional support), may cause Iran to respond with drastic measures. Remember how Japan responded to American sanctions seventy years ago by attacking Pearl Harbor.

Simes also noted some of the devastating consequences of war such as a “dramatic increase in oil prices, possibly even triggering a global recession” and Iran gaining “powerful new allies who would be willing and able to help rebuild its defenses and restart its nuclear program.”

He does not specify exactly what he is referring to when he ends by noting that the U.S. should freely pursue its own interests when they do not coincide with Israel’s, but considering his focus on the pro-Israel hawkishness of the GOP candidates, it’s fair to assume that he’s talking about Israeli influence over the U.S.’s Iran policy:

We should respect the Israeli attitude, developed after many decades of amazing success in building and protecting their state in a hostile neighborhood. But precisely because Israel is a genuinely independent state with its own important interests, those running for president cannot responsibly claim that there should never be a difference between American and Israeli positions. If such a difference does exist, the United States should be fully entitled, within reason and decency, to act to protect U.S. interests. As George Washington stated in his Farewell Address, “nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded.” Washington also warned that an unconditional attachment to a foreign nation is “particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot.”

On the same day that the National Interest piece was published a rare set of hopeful antiwar voices also graced the pages of the Washington Post in an op-ed by Ambassadors William H. Luers and Thomas R. Pickering. The two Cold War diplomatic veterans urged for engagement and diplomacy with Iran at a time when tensions are high and hawkish rhetoric is rampant in Washington. Iran may be a “serious threat”, but “[w]ithout that patient search for different ways to deal with Tehran” the U.S. will be “stuck” with a policy that will not change Iran’s behavior and could lead to a “catastrophic war,” the Ambassadors warn. Like retired Admiral Mike Mullen, Luers and Pickering recommend opening channels of communication with Iran “while maintaining some pressure” to “reduce the danger of conflict.” Of course, that will be especially difficult now due to a provision proposed by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in the newly passed Iran Threat Reductions Act which bars communication between U.S. and Iranian officials unless the President notifies Congress fifteen days in advance.

Still, the Obama administration is urged to exhaust the “slow, elusive diplomatic process”. Yet another calamitous war in the Middle East will not serve U.S. interests. Indeed, it will work against them:

Have we forgotten what Iraq and the United States have been through since 2002? Were it not for that ill-begotten war, thousands of Americans (and Iraqis) might still be living. America would be a trillion dollars richer and still be the proud, respected and economically healthy nation the world had known.

Currently a visiting scholar at Princeton, Mousavian has authored an article titled “Rules for Successful Engagement with Iran.” He argues that President Obama’s talk of moving forward “without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect” during his Cairo speech in 2009 was a new and welcomed step in the right direction but not followed through with actions. Ahmadinejad had likewise taken the “first tentative steps” at creating dialogue by writing letters to the George W. Bush and Obama administrations which were never answered. Obama’s initial gestures were “met with positive signs from Tehran” but then both governments receded into rigidity as far as concrete actions go.

Mousavian notes that despite instances of “unprecedented willingness of both Tehran and Washington to talk, engagement has failed thus far, and will continue to fail as long as both sides undermine it with “dual track approaches.” Dual track approaches are an “easy way to go” for both leaders considering domestic concerns and restraints, but “Rapprochement between Washington and Tehran will be possible only when, for the duration of engagement policy:”

• The language of threats and angry rhetoric is set aside,

• Hostile actions, sanctions, and other forms of coercive pressure are put on hold,

• A comprehensive agenda, including all bilateral, regional and international issues, is discussed through direct talks,

• Issues of common interest are given priority in the talks, and

• Domestic political factions in both countries are convinced to cooperate, at least temporarily, while negotiations are conducted.

Mousavian is saying what many in the U.S. government already know but have thus far refused to come to terms with. Of course, in the absence of a real and urgent need to end this gridlock, neither side will back down from a position it has been building since 1979.

The U.S. has thus far remained devoted to appeasing Israel with its Iran policy rather than doing business with Iran and the Islamic Republic’s existence was founded on its oppositional posturing to the West. The Iranian government is, however, clearly the most disadvantaged and while the complexity of Iranian domestic politics has prevented it from aggressively courting the U.S., attempts by both the reformers and the Ahmadinejad faction of the principalists suggests that more power-holders are recognizing the importance of survival over ideology. But as long as the U.S. continues to strangle Iran with sanctions which are also hurting the Iranian people, the regime will do everything it can to act as though it’s not desperate. Until one side is forced to budge, progress towards good relations is unlikely. Meanwhile anti-rapprochement voices on both sides get louder and continue to garner support.