At PBS/Frontline‘s Tehran Bureau, I laid out what I think is a pretty compelling case that the [...]]]> In January, Iran and the P5+1 countries, which includes the United States, will sit down in Istanbul for the second of the latest iteration of talks between the West and the Islamic Republic over the latter’s nuclear program.

At PBS/Frontline‘s Tehran Bureau, I laid out what I think is a pretty compelling case that the United States should put a confidence-building deal — specifically some new version of the long discussed fuel-swap arrangement — on the table.

From the Tehran Bureau piece:

If, in Istanbul next month, Iran balks at U.S. and P5+1 efforts to arrange a confidence-building fuel swap, the Islamic Republic’s intransigence will be put on full display. If, on the other hand, Iran agrees to such a deal, little harm will be done to the West’s longterm prospects of ending the nuclear standoff without drastic measures – and Iran will turn over a sizable chunk of its nuclear material. If the United States and the rest of the P5+1 make the Iranians an offer they can’t refuse, it could be a win-win situation.

John Limbert, a Naval Academy professor and distinguished former foreign service officer who was an Iranian hostage and later ran the Iran desk at Obama’s State Department, is fond of saying, “They always zig when we zag.” The inverse is also true and, at this moment, the United States seems to be the one doing the zigging. But a zigging line and a zagging line just might cross paths, and the Obama administration should take advantage if the opportunity arises in Istanbul. It may not work, but to do nothing, and to try nothing, is to passively slide down the path to confrontation.

Check out the whole thing here.

Limbert, who [...]]]> Naval Academy professor John Limbert, the Obama administration’s former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran, paints an interesting, if disquieting, picture of the U.S.’s failed attempts to negotiate with Iran in a preview of his upcoming U.S. Institute of Peace Iran Primer. (Laura Rozen blogged about Limbert on Friday.)

Limbert, who was held in the U.S. embassy in Tehran during the Hostage Crisis, shows that while both the U.S. and Iran have made several attempts at diplomacy, longstanding misunderstandings between the two countries and domestic political obstacles have all stood in the way of meaningful negotiations. He lists these as:

Never say yes to anything. You will look weak. Insist the other side must change first.

Anything the other side proposes must contain some subtle trick. Its only goal is to cheat us.

The other side is infinitely hostile, devious, and irrational. Its actions prove its implacable hostility.

Whenever the smallest progress is made, someone or some diabolical coincidence will derail it.

Limbert summarizes the major opportunities, and wasted attempts at outreach, during the Obama administration as:

During his campaign and after taking office, President Obama repeatedly declared his determination to break the 30-year downward spiral in U.S.-Iranian relations.

During his first two years in office, Obama twice wrote Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, but did not receive a response to his second letter. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad twice wrote Obama, but did not receive a reply.

Iran, beset by internal political battles, has had trouble changing the patterns of the past. At the same time, the Obama administration faced congressional pressure to take tougher action against Tehran.

Both sides claim the other is not responsive to its messages, and both risk falling into the familiar, dysfunctional ways of the past when confronted with perceived intransigence by the other.

The preview for Limbert’s Iran Primer is well worth a read for those who want an understanding of both the Obama administration’s Iran policy for the past two years but also those seeking insight into why U.S.-Iran relations have been so fraught with mistrust and misunderstanding for the past 30 years.

Her comments, says NSN, are part of an attempt to treat Iran as a “political football to scare [...]]]> The National Security Network (NSN), an organization dedicated to promoting “pragmatic and principled” U.S. foreign policy, reports on the comments made Tuesday by 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin in an interview with the conservative website NewsMax.

Her comments, says NSN, are part of an attempt to treat Iran as a “political football to scare voters and intimidate policy makers into taking military action against Iran.” The report counters her statements with those of former civilian and military Pentagon officials and former Foreign Service officers who all think such an attack would be a disaster. (We referred to NSN’s list here).

From the NSN report (with my emphasis):

Today, on a Newsmax broadcast, Sarah Palin proclaimed that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would result in a battle between good and evil, leading to “Armageddon.” Palin’s remarks are the most recent in a litany of bellicose rhetoric made by extreme conservatives about how to deal with Iran.  Yet despite the attempts to use Iran as a political football to scare voters and intimidate policy makers into taking military action against Iran, national security experts and military leaders disagree with such an approach. In addition, the voters aren’t buying this argument, as a recent poll showed that only two in ten Americans would go to war with Iran if that country tested a nuclear bomb. [...]  Nonetheless, despite the fact that the Obama administration’s dual-track approach towards Iran of sanctions and diplomacy is beginning to bear fruit, the loudest conservative voices continue to be the most militant ones.  However, policymakers should be wary of these arguments during this election season, as we have seen them before in the context of Iraq, where the most militant rhetoric won out during the midterm congressional campaign season of 2002. A skeptical eye needs to be drawn towards those who would use military action against Iran as a political tool rather than treating it as the serious national security issue that it is.

[...]  “We have to realize that at the end of the day that a nuclear weapon in [Iran's] hands is not just Israel’s problem or America’s problem – it is the world’s problem,” [Palin] said. “It could lead to Armageddon. It would lead to World War III that could decimate so much of this planet.”

At last week’s “War With Iran?” conference at Columbia University, I asked if either side in the nuclear stand-off — the Iranian leadership or the U.S. administration — was capable of cutting a nuclear deal while facing domestic political constraints. John Limbert, a former Iranian hostage who went on to serve as a Foreign Service officer and an Obama administration State Department official, responded that Iran is not an election issue. He cited the attempts of both Hillary Clinton (in the primaries) and Sen. John McCain (in the general election) to score points against Obama on the issue, noting that both failed and Obama won.

Limbert might be right. But it looks like Iran hawks won’t stop trying to make war with Iran a politically polarizing issue.