Should we talk to Iran? The U.S. has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since the Hostage Crisis of 1979 (holding the diplomatic staff hostage is generally not conducive to good relations) and the U.S. has used intermediaries ever since rather than risk sending personnel to a country where citizens still routinely gather to chant “death to America” while burning American flags. I’ve been told that such public gatherings are PR stunts and that the Iranian public still has a high regard for the people of the U.S, which is rather a nice thought if it's true. Could it be that Iranian politicians manipulate domestic public opinion for political purposes? At any rate, when President Bush included Iran in his “Axis of Evil” he signaled there would be no rapprochement with Iran on his watch. More recently, relations with Iran entered into the U.S. primary election debate as candidates sparred over who would be the first to negotiate with Iran. Since the U.S. is officially not talking to Iran, such willingness to meet is seen by some as signaling a future policy shift away from the Bush effort to isolate Iran.
An idea to establish lower level contacts, perhaps as a precursor to re-establishing full diplomatic relations, has been proposed from time to time. Just last month the idea was debated in the press (Jerusalem Post – US mum on Iran interests section report):
The United States refuses to confirm reports about the possibility of opening an interests section in Teheran. Fred Hiatt, a columnist with The Washington Post, wrote Monday that “senior officials” at the US State Department were considering a proposal to open such a section. Through this, the US would be able to reach out to youth groups and dissidents, without re-establishing diplomatic relations with Teheran, Hiatt quoted one of the officials as saying. Hiatt further said the idea had been under discussion for almost two years and could be adopted within weeks.
This week former assistant secretary of state James Rubin endorsed the idea of opening an interest section in Teheran in an op-ed in The New York Times (Our Man in Iran?):
Iran is an anomaly in the Middle East. In Iran, unlike in the Arab world, America is seen as an adversary primarily by the government while most of the Iranian people see it as a country of freedom and moderation. American policy should build on this phenomenon. The more Iranians see the real America, rather than the propaganda version portrayed in their reactionary media, the more they will push for democratic rights at home and moderate behavior abroad. This is where our diplomats come in. The main purpose of sending them to Iran would be to simplify travel for Iranians to the United States.
Rubin contrasts our lack of engagement with Iran with our engagement of Russia and China during the Cold War (when the stakes where much higher) and suggests that a ground-level people-to-people approach may work well even as the governments still do not get along. If President Bush approves the opening of interest section in Teheran he can always say he is following a time-tested winning strategy. I think the American people would like that.
