By now you have heard the news that a U.S. representative will attend a previously scheduled meeting tomorrow with an Iranian representative in Geneva. Although this represents a dramatic departure from the U.S. effort to isolate Iran, a skeptical observer may ask why this such an important move. Do we really expect a breakthrough? An op-ed in today's New York Times addresses this issue (A Seat At The Table):
Mr. Bush's decision to send William Burns (Ms. Rice's third in command and a well-respected former ambassador to Russia) to join the European Union's foreign policy chief and other top diplomats in talks with Iran makes any incentives package look more credible. It also shifts the diplomatic pressure back to Tehran. And it will make it harder for Beijing and Moscow to resist imposing a new round of sanctions if Iran remains obstinate.
So, the reply to our skeptical observer is that the presence of William Burns will strengthen the West's negotiating position while creating a diplomatic opening for further engagement, should the meeting go well. Our skeptic may well point out, though, that Burns’ presence does nothing to enhance either the incentives or disincentives presented to Iran in the current proposal regarding uranium enrichment, nor have Iran's “red lines” changed. Perhaps it is enough to say that Burns’ presence changes the style rather than the substance of the six-party effort to halt enrichment and that this change in style may encourage those on the Iranian side who may be looking for an opening to forge a compromise. In advance of this meeting then, let's define our expectations: we are looking for some evidence of a new flexibility on the part of Iran, and if we see that, then perhaps we can say that the presence of an American representative was an experiment worth repeating.
