A Possibility If Bush Is Serious about Iran

Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post has a column on a possible tactic that Bush could use concerning Iran (hat tip to Laura Rozen of War and Piece):

In the middle of a tirade about the pointlessness of talking with the Bush administration, a senior Iranian official I met in Tehran last month abruptly paused and asked if he could speak off the record. Then he said: "What we need is an American president who will follow the example of Richard Nixon going to China."

There in a nutshell is what this Iranian government, and most Iranians I've spoken to, fervently desire from the United States: not the tactical talks offered last week by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice but strategic recognition of Iran as a great civilization and a regional power that must be treated, like China, as a "stakeholder" in global affairs. Grant us that, said the Iranian official I saw, and "just as with China, you'll find a government that is more responsive to your concerns, more willing to play a cooperative role."

It's an interesting idea, but what Nixon did with China was real and took months of preparation; in addition, Nixon had been thinking about foreign policy for over twenty years. Also, opening relations with China was done in such a way that the continuing new relations with China evolved from that one visit for years because it was a serious policy and not just a stunt for midterm elections (the last minute peace is at hand by Kissinger in 1972 was that moment though McGovern didn't have a chance at that point).

One thing that cannot happen is for Condi Rice to keep misrepresenting the views of the Iranians and our allies. Even Kissinger knew better.

So far, the Bush presidency has been a giant step backward in almost all areas of foreign policy. So a visit to Tehran would have to be proceeded by a number of steps that would establish Bush's credibility which at the moment isn't worth much. And Iran would have to give Bush something in return. But it is an idea to keep in mind. Particularly after Cheney and Rumsfeld step down.

Real diplomacy means not precluding any ideas based on conclusions drawn from rhetorical exchanges between nations. What Bush has never understood is that he's not the United States. The United States is a super-power and can afford to be patient. It's not up to Bush to ignore diplomacy because his irritations are personal or ideologically convenient. Jackson Diehl, in the last part of his column, reminds us of the first few months after 9/11:

A rare exception was Iran's quiet cooperation with President Bush during the early months of the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan. But Iranian officials now bitterly point out that, in their view, their reward for that tactical coordination was Bush's "axis of evil" speech in early 2002, which affirmed the goal of overthrowing the Islamic regime.

Our negotiating position almost five years later is worse now than it was back then. Back then, oil supplies were abundant and the US had the attention and sympathy of the world. Real diplomacy is possible for the next few months but it may require more of Bush than he can muster within himself.