Spurning diplomacy weakens America

Spurning diplomacy weakens America
Aria Mehrabi
Copyhright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: September 1, 2006


LOS ANGELES Iran's answer to the world on its nuclear program is a characteristically complicated and equivocating one. It offers Washington few easy answers - a pattern that diplomats have become familiar with when dealing with Iran.

On the one hand, Tehran did not give in to the Security Council demand that it suspend uranium enrichment by Aug. 31 as a precondition for negotiations. Once again: Iranian defiance. On the other hand, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, has said Iran is ready for "serious talks" on its program and wider regional issues. A sign of Iranian willingness to cooperate?

This mixed message smacks the ball firmly back in the court of the six-country group that made a wide-ranging offer to Iran in exchange for suspending its uranium enrichment program - the United States, Britain, China, Russia, France and Germany. Washington has already expressed its dissatisfaction with Iran's response, and is likely to push for sanctions now that the Aug. 31 deadline has passed. Meanwhile, Russia and China have indicated that talks with Tehran would be more fruitful than sanctions.

Many observers of this delicate diplomatic game have long known that Russia holds the key to this conflict. If it chooses to side firmly with Washington and embrace a more confrontational approach to Iran, China would probably follow. All of this would lead us to believe that Washington should be taking an especially delicate approach to its relations with Russia right now. After all, if the Iran nukes issue is as important as the Bush administration says it is, then Washington needs to marshal all of the diplomatic support it can get.

On Aug. 3, as the world's attention focused on the war between Hezbollah and Israel, Russia made a significant concession toward the U.S. position on Iran's nuclear program. In an unusually blunt communication, it told Iran that it had no choice but to respect the Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment.

Less than 24 hours later, Washington "thanked" Russia for this significant statement by announcing sanctions against two Russian companies that sold goods to Iran that it alleged might be used for the making of weapons of mass destruction. One of the companies, a state arms exporter, said it only sells defensive armaments. The other company said it hasn't sold equipment to Iran in more than six years.

Without access to the intelligence, of course, we'll never be able to verify who is right. President Vladimir Putin was said to be incensed - and less likely to want to cooperate with Washington on Iran, or other issues for that matter.

So, the question must be asked: Why antagonize Moscow now, in the middle of delicate negotiations over Iran? And, if it was absolutely necessary, why do it so publicly?

The answer is this: The Bush administration has lost its diplomatic bearings. It sees the hard work of diplomatic deal-making, negotiated solutions and coalition-building as a tiresome (albeit sometimes necessary) exercise. It sees the rest of the world as inconvenient obstacles in its path. It has become far too comfortable in its unilateralism.

As such, the White House fails to see the obvious: If you want Russia on your side in the Security Council, you're better off issuing a strongly worded, quiet, behind-the-scenes protest about the two companies in question, rather than publicly announcing sanctions and humiliating a proud nation.

The world of diplomacy is complicated, Byzantine and treacherous. American diplomats are trained to be able to sit with friend and foe, protecting America's national interest. Right now, Washington seems reluctant to send its diplomats anywhere near someone who will oppose them. Its inability and unwillingness to directly engage Syria and Iran is symptomatic of this.

This idea that engagement means endorsement should be discarded. America's diplomats should be able to jawbone with the best of them and state clearly America's national interest, even to foes. Fortunately, figures like Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and some of the old-guard Republican "realists" of the Bush-Baker era are reasserting this basic tenet of diplomacy.

It has become fashionable in neoconservative circles to decry the "false stability" of 60 years of American foreign policy. But we must remember that the Cold War consensus - of both Democrat and Republican - got America through an incredibly challenging six decades, when America's national soil was directly threatened by the specter of nuclear annihilation. And even during the height of the Cold War, it maintained lines of communications to the Soviet Union. There was a U.S. embassy in Moscow and a Soviet one in Washington.

The problems arrayed before U.S. policy makers are varied and complex. It won't be easy to solve the Iran nuclear issue, the aftermath of the Lebanon war or the deteriorating Iraq situation. Other foreign policy challenges, such as managing the rise of China, energy security and Northeast Asian stability, will also strain the thinking of America's foreign-policy crafters.

One thing is for certain, however: Washington is less likely to be able to solve these problems alone.

Aria Mehrabi is a member of the leadership council of the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan Washington-based think tank devoted to pragmatic solutions to national and global problems.