Whom should President Obama appoint as his emissary to Iran, to take on what may be the most important diplomatic mission in decades? The right person (or persons) would have the stature and experience to engage Iran at the highest level -- and to explore what Obama in his inaugural address called "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."
My nominees are Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisers for Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, respectively. They would elevate the Iran mission, connecting it to the tradition of bipartisan strategic thinking that shaped America's role in the modern world. And, like our youthful new president, these two octogenarians understand the need for America to "turn a page" in its foreign policy and to connect with what Brzezinski has called a "global political awakening."
More at The Washington Post.
Comments
Very bad idea on several levels.
The one contributed to the foulups over the embassy seizure, the second to the decision to not go into Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War -- two incidents that sent a message to the ME that the US is weak in the moral fiber and honor areas of responsibility. Such caviling put us where we are today.
In the Op-Ed, Ignatius says:<blockquote>"Scowcroft replied that his brief to the Iranians would begin this way: "First, that we're aware you live in a dangerous region, and we're prepared to discuss a regional security framework. . . . Second, whether or not you want nuclear weapons, you're proceeding on a course that psychologically destabilizes the whole region. It is dangerous. It will bring about a counterreaction. And let's work on this security framework. You don't need nuclear weapons."</blockquote>
<blockquote>"Brzezinski said he agreed and added: "The only way we can accomplish [mutual security] is by sitting together and figuring out some mechanism whereby you achieve what you say you want, which is a peaceful nuclear program, and we achieve what we need, which is a real sense of security that it's not going to go any further."</blockquote>Sterling words. They might work with a western nation -- though I'm highly doubtful -- they are almost guaranteed not to work with Iran on several levels. Think of it as dealing diplomatically with the Sassanid Empire from a position of equality...
Iran has essentially publicly demanded an apology from the US for past interference on our part. If that is given, tacitly or openly, it will not change the Khameini and Pasdaran attitude toward us at all so that sort of approach will also not work. It will be seen as weakness on our part and the games will continue.
Iran wants respect from us -- and trade (on their terms). The suggested approach offers neither.
Our attitude toward Iran through ten Presidents has created the current level of distaste and distrust. It will not go away unless either we or they break the current standoff. We can do that and probably should. However, those two and that condescending approach will do more harm than good.
The best initial approach should be made by minor diplomats in DoS to preclude the temptation to embarrass big names by the Iraniha. We really should stop assigning 'big names' as special envoys worldwide, the tendency by others to use their relative celebrity as a PR lever to publicize yet another American failure is too strong for most nations to resist...
Any effort with Iran should be totally pragmatic, based solely on mutual interest and should not make an issue of their nuclear effort. That is a matter of national pride and the Persians have that in spades. Much of the character of the entire Middle East derives from that Sassanid and the earlier Achaemenid Empires, honor is important, bargaining and haggling are national sports and haughtiness is a birth right.