Political and Social Thought to the Left of College Station

We have not talked in thirty years, so we have a lot to talk about. The United States has not had a diplomatic relationship with Iran since the revolution in 1979, and over those thirty years our relationships with Iran has frozen over.

Over those thirty years the United States has been heavy on rhetoric but light on substance, and administrations have refused to engage Iran in directly diplomacy without preconditions. Also, the United States has been unable to gain the support of our European allies, and the key members of the United Nations Security Council, Russia and China, have been unwilling to give their support. Throughout these thirty years of non-diplomacy Iran has gained power in the unstable Middle East, supported terrorist, and moved towards gaining a nuclear bomb. Not talking has not worked.

The new administration has a new approach to Iran: actually talking to them. Over the last week the United States and the countries of Brittan, France, and Germany have began negotiations with Iran, in the wake of the disclosure of an Iranian nuclear facility. This is just the beginning of an international game of diplomatic chess.

The most important element to these negotiations is patience, it will talk more than a few days to thaw three decades of diplomatic ice. However, it is critical that these diplomatic negotiations continue, and it would be premature to place arbitrary time limits. A timeline of when Iran must comply with certain obligations will be a nature product of the negotiations.

Perhaps the most important reason that the United States should engage in diplomacy with Iran is because it is the only way in which it could be known if a peaceful outcome is possible, and because the alternative of a military engagement with Iran should not only be the last course of action considered it should be prevented by every reasonable measure.

This is a point that cannot be emphasized enough: the United States must avoid a military conflict with another country in the Middle East. The United States should not go to war with Iran. After 4,666 casualties in an Iraq that will hopefully be coming to an end, and 1,441 casualties in the war in Afghanistan (included already 17 this month and 396 this year) it is hard to conclude that the United States should risk more lives in another war of choice.

However, if negotiations fail, and Iran leaves the table, the United States will actually be in a much more powerful position that it would be if it does not engage in diplomacy. In fact bringing the other countries to the table will also increase the effects of economic sanctions on Iran, and the backing of those countries and the United Nations will make military action against Iran much more feasible.

The question that those who are against direct diplomatic engagement with Iran must ask themselves is: If you are not for diplomacy now, then what are you for? The answer to that question is that they are for military action; they are for another war during a time in which the United States is already engaged in two wars in the Middle East.

Diplomacy and international politics is a chess game, and the United States must think several moves ahead. While all of our options (diplomatic, economic, and military) should remain on the table, we must be willing to engage in such as way that does not lead to an unneeded sacrifice of those options. If the United States does engage in direct diplomacy with Iran it will strength our influence with the rest of the world, and perhaps regain the credibility that made the United States a powerful force for peace and democracy.

This week the Obama Administration has made first moves in direct engagement with Iran. Last week the Iranian foreign minister arrived in Washington, D.C. for the first time in over a decade, in preparations with negotiation with the United States and Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. During the negotiations last week Iran agreed to open the uranium enrichment plant near Qum to international inspection and also agreed to continue diplomatic negotiations. While these negotiations should be viewed with cautious optimism, it is an important first step towards a direct diplomacy with an old adversary.