You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here.

BERMAN: Talking till we glow in the face

Why negotiate with Iran if it’s not about nukes?

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

Every season, it seems, brings another round of nuclear diplomacy with Iran. This fall promises to be no different; in the near future, if current projections hold, Washington and Tehran will sit down for new talks over the Islamic republic's persistent quest for an atomic capability.

But what is there to talk about, really? Iranian officials already have made it clear that the very thing the international community wants desperately to address - Iran's nuclear program - won't truly be on the table in the coming parlay. "We will not be talking with the Western party about the nuclear energy issue in this round of the negotiations," said Ali Akbar Javanfekr, an adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to reporters several weeks ago. More recently, Mr. Ahmadinejad himself has ruled out the possibility that Iran's nuclear file will be in play during initial talks with the 5+1 group (the United States, Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany). In other words, Tehran is angling for talks to discuss the possibility of eventually having more talks that might at some point touch upon its nuclear program.

All of which fits neatly into Iran's time-tested strategy of buying time until it crosses the nuclear Rubicon. It is an approach that Tehran has tried before, with positive results. Just eight years ago, revelations that Iran was building a massive, clandestine nuclear program prompted a bout of frenzied diplomacy from the EU-3 countries: Germany, France and Great Britain. That process delayed the referral of Iran's nuclear file to the United Nations Security Council by more than two years, buying Iran valuable time to forge ahead with its nuclear effort.

More recently, Iran deftly exploited the Obama administration's penchant for "engagement" to its advantage. Throughout 2009, it repeatedly flirted with diplomatic overtures from the White House but never committed to a durable negotiating track that would truly put its nuclear endeavor on the table in a meaningful way. The elusive promise of Iranian cooperation, however, was enough to temper the administration's enthusiasm for serious energy sanctions, at least temporarily.

Iran, of course, never had any intention of altering its nuclear trajectory - or even of slowing down the pace of its nuclear advances long enough to allay international concerns. Rather, it understood a simple fact about American negotiating behavior: The United States tends to see diplomatic carrots and strategic sticks as sequential rather than complementary and wields them in that fashion.

That goes a long way toward explaining Iran's revived interest in "engagement" today. Since the passage of new international and U.S. energy sanctions last summer, the Islamic republic's energy trade has taken a nose dive. Skittish foreign suppliers, wary of potential economic penalties from the United States and European governments, have begun to curb their shipments of gasoline to Iran, with noticeable results. Iranian imports of refined petroleum - which accounts for 30 percent or more of the Iranian regime's annual energy consumption - have plummeted by two-thirds or more over the past three months. Without adequate domestic refining capacity, Iran is, quite simply, running out of gas. By engaging Washington anew, officials in Tehran clearly hope to slow - or even reverse - this trend.

Sadly, Team Obama seems inclined to let them. White House officials have made clear in recent days that they view their approach to Iran in much the same way they did a year ago: as a simple choice between "engagement or pressure." That formula strongly suggests that a revival of negotiations between Washington and Tehran will be accompanied by a reduction of economic pressure as a confidence-building measure intended to secure Iranian cooperation.

That, of course, is precisely the outcome the Islamic republic wants. It's also exactly what the United States should avoid. After years of obfuscation and delay, Tehran knows full well what it must do to prove it is willing to truly engage with the United States on its nuclear program - and to reassure the international community that its atomic efforts are peaceful. Our sanctions policy must reflect this reality and hold the Iranian regime to account. Anything less would be a blow to international security and a boon for Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Ilan Berman is vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council.

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts