“A basic tool of statecraft, negotiations are used in every facet of foreign policy: to prevent conflict, to conclude hot or cold wars, to reconcile with former enemies, to build coalitions against possible aggressors, to mobilize donor efforts for reconstruction after conflicts or natural disasters, to forge or alter trade agreements, to persuade others to transform their behavior, and so on.

…

“That does not mean, however, that we should talk in any and all circumstances. At a minimum, we need to draw a basic distinction between states and nonstate actors. I say this as someone who has negotiated with both.

“Nation states typically have a certain standing on the world stage. When we choose not to talk to them, as the Bush administration has done on Iran, and did for a long time on North Korea, we are not eroding their legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. Instead, we tend to make our unwillingness to talk the issue. We should want their egregious behaviors to be the focal point internationally, not our rejection of negotiations.

“For nonstate actors like Hamas and Hezbollah, the circumstances are different. They don’t have standing internationally. They seek legitimacy on the world stage to prove the “inevitability” of their agenda and their goals. For me, it was a given that Hamas would say, as its spokesmen quickly did, that Jimmy Carter’s meetings with its leaders lent greater “legitimacy” to the group.

“If achieving legitimacy is so important to them — if proving that they don’t need to adjust to the world, but proving that the world must adjust to them is such a central aim of theirs — then it is essential that they not get something for nothing. They should be required to meet certain conditions before we negotiate with them.

…

“Moreover, our willingness to talk, paradoxically, makes it easier to adopt a tougher policy toward Iran if the Iranians are nonresponsive. No one can accuse us of seeking only a military answer when we demonstrate that we are prepared to engage in good-faith negotiations.

“In all likelihood, whoever is president next year will enter direct talks with Iran: Sen. McCain because he knows he cannot use force against this regime if he has not shown the American public that he did everything he could to change Iranian behavior short of military action; and Sens. Obama or Clinton because they believe that greater leverage can be exerted on Iran by direct negotiations.

…

“Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves the following question. Why, in a world in which our power is not unlimited and in which our standing and credibility have declined, would we want to deny ourselves one of the tools available for promoting and protecting our interests around the globe?

“If there is a difference between the presidential candidates on who we should be negotiating with and how we should approach those negotiations, let them explain those differences. Their explanations will reveal much about their approach to foreign policy. ”

http://www.thewashingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1155

Regards,

Inna

If you go back and read what I wrote, you’ll relaize that I said nothing about the Iranian threat. It may be “grave” or it may be “tiny.” I think it is somewhere in between. But Obama is saying it is both.

Oh, if we went to talk about changing one’s stance. How about McCain going from we can stay in Iraq for a hundred years to withdrawing all the US troops from Iraq in four years. Why are four years are now considered to be strong while Obama’s two years is cut and run? Seems like McCain is triming his sails to catch the popular wind the same as Obama.

McCain & Obama go together on a trip to Iraq: What will they do there? Make a tour of some carefully secured marketplace while wearing bullet proof vests?!

Under Iran’s system of clerical rule, the Islamic Republic’s religious establishment has final say in all state matters.

- You can just imagine (apostate Muslim) Obama having a meeting with Grand Ayatollah Khamenei over Iran’s nuclear project. Priceless.

(In that vein of thought – can anyone actually advise if al-Sistani has bothered to meet with any US representative concerning the occupation of his own country?)

Or indeed the fact that Obama will not meet with non-partisan Veterans groupings either, but has all the time in the world for moonbats of all stripes.

I think it also bullds a huge honking neon sign over the fact that Obama isn’t much interested in conditions on the ground.