One of the most troubling developments in American foreign policy is an increasing reluctance to pursue diplomacy. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our current approach toward Iran and Syria ...
For nearly half a century, the United States talked to the Soviet Union, a government that supported the destruction of the capitalist system, and had the capacity to destroy the entire world. Yet we negotiated, and in doing so we protected our interests, better understood the Soviet position, and made our views and concerns known. In some areas, we worked together. In others, we disagreed. But we never feared to negotiate. Even as President Reagan went to Berlin and called on Soviet leader Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," he was sending an envoy to Moscow to negotiate over arms control.
Talking to countries like Syria and Iran is not appeasement. Conversation is not capitulation. The United States need not sacrifice its interests or its values to talk. Do we really think that the United States is too weak to negotiate? Do we think that American diplomats will immediately begin making concessions if they simply sit down at the table with Syrian or Iranian diplomats? ...
Moreover, Iran and Syria share a common interest with the United States in Iraqi stability. They have been pleased to see U.S. forces tied down in Iraq. Yet continued chaos in Iraq is not in Iran's nor Syria's interest. Neither country wants an influx of refugees, an al-Qaida sanctuary in Iraq, or a spreading sectarian conflict. Since both countries have large sectarian minorities, the spread of unrest could threaten their own stability. This common interest in stability represents a starting point for talks. Indeed, in 2001, Iran's common interest in defeating the Taliban enabled U.S.-Iranian cooperation in Afghanistan ...
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070129/OPINION/701290318/-1/ZONES04
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
