The U.S. and Iran get ready to talk

What happened

The Obama administration has agreed to hold unconditional talks with Iran, brushing aside Iran’s initial insistence that its nuclear program is not up for discussion. Delivering on President Obama’s promise to try to use diplomacy to end the years-long stalemate, the U.S. State Department said diplomats would meet with Iranians during seven-nation talks scheduled for Oct. 1 in Turkey. Tehran this week appeared to soften its earlier assertion that its uranium enrichment program is an “inalienable right,” saying it was willing to “field questions” about the issue and to work with the international community to end nuclear proliferation. The U.S. appeared willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, while calling the nuclear issue its No. 1 concern. “Any talks we participate in must address the nuclear issue head on,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

The announcement of the talks came only days after Glyn Davies, U.S. envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that Iran “is now either very near or in possession” of enough enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon, moving Iran closer “to a dangerous and destabilizing possible breakout capacity.” Iran continues to insist that its only goal is peaceful nuclear power. But some intelligence reports suggest that Iran could have a functioning nuclear weapon as soon as next year.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What the editorials said

“Peace had its chance with Iran and failed,” said The Wash­ington Times. The U.S. probably has nothing to lose with one last-ditch effort to make the Iranian regime see reason, but let’s not be naïve: Iran most likely is merely “playing for time while the mullahs push ahead with their nuclear program.” A diplomatic solution would obviously be preferable to some kind of military action, perhaps by Israel, “but the time for waiting is rapidly coming to an end.”

But time is running out for the Iranians, too, said The Toronto Star. All posturing aside, Iran “doesn’t have the luxury of

engaging in a fuzzy, drawn-out debate.” Without quick and significant progress on the nuclear issue, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics face the very real prospect of Israeli airstrikes. At the very least, they are staring at a new round of tough economic sanctions that could push the still-simmering public anger with the regime past the boiling point.

What the columnists said

Obama may be “pushing Israel toward war,” said Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal. The clearer it becomes

that Obama won’t “lift a finger to stop Iran” from acquiring nuclear weapons, the more Israelis realize they will have to take matters into their own hands. “An Israeli strike would be a horrible outcome,” said Michael Rubin in National Review Online, severely straining U.S. relations with the Muslim world and raising the terrifying prospect of a

regional war. But thanks to Obama’s diplomatic naïveté, “the likelihood of military action has now gone through the roof.”

American foreign policy must not be held hostage to Israeli threats, said Andrew Sullivan in TheAtlantic.com. In the wake

of Iran’s disputed elections and the ensuing demonstrations,

the regime is hanging by its fingertips. Rather than picking a

fight on the nuclear program—which nearly all Iranians

support—Obama may be smart to “accept some nuclear

development while trying to exploit internal divisions with

economic carrots.” If Israel does attack, Obama will have to think seriously about imposing sanctions on our closest ally in the region for its recklessness.

Everyone is assuming diplomacy can’t work, said Chester Crocker in The New York Times. But Obama’s goal in engaging Iran is not to somehow “sweet talk” the regime into abandoning its weapons program. When done properly, direct engagement is a chance to “change the other country’s perception of its own interests and realistic options.” That doesn’t mean appeasing your adversary with carrots. In the hands of smart, seasoned diplomats, the purpose of negotiation can be to make sure the other side notices the sticks.