Talks with Iran Pointless

Here's Susan Rice, earlier today, on behalf of the Obama campaign:

“He’s been very clear from the first time he was asked that question, whether or not he would be willing to engage directly with Iranian leadership without preconditions, and he has said yes, he would be willing, at the appropriate time, with due preparations, and that he would not have the self-defeating precondition of demanding that the Iranians do before we talk to them one of the critical things we would seek to accomplish in negotiations.”

That position seems to me to have a lot of - what's the word I'm looking for? nuance. Oh Democrats and their nuanced positions on foreign policy. Well, best of luck to you - it seemed to work out well for Senator Kerry.

Anyhow, what strikes me as naive about saying you'll talk to the Iranians is that the biggest stumblingblock to US-Iran discussions hasn't been American preconditions on negotiations - it's been the preconditions that Iran has placed on talks. Lest we forget, it was only three years ago that we had a moderate president of Iran, Mohammad Khatami, who would have been far better to talk to than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - because he was a moderate, not given to calling for wiping Israel off the map. But Khatami was never able to move in a pro-US direction in spite of his inclinations in that direction for one simple reason: the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran gives huge reserve powers to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei told Khatami that talks with the US could only go ahead if the US agreed to 2 preconditions:

(1) the US should stop its aide to the MEK (note: though this aide is certainly unofficial, if it is occurring at all). Now, assuming the US has had dealings with the MEK, I can see why Khamenei would be upset - Khamenei only became president of Iran after the MEK assassinated Mohammad-Ali Rajai and almost killed Khamanei himself (the result being Khamenei's status in Iran as a "living martyr"). Should the US be prepared to throw the MEK under the bus? The answer to that is clearly yes - the MEK is a bunch of neo-Stalinist terrorist thugs, and if rapprochement with Iran could be achieved, no harm in sacrificing the MEK. Though, on the other hand, if you think rapprochement with Iran is impossible, maybe it's better to continue to cultivate the MEK as an anti-Iranian force in the region. For me, this one's a toss-up.

(2) end US support for the State of Israel. This one seems like more of a sticking point. Iran's internal propaganda has been pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israeli / anti-American for so long now that it seems to me absolutely impossible for Khamenei (who, after all, has been involved in the highest levels of the Iranian government since 1981) to back away from that policy without achieving at least something on behalf of the Palestinians.

If the Obamessiah can end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I'll certainly give him his dues. But in the meantime, it seems to me that his position on talking with Iran is based pretty much solely on a sort of namby-pamby liberal "let's all hold hands and be friends" view of the world, and not at all on any sort of strategic thinking about the intractable policy issues that need to be resolved before rapprochement with Iran is possible.