Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
SARAH PALIN HEARTS NEGOTIATIONS.
As Matthew Yglesias notes, one of the amusing things about watching Sarah Palin grope her way through interviews on foreign policy is that "she has to rely on common sense to bluff her way through questions, and she keeps accidentally straying from conservative dogma." Which is how she found herself trying to attack Barack Obama for endorsing negotiations without preconditions but instead accidentally endorsed negotiations without preconditions but condemned negotiations without preparation, which is something we can all agree on. So now that everyone is ready to negotiate with Iran (w00t!), folks should read Karim Sadjadpour's guide for how to think about negotiating with Iran, and what the American strategy should be.
* Focus initially on areas where the United States and Iran share common interests, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than issues with little or no common interest, like the nuclear issue or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.These are all pretty sensible ideas. Negotiating with Khamenei rather than Ahmedinejad is an option that conservatives have decided to pretend doesn't exist, but is actual central to any strategy here. Ahmedinejad is very loud, but the presidency of Iran is a very weak position. If you imagine Iran as Duff beer, Ahmedinejad is Duffman, not the CEO, and not the guy you'd sit down with to discuss a business partnership. I'd also add that you want to resist antagonizing Iran and getting into tit-for-tats with Ahmedinejad as those will help his June 2009 reelection bid, letting him position himself as the Islamic hero standing against America rather than the guy who's been unable to get the economy back on track.
* Refrain from any grand overtures to Tehran which risk redeeming Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s policies and enhancing his bid for reelection in June of 2009.
* Deal with those who hold power in Iran, namely Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
* Avoid rhetoric that threatens violence. This only empowers Tehran’s hard-liners and paints the United States as the aggressor.
* Maintain a multilateral approach. Tehran is highly adept at exploiting rifts in the international community.
* Resist attempts by spoilers within Iran to torpedo a diplomatic breakthrough.
* Pursue “secret” or “private” discussions—proven to have a greater success rate.
* Support policies that facilitate, rather than impede, Iran’s modernization and reintegration in the global economy.
COMMENTS (5)
I like the Duff Beer analogy, Ezra. I think it is very apropro to the actual power Ahmedinejad has vs the power Khamenei has.
Good job!
Posted by: Paul in KY | October 23, 2008 1:05 PM
Still trying to save Obamas behind from his agreement to sit down in his first year with Ahmandeenijadh without preconditions because as Obama puts it, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO all have legitimate grievances against mean old America.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23, 2008 1:48 PM
The problem with this idea (not very novel an argument, really) is that Iran has multiple power centers--Yes, the SNSC answers to the Supreme Leader, but the office head is actually filled by the president (you know, the conventionally argued powerless guy).
You have the IRGC. You have the Expedience Council. You have the Assembly, the Guardians, and I suppose the Majlis. Khamenei's power rests in his ability to balance all of these interests out and maintain a public persona of infallibility.
Thus, he can't by fiat snub Ahmadinejad and disregard his decisions, becuase after all, HE PICKED THE GUY. The last time he got the presidential race wrong he ended up with Khatami. He won't allow that to happen again, so he's going to make sure his office backs all the appropriate ponies until it's abundantly clear who the winner will be next year (this explains his semi-erratic behavior; condemning Mahmoud one moment, then embracing him the next).
Leftists need to get past the "Ahmadinejad has no power" meme. It makes you sound a little silly and prone to jumping on rhetorical bandwagons that are far too simplistic.
Posted by: Kevin | October 23, 2008 2:17 PM
Admiral Fallon argued that probably the best are of mutual interest is shutting down the flow of opiates from Afghanistan to Iran. It seems as though a unilateral effort on our part in Afghanistan would undercut the US as agressor arguement, limit revenue to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and be used to encourage Iran to take a more agressive stance against IED's traveling into Iraq. What other potential areas of mutual interest do you foresee Ezra?
Posted by: Brian | October 23, 2008 2:51 PM
anonymous - what a joke. Cant even come up with a pseudonym that he would hide behind to make his idiot troll comment.
Obama doesn't need saving from that comment at all. We should negotiate with our enemies. he never mentioned giving into a single one of their demands. Talking is a way to show power, instead of hiding behind closed doors like our present government does.
All we do by bombing without talking is create ore enemies. People who would haev assisted us before will now fight us because of collateral damage and our blind childish behaviour.
..know your enemy.
Posted by: david b | October 23, 2008 4:23 PM