A simple choice

It occurs to me that lately this site has been something of a one-note samba, focused almost exclusively on the escalating tensions between America and Iran. I'm not apologizing, mind you. The stubborn, bullying tactics of the U.S. pose such a grave threat to world peace that they simply must be criticized vehemently - and daily - whether the majority of Americans agree or not.

In that light, I was encouraged to read in this morning's Washington Post that foreign policy experts are joining the chorus, and pressuring the Bush Administration to drop its childish refusal to talk directly with Tehran. The Post notes:

Foreign policy moderates from both parties have spoken out in recent days, including Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a potential GOP presidential candidate; former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright; former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger; and former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross. All have published sharply worded opinion articles questioning the administration's stance, and Albright was joined in her commentary by five former European foreign ministers who said they were told by Iranian officials in recent months that there is "widespread interest" in holding a dialogue with Washington.

Albright said yesterday that [Monday's letter from Iranian President Ahmadinejad to Bush], despite its invective and religious musings, should be viewed as an opportunity both for a dialogue with Iran and to influence world opinion. She likened it to President John F. Kennedy's choosing to selectively respond to -- and ignore -- conflicting messages from his Soviet counterpart during the Cuban missile crisis.

"In diplomacy, you make your opportunities," Albright said. "Acting in a dismissive way doesn't get you anywhere."

Critics of the administration's approach assert that diplomacy has failed thus far because Iran has little incentive to deal as long as its main antagonist, the United States, is not at the table. They also note that the failure of the United State to negotiate with Iran is only hardening suspicions that Bush secretly intends a military strike, making it increasingly difficult to isolate Tehran.

"Allies of the U.S. will support tough action against Iran only if they are confident America is serious about achieving a negotiated, diplomatic solution," Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote this week in the Financial Times. "The continued unwillingness of the U.S. to engage Iran will make other states hesitate to support, and possibly oppose, these tougher measures."

Iran holds the key to so many issues, Hagel said, that the nuclear issue cannot be addressed in isolation. "Iraq, nuclear capabilities, terrorism, Israel and oil are all part of an Iranian puzzle game that cannot be played one piece at a time," Hagel wrote. "There will be no lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat until the broader interests of Iran, the U.S., the region and the world are addressed."

As I've repeated ad nauseum, for all the complexities of this issue, the choice in front of the Administration is a simple one. To work for peace. Or to lust for war. To avoid confrontation. Or to pick a fight. To negotiate. Or to obliterate.

To talk. Or to kill. 'Nuff said for today.