This Makes Sense

For a while, the U. S. posture was to refuse to negotiate with Iran, but the U. S. had not good BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). Any hope for nuclear non-proliferation and a reduction in international destabilization due to Iranian funded armed groups in the Middle East begins with the U. S. engaging the players who can make deals. What's more, the enforcement of any possible future agreements relies on international cooperation, and the U. S. has so damaged its credibility internationally that a refusal to negotiate weakens, rather than strengthens, U. S. leverage.

All of this is to say the decision by the U. S to negotiate directly is a good one. Good negotiation of course relies on good execution, so who knows what will happen now, but the decision to sit at the table, at least, was a good one.

Here's the news story today:

U.S., Iran Open Dialogue On Iraq
Diplomats Call Meeting Positive; More Talks Likely

By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, May 29, 2007; A01

BAGHDAD, May 28 -- The United States and Iran held their first official high-level, face-to-face talks in almost 30 years Monday to discuss the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, and officials emerged generally upbeat about the renewed dialogue, suggesting additional meetings were likely.

In briefings to reporters afterward, the chief negotiators -- U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker and Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, Hassan Kazemi Qomi -- said the talks focused solely on Iraq and did not stray into the contentious areas of Iran's nuclear program or the recent detentions of four Iranian American citizens by Tehran.

Underscoring the crux of the security problem here, a suicide bomber detonated a truck loaded with explosives at one of Iraq's most revered Sunni shrines, the Abdul Qadir al-Gailani mosque in central Baghdad, shortly before talks concluded. The blast killed at least 19 people and wounded 69, raising fears of a retaliatory cycle of sectarian bloodshed similar to what happened last year when a Shiite shrine was bombed in Samarra. More than 1,000 people were killed in sectarian violence following the Samarra mosque attack in February 2006.

The article emphasizes the talks are focused on Iraq, which is valuable in its own right. The U. S. has inserted itself on the side of the Sunni's in Iraq's current civil war against the Shia sympathetic to Iran. The U. S. has done this to try to play some rearguard action as Iran's regional influence has skyrocketed in the wake of the backfired U. S. decision to invade Iraq. Aside from the wisdom of the U. S. taking a side on behalf of the Sunnis (in solidarity with the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, playing to another regional U. S. ally), the decision itself to enter talks is a wise one.

One of my students wrote a good final paper last fall about the utterly failed U. S. posture toward international negotiations and relations, and from a purely rational negotiations point of view, it's impossible to disagree.

I don't like to bring politics into my teaching, or my business, but the news is what it is, and people learn by applying concepts to real practice, or, failing that, real cases. If people are watching the news, they can learn more about good negotiation if people like me, who believe conflict can be very good and very productive if managed and channeled appropriately, speak up.