Op/ed diplomacy

Iranian President Rouhani’s appeal for constructive dialogue, published by the Washington Post last night, is a good deal more interesting, both for what it says and what it doesn’t say, than President Putin’s drivel, published by the New York Times a week ago.  Rouhani ends with an appeal:

I urge [my counterparts] to look beyond the pines and be brave enough to tell me what they see — if not for their national interests, then for the sake of their legacies, and our children and future generations.

This seemingly anodyne appeal is very much to the point in this context.  What Americans see “beyond the pines” is a serious threat that Iran might become a nuclear weapons state.  They don’t like that, because it would encourage further proliferation and render the balance of power in the region unstable, with possibly catastrophic consequences.  While Ken Pollack thinks we could manage the risks, there is overwhelming support in the United States for a preventive approach.  Iran, most Americans think, should not be permitted to build a nuclear weapon, or get so close to being able to build one that it could not be stopped.

On nuclear technology, Rouhani is admirably frank about Iran’s interest :

To us, mastering the atomic fuel cycle and generating nuclear power is as much about diversifying our energy resources as it is about who Iranians are as a nation, our demand for dignity and respect and our consequent place in the world. Without comprehending the role of identity, many issues we all face will remain unresolved.

Iran, in other words, wants acknowledgement of its role as a regional power.  Note that he does not foreswear nuclear weapons or make reference to the Supreme Leader’s fatwa outlawing them.  But he does backhandedly acknowledge:

After 10 years of back-and-forth, what all sides don’t want in relation to our nuclear file is clear.

Rouhani suggests we focus not on how to prevent things from getting worse, but rather on how to make them better.  He wants “win-win” outcomes.  This is not a new idea, and the shape of a nuclear deal that acknowledges Iran’s technological prowess but prevents it from moving ahead towards nuclear weapons is becoming eminently clear:  no enrichment beyond 5%, movement of its 20% enriched material out of the country, restrictions on its plutonium production and ample International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.  There is no hint in this op/ed of whether that sort of deal will be acceptable to Tehran, but there is nothing that would rule it out either.

As for Iran’s regional role, Rouhani proposes it be a mediator in Syria.  He wants national dialogue there and in Bahrain.  But he is quick to add vaguely:

we must address the broader, overarching injustices and rivalries that fuel violence and tensions.

The piece is critical of the United States for unilateral use of force.  It is harsh in assessing the current outcomes in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, as should be expected.  But it does not blame the use of chemical weapons in Syria on the opposition, which Tehran has done in the past.  Nor does it mention the several signs of domestic thaw in Iran:  speed-up of internet access, accessibility of Facebook and Twitter, release of political prisoners.

Vague, critical and hopeful, this is a piece intended to make Americans more amenable to dialogue with Iran, whereas Putin’s piece was calculated to annoy and even anger them.  There are rumors President Obama may even meet with Rouhani during the General Assembly, an idea the State Department was pooh-poohing less than 24 hours ago.

Rouhani needs American help:

I’m committed to fulfilling my promises to my people, including my pledge to engage in constructive interaction with the world.

While he doesn’t mention them in the op/ed, what he needs more than anything else is relief from sanctions,which have wrecked Iran’s economy.  We need to decide whether to help him fulfill that hope, provided he helps us meet our need to end Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.