We have nothing to fear from diplomacy

January 29, 2007

Lee Hamilton

We have nothing to fear from diplomacy

One of the most troubling developments in American foreign policy is an increasing reluctance to pursue diplomacy. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our current approach toward Iran and Syria.

The Iraq Study Group recommended a regional diplomatic initiative, including talks with Iran and Syria, aimed at supporting stability in Iraq and the broader Middle East. Critics called this approach appeasement, citing a long list of bad behavior by Syria and Iran. Others called it futile, pointing out the unlikelihood of obtaining Syrian and Iranian cooperation. President Bush decided against engagement and ratcheted up pressure on both countries.

To understand the merits of talking, it is first necessary to look at the alternative. To put it simply, the current approach is not working. We have tried to isolate Iran and Syria for years. Where has it gotten us? Because of its strong ties to Shiite militias and political leaders, Iran may have as much influence in Iraq as the United States. It is also a rising regional power and continues to develop its nuclear program. Syria has been a negative force within Iraq as well, with insurgents and arms flowing across its border, and continues to support terrorist organizations in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. In short, we have tried not talking with Syria or Iran and the situation has grown worse.

For nearly half a century, the United States talked to the Soviet Union, a government that supported the destruction of the capitalist system, and had the capacity to destroy the entire world. Yet we negotiated, and in doing so we protected our interests, better understood the Soviet position, and made our views and concerns known. In some areas, we worked together. In others, we disagreed. But we never feared to negotiate. Even as President Reagan went to Berlin and called on Soviet leader Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," he was sending an envoy to Moscow to negotiate over arms control.

Talking to countries like Syria and Iran is not appeasement. Conversation is not capitulation. The United States need not sacrifice its interests or its values to talk. Do we really think that the United States is too weak to negotiate? Do we think that American diplomats will immediately begin making concessions if they simply sit down at the table with Syrian or Iranian diplomats?

On the Iraq Study Group, we had no illusions that talking would yield immediate or complete agreement. Iran or Syria may continue to cause us problems. Yet both have influence in Iraq: That's a fact. They are doing unhelpful things that we want them to stop doing. They could be doing helpful things that they aren't doing, such as sealing their borders and supporting national reconciliation. We cannot wish Iranian and Syrian influence away by ignoring them. They are part of the problem. To support stability in Iraq, we must try to make them part of the solution.

Moreover, Iran and Syria share a common interest with the United States in Iraqi stability. They have been pleased to see U.S. forces tied down in Iraq. Yet continued chaos in Iraq is not in Iran's nor Syria's interest. Neither country wants an influx of refugees, an al-Qaida sanctuary in Iraq, or a spreading sectarian conflict. Since both countries have large sectarian minorities, the spread of unrest could threaten their own stability. This common interest in stability represents a starting point for talks. Indeed, in 2001, Iran's common interest in defeating the Taliban enabled U.S.-Iranian cooperation in Afghanistan.

You cannot conduct diplomacy if you talk only to your friends. Certainly, we would like to see different and friendly governments in Tehran and Damascus. Yet we also have to deal with reality. If we can get those governments to take even modest steps to enhance stability in Iraq, both the United States and Iraq will be better off. And talking is worthwhile even if we do not reach agreement. There are many reasons to negotiate: to build trust, explain our policies, probe intentions, collect intelligence, dispel misunderstandings, deter bad actions, and to reduce the chance of inadvertent escalation.

Diplomacy -- like military force or trade policy -- is a tool of American foreign policy. Denouncing countries and refusing to talk to them may make us feel better in the short run, but it makes little sense in the long run. Refusing to use this tool of American power does not make America stronger; it makes us weaker.

Hamilton is the director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington and director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He served as a U.S. representative from Indiana from 1965 to 1999.