What does dialogue between the US and Iran really mean?

Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, when Iran became an Islamic Republic, relations have been tense between Iran and the United States. Indeed, President George W. Bush refused to engage Iran in dialogue and he grouped Iran into what he called the axis of evil. Additionally, Bush stated that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. This was part of his policy not to have dialogue with the “enemy”. His animosity towards Iran heightened tensions and many believed it was only a matter of time before some kind of war broke out involving Iran. Recently President Obama has publicly offered to engage in dialogue with Iran. He said that he is willing to talk with the leader of Iran and he is willing to have US diplomats meet with their Iranian counterparts. Neither of these actions would have been possible during the Bush administration.

This is a breakthrough in the field of conflict resolution. That may come as a surprise since the US wasn’t actually in a conflict with Iran but this move by President Obama is a form of conflict prevention. The two countries were not talking, tensions were high, and conflict was certainly possible. By engaging them the US will essentially be initiating conflict prevention and if carried out in the right way, there could be a transformation in the relationship between these two countries. The importance of such a transformation cannot be underestimated. Iran is a traditional spoiler in the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Iran’s support of Hamas and other Palestinian groups gives Iran some power over Palestinian decisions. This often handicaps Palestine’s negotiating power while prolonging the conflict. Iran has also been a subject of recent disagreements between the US and Russia. That being said, peace with Iran will take some burden off US-Russian relations as well. Therefore a transformation of US-Iranian relations would directly impact other conflicts and relationships around the world.

According to an article in Yahoo! News Iran has been invited to a conference on Afghanistan at the end of this month. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be representing the US at the conference. Meetings between other leaders from both countries are also very likely in the near future. The United States has nothing to gain by giving Iran the cold shoulder and raising tensions. By engaging Iran at least there is a possibility that peace can be secured between the US and Iran. This would also allow Iran’s nuclear intentions to be verified and possibly even altered. This is all speculation as of now, since this is recent news and none of these dialogues have actually taken place yet. However, Obama’s offer to open dialogue between the US and Iran is certainly a hopeful sign for the future and a departure from the policies of the past administration.

More information: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090321/pl_afp/usdiplomacyiranstrategy

Have US-Russian Relations Really Been "Reset"?

The Cold War may be over, but the US and Russia still have their differences when it comes to international policy decisions. Not too long ago when Russia invaded Georgia, President George W. Bush was quick to condemn Russia with harsh rhetoric. The US came on with a very one sided approach to the conflict until evidence began to show that Georgia had exhibited some degree of aggression towards South Ossetia, one of Georgia’s breakaway provinces. Russia’s claim that it was protecting South Ossetia turned out to be at least somewhat founded though the US took the stance that Russia’s action had been disproportionate compared to Georgia’s action. Then there was an outcry from Russia as the US continued moving forward with its missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The shield is supposedly for protection from Iran but Russia claimed that it was a direct threat to Russia and that the missile shield was actually aimed at Russia. Events quickly escalated as Russia threatened to launch Iskanders (missile launching vehicles) across the Russian border in response to the missile shield. To compound the issue more, Russia felt threatened by the push for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, which was supported by the US. With these events George W. Bush’s presidency ended with US-Russian relations looking anything but hopeful.

President Barrack Obama has spoken about mending these relations as the new President of the United States. Recently the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton met with her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. She presented Lavrov with a gift from the US in the form of a reset button. This gift was a symbolic one which was supposed to acknowledge a desire to reset US-Russian relations to where they were before George W. Bush’s presidency. But as documented in the March 7, 2009 Washington Post, the button was translated incorrectly and the Russian word that was supposed to mean “reset” actually meant “overcharge.” As noted in a March 24, 2009 issue of the Washington Post, changing US-Russian relations is not as simple as pressing a button and little has been done since Obama took office to mend these relations.

While little has been done so far, the US has been talking about renegotiating an arms treaty with Russia as well as discussing the missile defense shield. It’s important to note that Russia still talks about feeling threatened by NATO, especially NATO expansion. With mounting tensions between these two countries it’s hard to imagine that current plans such as discussing energy in the Balkans and nuclear bombs in Iran will mend relations, after all these issues are contentious for Russia and while they should be addressed what else is the US planning to do? It seems like it’s going to take more creativity than a plastic reset button to improve US-Russian relations. Perhaps the US should rethink NATO and maybe even think of some way to constructively include Russia in NATO. After all, many of Russia’s complaints relate to Russia being threatened. Russia is threatened by the missile defense shield, threatened by US support and influence of its neighbors like Ukraine and Georgia, and Russia is threatened by the increasing number of its neighbors that are joining or planning to join NATO. Wouldn’t the US feel threatened if Canada and Mexico created a defensive alliance with Russia? NATO is such a key part of this issue that it’s time to reexamine NATO with much more creativity than is normally seen by the US government. Otherwise NATO is going to continue to come up as an area of contention between the US and Russia for the foreseeable future.