Thread: The right way to negotiate with Syria and Iran.

A Reagan Strategy
The right way to negotiate with Syria and Iran.

BY ABRAHAM D. SOFAER
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST


The Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the Bush administration drop its preconditions and negotiate with Syria and Iran has been praised as a "no-brainer"--and condemned as an improper effort to reward rogue regimes.

Neither reaction is correct. Negotiating with enemies can be a useful aspect of effective diplomacy. But successful negotiations with enemies result not from the talks themselves but from the diplomatic strategy that accompanies them. The group's recommendations deserve support, but must be effectively integrated into President Bush's strategy of ending state-sponsored terror.

The arguments against negotiating with Syria and Iran were also made against negotiating with the Soviet Union, and by some of the same people.

Soviet misconduct easily matches that of Syria or Iran in aggression, oppression, murder, support for terrorist groups, and mendacity. President Reagan challenged Soviet behavior by supporting groups fighting communist intervention, building the military, strengthening NATO, condemning human-rights violations, commencing a missile-defense program, and conveying the message of freedom in every way possible. George Shultz supported these efforts but sought to negotiate with the Soviets in an attempt to increase stability, reduce nuclear weapons, attain freedom for oppressed groups, and enhance understanding. To make negotiations possible the U.S. adopted specific policies, including:

• Regime acceptance. The U.S. refrained from activities aimed at destroying the Soviet regime it was seeking to influence, while vigorously denouncing its political and moral legitimacy.

• Limited linkage. Negotiations on human rights, arms control, regional issues and bilateral relations were pursued without linkage to Soviet conduct, enabling negotiations to proceed while the U.S. responded firmly through deeds.

• Rhetorical restraint. Reagan vigorously criticized the Soviet system and its behavior, but promised not to "crow" when the Soviets agreed to U.S. proposals, enabling Soviet leaders to avoid being seen as capitulating to U.S. demands.

• Self-interest. U.S. negotiating policy was based on convincing the Soviets to act in their own best interests.



The Iraq Study Group's "external" strategy for Iraq contains several elements necessary for successful diplomacy: the need for both incentives and "disincentives"; negotiations "without preconditions"; and negotiations that are "extensive and substantive," requiring a balancing of interests. The general incentives identified by the group are unlikely, however, to lead to constructive discussions. While Syria and Iran should realize that preventing a breakdown in Iraq is in their interests, they see great advantages in having the U.S. lose strength and credibility in a costly effort to help a state they are relieved to see powerless. The notion that they will help in order to have "enhanced diplomatic relations" with the U.S. assumes that states will do what they know the U.S. wants simply because Washington will not otherwise talk to them. The pronouncements that accompany this Bush policy exemplify the sort of rhetoric that discourages cooperation. The possibility of obtaining U.S. assistance in joining the WTO would be a real incentive in an ongoing negotiation, but it is not a credible incentive in the context of hostile confrontation and proliferating sanctions.


The incentives proposed for negotiating with Syria are, by contrast, concrete and substantial. Syria would benefit economically from a stable Iraq, and getting back the Golan Heights would give President Bashar Assad's standing a much needed boost. Syria has no deep commitment to Hezbollah or Hamas to prevent it from accepting peace with Israel and increased cooperation in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian areas, in exchange for the Golan and a constructive role in the area. But the Iraq Study Group too casually assumes that the U.S. can secure "Syria's full cooperation with all investigations into political assassinations in Lebanon." The "full cooperation" of a sovereign state in such situations must be negotiated, rather than made a precondition. Convincing Israel to give up the Golan Heights will also be difficult, and Syria's help in securing the release of Israeli soldiers seized by Hamas and Hezbollah is a good place to start. While the security threat posed by returning the Golan has largely been worked out in prior negotiations, the challenge posed by Syria's claim to access to the Sea of Galilee, and the meaning of a "full and secure peace agreement" will require great efforts. Still, bringing Syria into a responsible nationhood is an objective well worth pursuing.



The anger and scorn heaped on the Iraq Study Group for advocating negotiations with Syria echo the opposition to negotiating with the Soviet Union. But Syrian behavior must be addressed, not just condemned. Egypt, too, wrongfully supported terrorism against Israel after the 1967 war, and launched the 1973 war, to get back the Sinai. Yet, the U.S. properly urged Israel to negotiate with Egypt, and the peace between them serves the interests of both countries. Similarly, an agreement to return the Golan in exchange for peace would have the support of most Israelis and the current Israeli government, and would be consistent with governing Security Council resolutions and the principle that precludes acquiring territory by force.


The Iraq Study Group is probably right that Iran is unlikely to agree to negotiate with the U.S. to bring stability to Iraq. The distrust between the U.S. and Iran suggests that negotiations between them should commence on limited issues, in a noncontroversial forum. The U.S./Iran Tribunal in The Hague might well work. Iran resents that many of its significant claims against the U.S. remain unresolved there after over 20 years. The U.S. should offer to negotiate these claims on an expedited basis. As progress is made, the dialogue would likely expand to include such issues as Afghanistan, Iraq, commercial matters and human-rights concerns. (During my negotiations with Iran as legal adviser between 1985 and 1990, we resolved many cases and discussed other issues; my interlocutor eventually agreed, for example, that the fatwa against Salman Rushdie could not be enforced in any state outside Iran.) A successful negotiation will include Iranian demands, such as an end to efforts at regime change. Major change in Iran is in fact more likely to result from normalization and internal activities, than by opposition groups seeking to overthrow the regime.

Finally, any effort to negotiate with Syria or Iran will fail if based only on incentives. The Iraq Study Group's proposal lacks a program of sufficient pressure to make diplomacy potentially successful. James Baker was able to convene the Madrid Conference in 1991 only after the U.S. had expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The effort to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program should continue as forcefully as possible. Multilateral sanctions helped get Libya to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons. A clear warning that Syria and Iran must end all forms of state-sponsored terrorism, as now required by Security Council resolutions, must be a central element of U.S. negotiating policy, backed with meaningful preparations for action. The power of the U.S. to inflict damage on its enemies remains substantial, despite current difficulties in Iraq. While it is now difficult to contemplate military action against Syria or Iran, continued sponsorship of terror against other states will eventually provoke the American people, if not the international community, to exercise their right of self-defense through affordable wars of destruction instead of costly nation-building exercises.

No one can convey this message more effectively than George Bush, who remains determined to prevent a future of state-sponsored terror. He should accept the Iraq Study Group's sound message on negotiating with enemies but supplement it with the toughness that effective diplomacy demands.

Mr. Sofaer, George P. Shultz Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, was legal adviser to the Department of State from 1985 to 1990.

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from
Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

This writer makes some good points. However, I still do not believe that any negotiation can succeed from a weak position.

The US and it's coalition allies need to show that they are determined to finish the job and ensure a Democratic Iraq regardless of the attempts by Sunni and Al Qaeda terrorists to stop it.

Talk of pullouts and lack of support at home will not help to bring anyone to the table.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

This writer makes some good points. However, I still do not believe that any negotiation can succeed from a weak position.

The US and it's coalition allies need to show that they are determined to finish the job and ensure a Democratic Iraq regardless of the attempts by Sunni and Al Qaeda terrorists to stop it.

Talk of pullouts and lack of support at home will not help to bring anyone to the table.

True, now we're there we need to stick it out and finish the job, but what we really needed was more commitment at the start, if we went in there to liberate them we should of been prepared, i think the fact that we wern't has led us into a situation where we have no choice but to comprimise with these people. Perhaps with their involvement at least stability can be brought, if not actual democracy, i think one thing it will bring is anti Americanism in democratic or dictatorship form but saying that if our reasons were pure then this should be no issue. As long as the people have freedom and stability

Originally Posted by Roach

True, now we're there we need to stick it out and finish the job, but what we really needed was more commitment at the start, if we went in there to liberate them we should of been prepared, i think the fact that we wern't has led us into a situation where we have no choice but to comprimise with these people. Perhaps with their involvement at least stability can be brought, if not actual democracy, i think one thing it will bring is anti Americanism in democratic or dictatorship form but saying that if our reasons were pure then this should be no issue. As long as the people have freedom and stability

We're pretty much in agreement here. However, the anti-Americanism has been alive and well with people in the Middle East and some of our own allies (France for example) for quite some time.

I don't believe that this effort is making people any more anti-American than they were before, it may just be emphasizing it so that we can see who are TRUE friends are.

When you are the most powerful and successful nation in the world, there will be a lot of envy.

The hate of the US in the Middle East is misplaced in that it is based on our perceived support of Israel. This misplaced belief is also illustrative of the hate Arab nations have of the State of Israel and it's peoples. But we cannot turn back time.

The US rightly opposed the creation of the State of Israel, but that is water behind the bridge. We now have to decide if the tiny state of Israel, created by the newly formed UN deserves to exist. I cannot see any other answer than YES. So all who desire it's destruction should themselves be isolated by member states who participated in Israel's creation in the first place.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

The US rightly opposed the creation of the State of Israel, but that is water behind the bridge. We now have to decide if the tiny state of Israel, created by the newly formed UN deserves to exist. I cannot see any other answer than YES. So all who desire it's destruction should themselves be isolated by member states who participated in Israel's creation in the first place.

We could be as tough on Israel as we are on Palistine.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

We're pretty much in agreement here. However, the anti-Americanism has been alive and well with people in the Middle East and some of our own allies (France for example) for quite some time.

Good good

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

I don't believe that this effort is making people any more anti-American than they were before, it may just be emphasizing it so that we can see who are TRUE friends are.

I myself don't have much love for the nation that is America. I don't wish its downfall or any of its citizenry harm but I do not see it as a froce for good in the world, I would not shed a tear if America lost its primacy in the world and i do not care for its greatness.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

When you are the most powerful and successful nation in the world, there will be a lot of envy.

Although i think a lot of the hate of America from the middle east there are a number of justified reasons to dislike the US for those of us who do not live within its borders. Although it has long stood as the vanguard of Democracy and freedom it has long history of serving its own interests and often betraying the very interests its supposed to represent, there are numerous times a deomocratic government has been subject to an American funded coup to instal a pro american government because the democratic government was anti American.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

The hate of the US in the Middle East is misplaced in that it is based on our preceived support of Israel. This misplaced belief is also illustrative of the hate Arab nations have of the State of Israel and it's peoples. But we cannot turn back time.

I fail to see how it is just perceived, there are many documented actions of support that the US has taken to reinforce this belief, from supplying weapons and technology to providing political support like the recent promise in the UN during the Lebanon conflict that America would veto any action against Israel.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

he US rightly opposed the creation of the State if Israel, but that is water behind the bridge. We now have to decide if the tiny state of Israel, created by the newly formed UN deserves to exist. I cannot see any other answer than YES. So all who desire it's destruction should themselves be isolated by member states who participated in Israel's creation Tin the first place.

I think it only deserves to exsist because it has exsisted for some time now, I believe that part of the problem lies that no effort on Israel's part has been made or has ever been made to accomodate its neighbours, it has been hardline and uncomprimising and this has fueled much of the hate already there.

Originally Posted by Roach

Although i think a lot of the hate of America from the middle east there are a number of justified reasons to dislike the US for those of us who do not live within its borders. Although it has long stood as the vanguard of Democracy and freedom it has long history of serving its own interests and often betraying the very interests its supposed to represent, there are numerous times a deomocratic government has been subject to an American funded coup to instal a pro american government because the democratic government was anti American.

I just want to put this comment in historic perspective. Much of what you speak of was during the COLD war when the Soviet Union was attempting to foment it's influence in the American continent.

Did the US support some regimes that were dictators? Yes. Were the alternatives any better? No. It was a choice between supporting dictators who were opposed to communism or allow communism to have a root in the Suoth American continent. This, at the time, was an unacceptable proposition.

Let's not forget that the Communist expansion was not a benign effort with the support of the people. It was done through aggression, not democracy.

The notion that ANY country is not acting in it's own self interests defies reality. ALL nations act this way.

Would the US have been better served to allow aggressive communist interests to invade the South American continent? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

The US rightly opposed the creation of the State of Israel, but that is water behind the bridge.

There may have been conceptual opposition to the formation of the State of Israel, but when the chips were down, contrary to opposing it, the USA was foremost in voting for the creation of Israel. It was Great Britain who declined to vote for the creation of the Zionist state.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

I just want to put this comment in historic perspective. Much of what you speak of was during the COLD war when the Soviet Union was attempting to foment it's influence in the American continent.

Did the US support some regimes that were dictators? Yes. Were the alternatives any better? No. It was a choice between supporting dictators who were opposed to communism or allow communism to have a root in the Suoth American continent. This, at the time, was an unacceptable proposition.

Let's not forget that the Communist expansion was not a benign effort with the support of the people. It was done through aggression, not democracy.

The notion that ANY country is not acting in it's own self interests defies reality. ALL nations act this way.

Would the US have been better served to allow aggressive communist interests to invade the South American continent? I don't think so.

What you say is true, but i believe the point is that all the things people supported america for are taken away when America starts abandoning her own ideals for her own interests.

During the cold war this kind of action was acceptable because it was seen in the interest of all and rightly or wrongly this meant America recieved little voiced objection from other countries. Soviet Russia was also a very clear and imminant threat.

Iraq seems to have been only in the interest of America, so this action has recieved scorn, I think the main problem is that although a nation may act in its own interest, people will require an explanation for such aggressive actions if they are to accept it, and like any explanation it will be examined and if it is found wanting there will be an outcry like the one that has happened.

Even in response to terroism Iraq was over reaction, the threat level from terroism did not jusifty the level of action taking by the states. Terroism is not a new thing, but it seems to only be new to the states.

Lion...you may not want to bring too much attention to the way GB behaved in regards to the creation of the nation of Israel. It doesnt make your nation's government look too good.