I can appreciate the multi-faceted, complex foreign policy challenge posed by Iran, and yesterday’s announcement about qualified negations is multi-layered. Did the administration attach conditions that officials expected the Iranians to reject? Is there a power struggle between Cheney and Rice? Will the U.S. stick with European negotiators, or take Germany’s advice and talk to Iran one-on-one? Will security guarantees be on the table? Is this move towards the negotiating table more about influencing China and Russia than it is Iran?
Important questions, all. But I have a slightly less important concern: Bush isn’t getting nearly enough flack today for a world-class flip-flop.
The White House has said for years that it wouldn’t talk to Iran. Not with the E3, not alone, not through intermediaries, not at all. When John Kerry suggested that Iran was getting more dangerous, not less, through the Bush approach, and said it was time to start talks, Republicans howled that this was proof that Kerry was weak on national security. “Talk to the Iranians?” they scoffed. “That’s rewarding bad behavior!”
In August 2004, then-Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton told the Hudson Institute, “Iran’s actions and statements do not bode well for the success of a negotiated approach to dealing with this issue.” Around the same time, Condoleezza Rice told Fox News, “This regime has to be isolated in its bad behavior, not quote-unquote ‘engaged.'”
Obviously, that’s no longer operative.
After 27 years in which the United States has refused substantive talks with Iran, President Bush reversed course on Wednesday because it was made clear to him — by his allies, by the Russians, by the Chinese, and eventually by some of his advisers — that he no longer had a choice.
During the past month, according to European officials and some current and former members of the Bush administration, it became obvious to Mr. Bush that he could not hope to hold together a fractious coalition of nations to enforce sanctions — or consider military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — unless he first showed a willingness to engage Iran’s leadership directly over its nuclear program and exhaust every nonmilitary option.
Just to clarify, I’m glad Bush “reversed course.” His Iranian “policy,” if you can call it that, has been ineffective to the point of recklessness. I’m not sure how sincere the administration’s new-found commitment to negotiations are, but I’m glad they’ve come around.
I just want the flip-flop recognized.
Yes, maybe this is petty. But we’re talking about the “biggest foreign policy shift” of the Bush presidency. He swore up and down that we wouldn’t — we couldn’t — sit at the table with Iran. Now, we’re witnessing a “historic about-face.”
It’s the funny thing about flip-flops. When someone (particularly Bush) goes from a bad policy to a better policy, even if they’re mirror opposites, the political world seems so happy to see the White House come to its senses that it doesn’t much matter when Bush, whose disdain for policy reversals is practically set in stone, does a complete U-turn.
Indeed, if Bush and his allies hadn’t much such a big deal for the past five-plus years about never changing course, never yielding to diplomatic realities, never re-examining foreign policy towards an “axis of evil” country, then a change in direction now wouldn’t seem like such a big deal. Kerry, they said, couldn’t be counted on to pick a policy and stick with it.
With that in mind, who’s on both sides of the issue now?