Negotiating with Iran

Even as the Bush administration pursues a diplomatic solution to the issue of Iran's uranium enrichment program, critics on the right are pushing for a "tougher approach", saying that Bush is being "soft" on the "enemies of freedom". This "tougher" approach, which is being proposed by some in Congress -- along with the usual suspects on the hawkish right -- would consist of harsh sanctions and most likely some form of military action.

This criticism comes at a time when Iranian officials appear to be split between moderates who seek reconciliation with the West, and the more nationalist elements in the country who insist on the sanctity of Iran's uranium enrichment program as a symbol of national pride and independence from Western control. If there is indeed serious debate occurring within the halls of power in Iran regarding this issue, it further reveals an important split between moderate and extreme factions within the government. It is well known that president Ahmadinejad lacks broad support within the government, and that his incendiary rhetoric has been widely criticized by the other branches of Iranian government.

Given these internal divisions, the worst thing the U.S. could do at this point would be to take an overly-aggressive, militant stance towards Iran. Harsh sanctions would likely not do much to hurt Ahmadinejad's popular support, while the suffering that resulted would likely be blamed on America and the West. Military action against Iran would even more certainly result in a firestorm of anti-Americanism, and would also serve to stifle those voices dissenting against Ahmadinejad's brand of extremism. Nothing eliminates internal divisions better than an external threat.

More on the Iran situation as things develop...