The Iranians appear to have attempted realpolitik under the moderates. It’s been noted that the US and Iran should be natural allies, just as Iran and Israel should be (and they have cooperated in the past much more than either side would like to admit). Now Bush cannot reopen negotiations without giving the appearance of rewarding the Iranians for taking a risky, hardline stance. If you don’t reward moderate behavior, people won’t bother to try. It really is that simple.

Iran doesn’t really have very much to gain by continuing the standoff but, as Boyd noted in his analysis of strategy, everyone wishes to survive on his own terms. Those who want peace are prepared to accept that demand. Those who want war insist on dictating the terms of another’s survival.

1. The US has a problem with Iran at a very fundamental, existential level – simply put the US does not “accept” the post-revolution government of Iran. This non-acceptance has nothing to do with legitimacy. It has
everything to do with the fact that Iran has set an independent course in foreign and domestic policy since 1978, and is looking after its national
interests, and not America’s, in the region and beyond. As an Iranian, I am very proud of this independence, and view the fullfilment of the other promises of the revolution, namely, republican democracy, and freedom, as works in progress which will gradually bear fruit in the future. This does not mean that I love my government, or don’t criticize it, or agree with everything that comes out of Tehran. No. I did not vote for the current President, and I think our current system of governance needs much reform. But it’s a system far from being “un-elected” and also far from being run by a bunch of clerics. The system in fact has adapted very well over to pragmatic realities over the past 3 decades, it has reformed, and it will continue to grow and reform. It’s a much more popular system than many countries with which the US has cordial relations (China, many Middle Eastern countries, …). The US needs to listen more and analyze things more realistically, and then perhaps we can start a conversation.

2. As a first step towards reaching an understanding between our two countries, what is needed is a change in the language of discourse. I am
constantly amazed to see that an elected government in Iran is referred to by the derogatory term “Iranian regime”, or the “mullah regime”, rather than “Iranian government”. You don’t hear things like the “Bush regime”, or the “American regime”, or the “Mexican regime” – why “Iranian regime”? I don’t need to remind you that in 2000 Mr. Bush himself was not an elected President. When the dialogue starts from square one on the US side with disrespect
and such poor use of words, no wonder it has not gone anywhere so far. This is not a dialogue; rather, it’s a lecture or monologue by one side. We are the heirs to an ancient civilization that has given much to this world – the US should keep this in mind when it feels the temptation to lecture us once more.

If the “inside baseball” you are referencing is the chewing out the Swiss received for passing on the message, that has been reported in previous channels, perhaps in the Leverett op-ed that came out last year broaching this subject. If you are referring to the President’s personal views, then, yes, that is a new development.

If the US can’t execute regime change, and Bush won’t negotiate with this regime, I’m not sure what the options are.