Should President Obama Go To Iran?

Just As Nixon Went To China, Should Obama Go To Iran? -- Howard LaFranchi, Christian Science Monitor

World powers, and the US in particular, need a game-changer to move Iran to a cooperative stance concerning its nuclear program, a few analysts argue. Such an Obama overture to Iran is a provocative idea, they say, but the alternative may be military confrontation.

In the 34 years since its revolution, Iran has marked key gains in the Middle East and pursued a nuclear program that shows little signs of slowing, despite a barrage of Western economic sanctions. Is it time for the United States to switch course and make a Nixon-to-China move vis a vis the Islamic republic?

That provocative idea, at the center of a new book by two American experts on Iran, is raising eyebrows in Washington even as a new round of talks between world powers and Iran over Tehran’s advancing uranium-enrichment program began Tuesday.

Read more ....

My Comment: Before President Nixon went to China his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger first paved the way .... doing the necessary negotiation over arrangements, agreements, and understandings that eventually resulted in a rapprochement between China and the U.S.. In short .... these agreements and understandings were already completed before Nixon went to China .... his visit there was to only finalize and sign the agreement(s). What also helped Nixon was that the Chinese were eager for a rapprochement .... in short .... the timing was perfect.

In today's world Iran's leadership cannot see itself to be in a position of negotiating with someone that they have always called the 'Great Satan' .... it would undermine what has always been an important ideological position for them since the revolution. In addition .... let's face it .... President Obama is no Nixon (which many will probably argue is a good thing), but he also certainly does not have a Henry Kissinger on his staff.

Want To Attack Iran? Then Make A Case.

Strategic Horizons: Want to Attack Iran? Then Make a Case -- Steven Metz, World Politics Review

Talk of a U.S. attack on Iran is like a late-summer thunderstorm that rumbles ominously in the distance without ever drifting further away. Few American observers advocate an immediate attack, but a growing number hint that the question is when, not if, a strike takes place. The distance from saber-rattling to war is narrowing.

As is often the case in the prelude to war, the discussion has so far been informed more by passion than by analysis, stoked by popular distrust of the Iranian regime. As the United States found when contemplating the invasion of Iraq in 2002, such an over-heated environment makes it difficult to coolly assess alternatives. But to avoid disaster, that is exactly what we must do. The burden of proof lies with those who contend that an attack is necessary and that the strategic benefits for U.S. national security outweigh the costs. So far advocates of military action have not made their case. If they are to do so, they must first answer three central questions.

Read more ....

My Comment: I concur .... advocates for a "war of choice" against Iran have not made a convincing case that we should pursue this policy. But (unfortunately) I suspect that we will not have this debate .... that U.S. policy will be pushed by others who will be primarily motivated by their own interests .... and not ours .... and that when war does break out, we will then be drawn into a bloody conflict because of strategic treaties and national security obligations.