WASHINGTON: Even little kids can learn to resolve conflicts. Why can’t the US take a common-sense approach with Tehran? All I need to know about international relations, I learned in kindergarten. OK, I’m exaggerating: I should have said preschool. My oldest child is only 4. Still, preschool offers great training for anyone interested in improving US foreign policy. Consider this scene, witnessed at the sandbox: Child one: “That’s my shovel!” Child two: “You already have a shovel! This is MY shovel!” Child one: “I want ALL the shovels! I will KILL you!” Child two: “I will KILL YOU MORE!” To foreign policy aficionados, it’s a familiar scenario; e.g.: US (per President Bush): “[Iran] will be dealt with…. “ Iran (per President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad): “[The US is] not capable of causing the least harm to the Iranian people; they will suffer more.” US (per UN Ambassador John Bolton): “If [Iran] continues … there will be tangible and painful consequences.” Iran (per Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei): “Iran will respond twofold to any attack.” US (per Bush administration): “Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah!”
In both the little sandbox and the big sandbox, conflicts like this often end in tears. But tears aren’t inevitable. Sensible grown-ups de-escalate the situation by treating the little darlings like rational people, even if they’re not, and behaving in a way that establishes clear expectations and respects the emotions of everyone concerned. In preschool, the approach works like this: “Whoa, two shovels, and both of you want both shovels. Can each of you explain why you need two shovels? How can we solve this problem without yelling?”
As a hardened observer of sandboxes big and small, trust me: When you play it right, the warring parties end up contentedly building a sandcastle together. In the big sandbox, of course, there’s no kindly teacher around, and one of the children is a 500-pound gorilla. But the conflict resolution principle is identical: Find ways to break the spiral of escalating threats, let each party explain its perspective and seek face-saving routes to common ground. Apply that lesson to the potentially catastrophic nuclear contretemps between Iran and the US, and perhaps we can ratchet down the danger level.
This week’s lengthy letter from Mr Ahmadinejad to Mr Bush offers our best opportunity yet.
Mr Ahmadinejad’s letter was intense, rambling and often disturbing. But he voiced sentiments shared by millions within and outside the Islamic world: suspicion of US motives, distress about the widening global gap between the haves and have-nots, and anger over the war in Iraq, the status of the Palestinians and US abuses in the war on terror. More important, the letter was the first direct communication the US has had from Iran in 27 years, and it suggests that even Mr Ahmadinejad wants recognition and dialogue with the US.
There have been other overtures. At the same time Mr Ahmadinejad’s letter was made public, Hassan Rowhani, a senior representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei (and formerly Iran’s top nuclear negotiator), released a memorandum outlining specific concessions Iran is willing to make in its pursuit of nuclear technologies. Iran is offering us a shovel — I mean, an olive branch — if we have the wits to take it. So far, though, the official US response has been a determined thumb to the nose. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for instance, dismissed Mr Ahmadinejad’s letter as an “attack,” not a genuine “diplomatic opening.” Ms Rice couldn’t be more dangerously wrong.
If we hope to gain support in the Islamic world for our policies on Iranian nuclear development (or our overall foreign policy, for that matter), we should respond seriously and respectfully to the issues the letter raises. And if we want a peaceful resolution to the nuclear crisis, we should seize the opportunity to re-establish direct communication with Iran.
The US cut diplomatic ties with the Iranians in 1980, a few months after Iranian students seized the US Embassy in Tehran. But two-thirds of Iranians alive today were under the age of 15 in 1980, and it’s past time for Americans to be pragmatic and move on. Specifically, we need to stop acting like a bunch of mulish 4-year-olds and start talking to the Iranians.
Direct talks with Iran won’t be a panacea. Although they might produce meaningful progress, they might fail. But without direct talks, efforts to resolve the nuclear crisis diplomatically are almost certainly doomed to failure — and the consequences will be far worse than just getting a bit of playground sand in our eyes.—Dawn/Washington Post News Service
