What the Hostage Crisis Says about Iran
April 8th, 2007
By JEB KOOGLER
Print
There are a number of lessons to be learned from the recent British hostage crisis: most importantly, bilateral talks combined with face-saving measures is the best way to deal with Iran.
This dispute says a lot about the Iranians and about how we should be engaging with them. First, this crisis has made it quite clear that threatening the Iranian regime will not work. When Blair threatened to take this issue to “the next phase” if the hostages were not released, he only worsened the conflict. Most analysts in Tehran agree on this point, according to The Financial Times. Indeed, Blair’s hostile language had the opposite effect of what he hoped: it caused the mullahs to dig in their heels. (It’s critical to remember that the Iranian regime is very prideful. They have shown time and again that they will not back down in the face of military posturing.)
Second, this crisis indicates that the best way to engage with Iran is through direct, bilateral talks. Blair, once he dropped the rhetoric of instigating a military response and instead began to initiate a dialogue with Iran, was able to bring about a resolution to the dispute. Working through intermediaries like the UN, or relying on indirect communication with the Iranians would not have worked, many analysts agree.
Third, face-saving measures are a key element of successful negotiations with Iran. Because of the prideful nature of the Iranian regime, allowing them to paint the outcome as a win is extremely important. Juan Cole, an expert on Middle Eastern politics, makes the same point. He says: “Iran politics—and this is generally true of politics on the whole—is all about saving face.…” Britain’s pledge not to enter Iran’s territorial waters allowed the Iranian government to save face and led to the release of the hostages, Cole argues.
These lessons are important and we should remember them when we think about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. Threats have proven to be very ineffective, as many months of tough talk and military posturing has indicated. Rather than causing Iran to moderate its position, the aggressive approach taken by the US has only increased Iranian domestic support for the program and furthered the resolve of the Iranian mullahs.
A more effective approach to the Iranian nuclear program would involve continued one-on-one negotiations between the EU (or the US) and Iran, as well as a scaling down of threatening rhetoric. Furthermore, as the recent hostage crisis makes clear, it’s crucial that the Iranian regime is given a face-saving way of giving up its nuclear ambitions. If they can’t frame it as a win, Iran will not go along with any such deal. Juan Cole draws some similar conclusions:
The successful British diplomacy around the sailors was direct bilateral talks and face-saving pronouncements. So that seems to be what works with this regime. If the Europeans can find a way to speak directly to the Iranians and to frame the [issue of nuclear] suspension in a way that doesn’t seem to injure Iranian feelings about national sovereignty, then it’s not impossible that they could have a suspension.
(Cross-posted at Foreign Policy Watch)
This entry was posted on Sunday, April 8th, 2007 at 8:50 am and is filed under Foreign Politics, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran, Foreign Affairs. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Add New Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment