The New York Times ran a front-page article yesterday about Obama’s plan to aggressively pursue diplomacy with Iran over the nuclear issue. In my opinion, the approach that Obama detailed is very logical: unconditional negotiations, better carrots, harsher punishment for non-compliance, and a reduced American presence in the Persian Gulf. Not everyone in the blogosphere had such a favorable opinion of the proposal, however.
Ed Morrissey, a well-known conservative blogger who writes at Captain’s Quarters, expressed his disapproval with the plan by suggesting that it is nothing that hasn’t been tried before:
…it’s hard to believe that neither Obama nor Michael Gordon or Jeff Zeleny recall that the EU-3 and the US made precisely that offer to Iran in the summer 2005 round of negotiations between the Europeans and Iran. The Bush administration even made the offer publicly in support of the European peace initiative, and even talked openly of restoring diplomatic and trade relations with Iran.
Did it work? No, it did not. Iran had more interest in pursuing nuclear weapons than in WTO membership or normalized relations — because Iran considers itself at war with the United States. It doesn’t want normal trade; Iran wants regional hegemony over the Middle East, after which it can demand trade on whatever terms it likes with the entire world.
Actually, Obama’s plan is not a repeat of the 2005 proposal. Indeed, Morrissey’s analysis failed to recognize one of the most important elements of the Obama plan: security guarantees. In a detailed piece over at FPW, I explain why security guarantees matter…and how they might actually sway the Iranians on the question of enrichment.