Let's NOT Talk with Iran

Victor Davis Hanson addresses what he refers to as "one of the many bizarre recommendations in the recently released report from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group."

He takes issue with the group's call to talk with Iran. He cites that suggestion as a mistake on strategic as well as moral grounds.

Hanson provides a number of reasons to be wary of Iran and considers "formal dialogue with the present Iranian leadership ... as misguided as it is amoral."

He writes:

First, the Iranian leadership goes beyond the usual boilerplate anti-Israel, anti-Semitic claptrap of the region. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has serially denied the Holocaust while promising the absolute destruction of Israel. Various mullahs have characterized Israel as a "one-bomb state," implying a single Iranian nuclear bomb could destroy it. The vicious hatred is so institutionalized in Iran's state-run media that a science-fiction TV series there depicts the evil alien queen as Jewish.

...Second, in matters of nuclear proliferation, Iran demands increased vigilance, not dialogue. It possesses enough oil-based energy to meet its domestic needs for over 200 years and thus has no logical reason - other than for weaponry - to develop exorbitantly costly enriched uranium.

...Third, there is a long history of failed talks with, and appeasement of, the present Iranian government. The so-called EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - "dialogued" constantly and offered concessions while Tehran raced ahead with more centrifuges. The loquacious United Nations experienced the same frustration.

...Fourth, we have a deep misunderstanding of the nature and aims of the Iranian regime. Despite praise from Bill Clinton, Iran's "liberal" plebiscites were never democratic. Candidates were always carefully prescreened, free expression was curtailed, and dissident voices were jailed (and worse). Before 9/11, Hezbollah, with Iran's help, had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization. No wonder President Ahmadinejad now asks crowds to envision "a world without America."

In spite of these solid reasons to "maintain our distance" from Iran, demands to have formal negotiations with the current regime are growing.

James Baker, Iraq Study Group co-grand poobah, is quoted as saying, "You talk to your enemies, not just your friends."

It's a popular position. The talking point is that we talked to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

So what? What does that have to do with Iran?

Nonetheless, Baker is being considered one of the wise men. He has the answers. He can guide us along the proper path to solving our problems in the Middle East.

The only reason that his thoughts are being embraced by so many in Washington and the media is that Baker's plan differs from the Bush strategy and highlights mistakes made by the administration.

Some see anything that humiliates Bush as worthwhile and anyone responsible for that humiliation as good, an ally, a patriot.

But the question remains: What could possibly be accomplished by talking to Iran?

Keeping up discussions with the Soviet Union during the Cold War is not the same as legitimizing Ahmadinejad's Iran by engaging in formal talks.

Iran is not only an evil entity; its president is insane, with a penchant for another Holocaust.

No, that's not right. Ahmadinejad isn't looking for another Holocaust. He denies that there ever was a Holocaust. He gathers like-minded deniers and hosts a freak show conference intended to tick off the Western world.

Ahmadinejad wants to get rid of Israel, and he doesn't want to do it through negotiations.

He's bent on acquiring nukes, in defiance of UN resolutions.

Is it possible to reason with him?

I think it's naive to believe that it can be done.

Talk couldn't stop Hitler.

It won't stop Ahmadinejad.