Before the chat

President Barack Obama has been very clear about his intentions to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And while I applaud Obama’s eagerness to consult with Ahmadinejad and other foreign leaders, I have always been skeptical of his promise to meet with Iran without preconditions.

Ironically, it now seems that even Ahmadinejad himself is skeptical of Obama’s strategy. According to The New York Times, “Iran has long said it would not agree to preconditions.”

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos earlier this week, Ahmadinejad said the following: “I have no reservations when it comes to talking.” Stephanopoulos followed up, asking if that meant the Iranian president was prepared to talk without preconditions.

“No, no,” Ahmadinejad replied, “we should just have a clear-cut framework for talks. The agenda should be clear.”
Perhaps Obama and Ahmadinejad should be on the same page before they step into negotiations.

Obama’s intent to speak with Iran without preconditions is a natural counter to former President George W. Bush’s policy. However, Bush’s policy was sound and reasoned.
In 2006, Bush and Condoleezza Rice crafted a plan of sanctions and conditions for U.S. discussions with Iran. All these conditions were backed by written support of the European Union, China and Russia. This plan set the stage for real consequences for the Iranian nation – even in the event of their refusal to meet.

I have little optimism that Iran will abandon its nuclear program. The country has continued its pursuit of nuclear technology in the face of overwhelming global opposition.

Ahmadinejad has made it clear on a number of occasions that he and his government hope for the destruction of Israel. Additionally, threats have been made against American interests in the Middle East and on U.S. soil. As recently as October 2008, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei declared, “The Iranian people hate the U.S. ...  (because of) the various plots the U.S. government has hatched against Iran and the Iranian nation for the past five decades.” He added that any nation that would not honor Iran’s identity and independence would have its “hands cut off.”

When Bush requested discussions with Iran with preconditions, he was met with refusal. Now, when a proposition to meet without such preconditions is raised, Iran refuses yet again. It appears that Iran’s hypocrisy has little to do with preconditions and more to do with the maintenance of its own leverage.

The time has come for Iran to engage the world in a discourse laden not with hate and stubborn refusal, but rather with an effort to determine the needs of the Iranian people so that the international community may work toward supporting those needs.
However, it goes without saying that no major international players will agree to support Iran without the cessation of its nuclear program and its numerous threats against other nations.

So, “preconditions” or not, there are conditions to be met if Iran wishes to compete and prosper with the rest of the world.