Between the Lines: Time to talk to the ‘Axis of Evil’
In international politics, as in relationships, communication is key
By Patrick Callahan, senior writer
Posted on November 20, 2006

British Prime Minister Tony Blair mentioned last week the possibility of bringing Iran and Syria into direct talks concerning the future of Iraq, ideas that were met with frustration by some officials in the United States. However, the recent election results may prove to be a crack in the levee of repressed opinions by an administration that has vehemently enforced “staying the course.” According to The Washington Post, while testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden was quoted as saying of Iran and Syria, “clearly, both governments could do more. If our dialogue with them could convince them to do more, that their interests are not served by a fracturing of Iraq, then I would say that might be useful.” Former Secretary of State James Baker and the Iraq Study Group are likely to express similar opinions when the findings of their report come out next month.

Now that one party isn’t controlling all of Congress, we’ll probably be hearing more genuine opinions from leaders who might heretofore have been operating under strict policy guidelines in order to ensure their own political careers. But do the statements of Blair go too far in assigning bargaining powers to Iran and Syria while undermining the goals of coalition members? I would venture as far as to say that talking with every nation involved with Iraq militarily, economically or geographically is the most practical path to take on the road to peace. Unfortunately, politics is a game of power and by initially refusing to acknowledge the possibility of Iran and Syria being involved in talks, the United States has put itself between a rock and a hard place.

In the buildup to the 2003 invasion, America, in a position of power relegated to it by the events of Sept. 11, refused to negotiate with Iran or Syria, two of the most influential players in the region. U.S. foreign policy-makers have never before been faced with a more complex predicament; the decision to turn a cold shoulder to these nations before, during and after the “mission was accomplished” represents a serious flaw in diplomatic relations.

During the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy asked his brother Bobby to open up back channels between the White House and the Kremlin. This wisdom allowed many complicated situations to be assessed without speaking publicly through the international community every time a statement needed to be made. The system of international relations in which we live today is much more complex, but the incalculable value of communication has not diminished. By refusing to speak to Iraq and Syria in the beginning and throughout the war, the United States has tied its hands diplomatically.

Iran and Syria are currently indirect enemies in our war on terror. Iran’s progress in developing a nuclear arsenal should be reason enough to explore all means possible of easing the situation. Its professed desire to wipe Israel off the map should lead the United States to use only the most extreme rhetoric in protecting its ally. The power of such rhetoric is greatly amplified by its direct use, but such use is now impossible without lowering the American position on the international scale. By asking for direct talks now, the United States would appear to be caving in to self-proclaimed members of the “Axis of Evil.”

In this bloody war on terror, America must speak with the strength and authority of a superpower, but it must use the pragmatism necessary to ensure the safety of our soldiers and of the innocent people in the region. Watch for the United States to bring the real actors of the region to the discussion table through an indirect intermediary, since this is the only way to accomplish the national goals while saving face politically.  

Patrick Callahan is a junior political science major.