[Wall Street Journal] Michael Rubin and Danielle Pletka - Earlier this month Sir Richard Dalton, until recently Britain's ambassador in Tehran, called for direct talks between U.S. and Iranian officials and suggested the West modify demands that the Islamic Republic suspend uranium enrichment. Unfortunately, his eagerness for dialogue is being echoed and amplified elsewhere. The logic of engagement sounds good. But experience shows that engagement means something different in Iran than in the West. In May 1992, for example, then German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel launched a "critical dialogue" with Tehran and sought to use trade and incentives to encourage Iran to alter its behavior. And, indeed, it did. On Sept. 17, 1992, Iranian hit-men assassinated three Iranian dissidents and their translator in a Berlin restaurant. The subsequent German investigation determined that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Ali Rafsanjani, and Foreign Minister Ali Velayati ordered the murders. What about the dialogue? "We don't give a damn about your ending the critical dialogue," said Supreme Leader Khamenei upon hearing the German court ruling. "We never sought such a dialogue." Iran's exploitation of engagement to advance its agenda is the rule rather than the exception. In December 2001, in the midst of what many cite as the heyday of Iran-U.S. cooperation in Afghanistan, Iranian forces dispatched 50 tons of weaponry to Palestinian militiamen to derail a U.S.- and European-brokered ceasefire between Israeli and Palestinian forces. Dialogue and the attendant relaxation of UN sanctions will strengthen and validate the Ahmadinejad regime. Proposals for renewed engagement may be well-intentioned, but they are naive and dangerous, and indeed will undercut any possibility of a diplomatic solution. Washington has already offered and delivered inducements to the regime - a clear path to World Trade Organization accession and spare aircraft parts - in exchange for behavior modification. In response, Tehran has offered no confidence-building measures. To change course now would signal the impotence of international institutions and multilateral diplomacy. History shows that when the supreme leader believes Western resolve is faltering, Iran will be more defiant and dangerous. Now is not the time to talk. If Washington and Europe truly believe in the primacy of multilateralism and diplomacy, now is the time to ratchet up the pressure. Ms. Pletka and Mr. Rubin are, respectively, vice president for foreign policy and defense studies and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
2007-02-21 01:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive