As negotiations between the United States and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program continues without a successful conclusion, the pro-negotiation voices continue to lobby for both continuing the negotiation process as well as expanding into discussions of non-nuclear issues. The Los Angeles Times just ran one such story recently.
The argument appears to be that negotiations must expand, particularly in the realm of human rights violations in Iran during the crackdowns after the June election. Whether it happens during the current talks or after their conclusion, the opinion is that without broaching these issues with the Iranian government, the Green Movement will lose confidence in the United States or even become convinced that America will forsake their cause if it helps secure a nuclear agreement.
I want to believe expansion of talks will happen, but I have a difficult time seeing it happen if the nuclear talks do not reach an agreement. If they do not, I don’t know where the political will to try and move talks onto a new topic will come from.
Even in the middle of these talks, there are proposals moving through Congress for additional sanctions on Iran. This in spite of the facts that many experts do not see additional attempts at sanctions as being an effective tool, and despite warnings from leaders in the Green Movement that sanctions will only help prop up the government. So if this is the state of affairs while talks are still going on, I’m not wildly optimistic about what happens if they fail. Particularly since while the pro-negotiation punditry is all for continuing to talk, the administration continues to consistently say that repercussions will be coming if talks do not reach an agreement.
I guess I think the pro-negotiation flank here is bordering on naive if they think anything will happen if the nuclear talks fail – at least, nothing will happen in the short term that they will like or think prudent as far as relations with Iran are concerned. But I hope I’m wrong.
