America has some 180,000 military people in Iraq and Afghanistan still trying to establish democratic stability in those two troubled nations. President George W. Bush is also hampered by a Congress urging direct talks with Iran and even contemplating restraints on potential American military strikes. But will the only credible alternative option, diplomacy, really work with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the controls?
by John Ross Schroeder
Diplomacy seems to be the new order of the day. Just about everywhere in the world, traveling diplomats are on their way to meetings and conferences. American House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently visited Syria and met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, but not with the blessings of the White House.
In fact, according to a USA Today lead editorial, "She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad—even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home" (April 9, 2007).
Will diplomacy win the day?
On her trips to the Middle East, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has tried her level best to restart the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians—but with little obvious success.
Various newspaper headlines tell us that "Saudis Increase Overtures to Israel," "Israel Panel Hears that Damascus Wants [a] Deal," "Talk to Iran and Syria? Yes" and "Syria Finds the World Suddenly Visiting with Carrot and Stick."
Clearly the prevailing mood in the diplomatic world is to talk. "Very well, let's talk," one headline in The Economist says. The article itself speaks wryly of "the axis of the formerly evil." A newspaper article advises, in "dealing with Iran, try to talk. You can use the stick later."
But will mere talk stop Iran from generating nuclear weapons? That is the question.
