In the post 9/11 America, the phrase "negotiate with the terrorists" has become a slogan used to derail someone politically. Ever since Barack Obama began proclaiming that he would hold direct talks with Iran on a bilateral basis, the right-wing establishment, which apparently includes his current rival - Hillary Clinton - has been going nuts. They have criticized his willingness to sit down with Iran's president and his reluctance to impose harsh preconditions for such talks. But Middle East and foreign policy experts agree on a basic consensus: an American president shouldn't have reluctance to open up negotiation with Iran.
In an article for Wall Street Journal, Jay Solomon jumps the bandwagon as the latest critic of Obama's foreign policy approach. He says, "Obama could strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad if as U.S. president he moves too quickly to hold direct talks with Tehran's leader". Responding to this claim within the same article, Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran specialist at Washington's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who said he is generally supportive of Sen. Obama's agenda, says "Only two things can rehabilitate Ahmadinejad politically: bombing Iran or major efforts to engage" him ahead of the vote. Commenting on this in Foreign Policy Blog, Blake Hounshell says, "My hope is that Obama doesn't literally mean he will sit across the table from Ahmadinejad, but rather that he won't be afraid to negotiate with Iran and will drop preconditions that only ensure that talks will go nowhere". Of course we don't know whether Barack Obama will drop preconditions, but we do know that he has a group of advisers with deep expertise in foreign policy matters. It therefore stands to reason that Barack Obama won't follow the path that the right-wingers are confidently predicting he will - that is meet with an Iranian president, sit across the table from him, appear in multiple photo shoots and offer concessions. More likely is that Barack Obama will take the moderate approach which would involve talking to allies, setting realistic goals ahead of the talks and set reasonable preconditions. This way, Barack Obama will have opened up negotiation with Iran which holds the promise of neutralizing its bellicose albeit meaningless rhetoric towards Israel, avoid military confrontation and freeze its nuclear program. Of course, as part of any deal it would mean making concessions, mostly in the form of economic and political deals. However, given the road paved by Iran thus far, visiting Iraq and signing big business contracts with China and Switzerland, it's highly doubtful that United States can stop Iran from having a political and economic influence in the region by just saber rattling and taking a threatening pose.
However, the more puzzling foreign policy stance Barack Obama has adopted, is his unwillingness to talk to Hamas. Doesn't matter that Hamas was elected in what was certified as free and fair elections in Palestine, what trumps his consistency in foreign policy matters is pandering to the Jewish vote which may play a crucial role in Florida and Michigan in the general election. However, that is only to be expected given the basic history in recent American politics: no politician running for a high office, like Senate or Presidency, can even dream about winning it without a staunch and unjustified support for Israel and all of its aggressions. What's perhaps more surprising is that even Israeli public is by far more open towards negotiating with Hamas than its American affiliates, who are often pushed to adopt the more right-wing positions by the countless Israel lobbies, whose extreme positions rival only with the Likud party.
I hope that Barack Obama can find a way to engage Iran bilaterally and push the Israeli government to begin negotiations with Hamas, without which it's difficult if not impossible to pave a way towards a peaceful future.