Don't Wait Until the Iranian Election Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Joe Klein makes the following argument about how we should approach Iran:

the approach to Iran is best made carefully, circuitously. We need to make a deal with Russians first--the obvious one is suspending any plans for an anti-missile system in return for verifiable Russian support for the UN's efforts to prevent Iran from developing a bomb. We should also re-establish relations with Iran's ally, Syria...and we should offer to resume cooperation with Iran in Afghanistan. All these initiatives should be well under way before Iran's June elections. Only then, after Ahmadinejad's fate is decided, should we launch direct, high-level talks between a U.S. envoy and a significant player, like Larijani, with a direct line to the Supreme Leader.

I've been thinking along similar lines for a while but after some recent conversations with Iran analysts I've changed my mind.  First, hinging our conversations on the elections has the unintentional consequence of creating the perception that we are supporting a candidate.  Engagement with the U.S. is generally popular in Iran and as Joe rightly pointed out this was one of the reasons Ahmadinejad was making positive noises about engagement today.  But, there is nothing that makes Iranians more suspicious than the idea that the U.S. has a vested interest in the outcome of their elections.  This view has been universally held in Iranian society since the U.S. and the British installed the Shah in a 1951 coup and overthrew a democratically elected government.  Any sign that we are supporting a candidate (Say Khatami), even an unintentional one, would be incredibly damaging to that candidate.  Conversely, if it became obvious that the U.S. was actively opposed to a candidate (Say Ahmadinejad) that could act as an electoral boon for him.  Given America's checkered past in Iranian politics and the Iranian sensitivities around this issue, it's best to not hinge any of our decisions on what happens in their elections.

Second, everything that I've heard lately is that the Iranians are not really in the mood for piecemeal efforts on things like Afghanistan.  Their perception is that the last time they tried this approach in late 2001 when they worked closely with the U.S. and played a positive role in Afghanistan, they were burned by the "Axis of Evil" speech in early 2002 (Of course they were caught red handed sending a large weapons shipment to Gaza).  Moreover, the piecemeal approach of trying to talk only about Iraq has also been seen as a failure by the Iranians.  It devolved into a forum in which both sides simply excoriated each other.  What the Iranians might be more amenable to is a set of comprehensive discussions with multiple issue tracks at multiple levels of government.  So, you can still hold immediate low level talks on Afghanistan, where cooperation makes a lot of sense.  But you can also at least start the much more complicated and slow process on some of the more difficult issues such as restoring diplomatic relations and the nuclear program.

Finally, waiting six months also burns up a lot of good will that exists early on in the administration.  As Suzanne Maloney and Ray Takeyh have pointed out, first impressions will be tremendously important.  Joe lays out a list of precursory items that should be done before engagement with Iran begins including re-establishing relations with Syria and coming to some kind of an agreement with the Russians on missile defense in exchange for greater support in ending Iran's nuclear program.  Both are worthy goals but they will also be difficult and time consuming.  It's not clear to me that you can't start a dialogue with the Iranians even as you move on those separate tracks.

Update:  Joe Klein responds and makes a subtle but smart and important shift:

Any negotiations should start off low-key, with Iranians known to be close to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and with none of the candidates for president.

This seems like a good idea.  Stay completely out of the Iranian elections, which was one of Joe's concerns.  But as I've pointed But at the same time don't lose the opportunity to send a positive early message and ensure that you are not accidentally sending the signal that you support one party or another.