The Trump administration has put Iran “on notice” for its destabilizing behavior in the Middle East and violation of international norms. While I have some significant concerns about how this was done, it is perfectly reasonable and indeed advisable to take a harder line with regards to Iranian behavior that is counter to the interests of the United States and its Middle Eastern partners.
But the Trump administration should also maintain the communications channels the Obama administration opened with Iran. In life and diplomacy it is almost always better to communicate directly than not communicate, even if you disagree. After 35 years with rare sporadic communication between the United States and the Islamic Republic, establishing a direct line between the Secretary of State and the Iranian Foreign Minister was an important achievement of the Obama administration and one that should be maintained. Moreover, if the United States keeps channels open and is seen as reasonable and open to negotiation, it can isolate Iran and build international consensus when Iran violates international norms. But if the Trump administration closes the door to dialogue than it will allow Iran to portray itself as the victim of an irresponsible Trump administration and make it harder to generate international pressure .
There are a number of issues where the Trump administration would benefit from direct talks with Iran. First there is explaining what putting Iran “on notice” means. Public statements and tweets are certainly one form of communication and using interlocutors like the Omanis is also helpful. But a direct explanation by the Trump administration to Iran of the types of actions that are truly unacceptable to the United States and will provoke an American response is valuable. Iran wants no part of a direct confrontation with the United States and this type of firm talk by the Trump team can play a useful deterrent role. However, it comes with a real risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation if the United States is too vague. The best way to clearly communicate American views is face-to-face – not through an intermediary.
Read the full article at Foreign Policy.
More from CNAS
PodcastStories from the Backchannel: Season Two Trailer
Now more than ever, Americans are interested in the people working behind the scenes on consequential national security decisions. In Season Two of Stories from the Backchanne...
By Ilan Goldenberg, Richard Fontaine, Susanna V. Blume, Kayla M. Williams, Price B. Floyd, Kurt Campbell & Kara Frederick
CommentarySending Troops Back to the Middle East Won’t Stop Iran
The Trump administration’s decision to kill Qassam Soleimani is the latest in an escalatory “maximum pressure” Iran strategy that is shifting American foreign policy attention...
By Chris Dougherty & Kaleigh Thomas
PodcastUS Targeted Killing of Qassem Soleimani: Strategic Implications
Brian Katulis and Kaleigh Thomas discuss the political and strategic fallout from the US targeted killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Listen to the full conversation...
By Kaleigh Thomas
CommentaryTrump Has Made Sanctions a Path to Strikes
U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to kill the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani, the architect of Iran’s political and military influence in the Middle East, and the Irani...
By Elizabeth Rosenberg & Neil Bhatiya