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
CommentaryRecognizing the state of Palestine is the only appropriate response to Israeli annexation
The Israeli government may begin taking steps toward unilaterally annexing portions of the West Bank soon. This move would present a grave threat to any possibility of a futur...
By Ilan Goldenberg
CommentaryThe U.S. greenlighting annexation is a greenlight for China’s abuses
Across the sea from America, a leader who has been in power for more than a decade is laying the groundwork for a land grab. His military was always capable of imposing its wi...
By Coby Goldberg
CommentaryHow Iran Became the New Battle Line Between Conservatives and Twitter
In the latest salvo in the conservative war against Twitter, Senator Ted Cruz is calling for a criminal investigation into the social media platform for violating U....
By Peter Harrell & Elizabeth Goitein
PodcastThe Trump Administration’s Latest Moves to Dismantle the Iran Nuclear Agreement with Peter Harrell and Richard Nephew
On May 27, the Trump administration announced that it was withdrawing sanctions waivers that had allowed Russian, Chinese and European companies to work with Iran on sensitive...
By Peter Harrell