Change often occurs at a faster pace than people can comprehend. That is certainly the case with the quickly-shifting political realities in Washington on Iran. In less than 50 days, America will be led by a president who made dialogue with Tehran a campaign promise – and yet he won. Perhaps even more surprising, one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington failed – in the middle of an election year – to convince the US Congress to pass a resolution calling for a naval blockade of Iran, even though the resolution had more than 250 co-sponsors.

The debate in Washington is no longer whether to negotiate with Iran, but how, when and in what sequence such negotiations should take place. This, however, does not mean that talks will occur or that they will succeed. This is partly due to an unchanging feature of the political landscape in Washington – the reliance on economic sanctions to look tough and to gain leverage.

President-elect Barack Obama, who told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee earlier this year that he stood firm on his call for negotiations with Iran and his promise to do away with "self-defeating preconditions", has sought to balance his pro-dialogue position by adopting a strong appetite for additional economic sanctions against Iran. While a senator, he was the original co-sponsor of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008, which would have intensified existing sanctions and paved the way for additional divestment. Obama argued at the time that sanctions were an integral part of any diplomatic strategy. "In addition to an aggressive, direct, and principled diplomatic effort, we must continue to increase economic pressure on Iran", he said in a statement. Some of Obama's advisors have taken this a step further and argued that sticks – meaning sanctions – would have to come first in any carrot-and-stick approach to Iran.

Obama is, of course, absolutely correct that any successful approach to Iran must include a combination of incentives and disincentives. And sanctions can theoretically provide the United States with additional leverage over Iran. The problem with this line of thinking, however, is that it fails to recognise that existing sanctions already provide the United States with significant leverage.

But this leverage can only be utilised in the context of a negotiation. Sanctions can play a critical function in a US negotiation with Iran if, that is, Washington is willing to do away with them in return for significant Iranian behavioural change. That willingness has thus far not existed in Washington. The definition of leverage in the Bush administration was one's ability to get something for nothing. That approach has clearly failed; it does not characterise negotiations, but rather ultimatums and threats. In negotiations, you can only get something by giving something. Indeed, it's not the threat or imposition of new sanctions that will change Iranian behaviour, but rather the offer to lift existing sanctions. Herein lies America's as yet untapped reservoir of leverage over Iran.

The crux, of course, is that this leverage only can be actualised if Washington and Tehran find their way to the negotiation table. And that is why the inclination to impose new sanctions prior to the commencement of talks can be so devastating to Obama's agenda: imposing new sanctions on Iran – whether they be congressional sanctions or executive orders – will only reduce the prospects for diplomacy by poisoning the atmosphere and further increasing mistrust between the two capitals, which in turn defeats America's ability to tap into its reservoir of leverage over Iran in the first place. The same is, of course, true for Iran: any effort by Tehran to intensify its efforts to undermine Washington's policies in the region as a means to gain leverage prior to negotiations will only render such talks less likely.

To succeed with his pro-diplomacy agenda, Obama must not only avoid the fallacy that Washington doesn't have leverage over Iran and recognise the value of offering to lift existing sanctions in return for Iranian policy changes. He must also resist the temptation to undermine the path to negotiations by imposing new sanctions before talks have begun – including resisting pressure from domestic constituencies whose motivation for sanctions historically has precisely been to prevent a US-Iranian diplomatic breakthrough to begin with.

The combination of incentives and disincentives that will succeed in advancing US interests vis-à-vis Iran is one in which diplomacy is at the centre and sanctions are in the periphery – not the other way around.

Sanctions ~ you keep your oil and we'll keep all those products that you can't already get elsewhere. Iran is not Zimbabwe.

Americans must open their eyes. The largest debt the country has ever seen and in turn indebted to countries like Saudi Arabia and China. Deeply veiled in a recession. Three of the largest American auto manufacturers who dominated global industry through unfair trading arrangements are on the brink of meeting their end. The 1 percent prison population is going to balloon as soon as millions of Americans start being retrenched.

Already struggling to manage the two wars that they could not possibly win ~ Ordinary Afghans and Ordinary Iraqis would turn on American sponsored regimes as soon as the funding stops, because for some reason societies wish to carve out their own destinies and some don't even care much for western styled society. Soldiers have stopped dying, but for some odd reason terrorism is on the increase (invading and decimating two countries seemed to have been the self-fulfilling prophecy for the pundits).

The good news ~ The wolverine prequel to the X-Men series looks awesome, Oprah is as fabulous as the day she started forgiving but never forgetting and Nintendo has some cool games planned for their Wii console this fall. My hats off to the American middle class, whilst the UNDP and the world food program watch helplessly as they prepare for enough deaths to make Mao and Stalin squirm, they are going to be OK ~ hallelujah.

>>This, however, does not mean that talks will occur or that they will succeed.

FYI, back-channel talks between the US and Iran have been ongoing for quite some time already. The results are quite clear: Iranian sponsorship of violence in Iraq is down and Iran is getting to keep its nuclear program. They even floated the idea of upgrading the US interests section at the Swiss Embassy to be staffed by US personnel which would be a first. There is a secret tit-for-tat going on now with both sides playing a good game. All the public bluster are simply bargaining chips to used in the back-channel negotiations.

It seems our government has finally decided to put our own interests above the interests of our 51st state, Israel and gone ahead with talks with Iran.

>>Ordinary Afghans and Ordinary Iraqis would turn on American sponsored regimes

Not really: Afghans are turning on Karzai *only* because he's presiding over a corrupt system and unable to deliver social goods despite having Western funding. In Iraq, I find it extremely difficult to believe the majority Shi'ite population would turn against the first Shi'ite government in Iraq e.v.e.r. They are actually delivering on thier promises to thier own community. The Kurds are aloof and have no interests in turning against a government which they are a part of in a big way for the first time e.v.e.r.

There are simply no incentives for the population to turn against the Iraqi government, *especially* in the absence of any viable alternative. The same is true in Afghanistan: people are not rebelling because they've already lived under the deprivations and violence of the only other alternatives: the Warlord regimes and the Taliban regime, niether of which can possibly fulfill the Afghans' aspirations for the future.

What makes you so sure they would turn on them?

>>> What makes you so sure they would turn on them?

You yourself said ...

>>> There are simply no incentives for the population to turn against the Iraqi government, *especially* in the absence of any viable alternative.

The implication of your own statements is simply that Iraqis and Afghans support their governments, as they did during the Saddam and Taliban years, because they are left with little alternative. Its the choice of a lesser of two evils and not a vote of moral support. The United States has to maintain these people in a perpetually compromisable situation in which they are dependent only on the institutions that prop up the US backed regimes (as they have done with military machinery over the past SEVEN years). That's realpolitik ~ a true reflection of the political values.

Were these two nations to be free to develop their own independent civil institutions, the US interest in the region and US support would dwindle. We see this situation in many other examples of American "democracy" building ~ Democracy is after all "for the United States peoples, by the United States peoples". Elsalvador, Indonesia, Vietnam, Palestine/Israel, Iran etc. ~ all instances where Americans supported who they deemed pro-democratic "forces" and not those peoples democratic choices.

Well, since you've voiced support for these supposedly "native" reactions to imperialism I invite you to emigrate to Afghanistan, specifically Uruzgan or Wardak provinces to live under these oh-so-authentic "Islamic" and indigenous alternatives. Indigenous does not guarantee that it is correct nor right. But, you can only know this by experiencing life under them first hand and then make your own judgments.

how to pray please visit my blog http://megatrashid.blogspot.com/

>>> Well, since you've voiced support for these supposedly "native" reactions to imperialism I invite you to emigrate to Afghanistan, specifically Uruzgan or Wardak provinces to live under these oh-so-authentic "Islamic" and indigenous alternatives. Indigenous does not guarantee that it is correct nor right. But, you can only know this by experiencing life under them first hand and then make your own judgments.

And the imperialist emerges. Congratulations! You aren't just satisfied with Afghanistan/Iraq being democratised, but rather the culture itself and their political agenda must be westernised. I could happily live amongst people who aren't like me. As long they respected who I am as a human being and my right to develop/interpret/promote my own traditions. To respect the humanity/dignity of the poor and tribal peoples of this world does surely not mean you must be like them. That is its basic essence the meaning of MUTUAL RESPECT.

>> Its the choice of a lesser of two evils and not a vote of moral support ..... Were these two nations to be free to develop their own independent civil institutions, the US interest in the region and US support would dwindle.

This is all that I'm saying. Read it again, understand it and deal with it. Just as your disdain is for Afghan lack of respect for themelves, Afghani and Iraqi children will grow up with a greater physically realised reality (through that horrible machine of WAR) of American disrespect for who they are. Oh the vicious cycle you have trapped others in with you nation centered "humanity".

@Ghulam, you're way off base with your assumptions. I'm not anti-indigenous, but I am anti-authoritarian and anti-totalitarian.

Talibanism is not the only "authentic" or indigenous Afghan socio-political system (in fact, its an import from Pakistan and Deoband, India). The system of tribal chiefs led by a monarch lasted for several centuries since Ahmad Shah Durrani in the 1700's (which arose in the power vacuum of the then-dissolving Mughal empire) until the anti-monarchists led by his cousin Daoud ousted Zahir Shah in 1973. That is one alternative, one which does not have much credibility among Afghans it seems, since no one there appears to be agitating for the return on the monarchy.

>>As long they respected who I am as a human
being and my right to develop/interpret/promote my own traditions.

LOL, which is why I think you should try it out, because this is exactly my point: they are authoritarian and would not tolerate this idea of yours! And they need not become Western in order to have a good life. However, the current patterns and trends in both places do not suggest that life will be all that nice now, either.

>> LOL, which is why I think you should try it out, because this is exactly my point: they are authoritarian and would not tolerate this idea of yours!

Its so easy to be anti-totalitarian and anti-authoritarian, when in the international political game, that's exactly what the United States is! You're opposed to Talibanism, but you don't even know what it is and the vacuum out of which it formed. In terms of that countries broader objectives, the Taliban accomplished more than anyone else could have. Stopping the flow of heroine, restoring civil law and a judiciary, anti-tribalism, education and health for all ... not small things in the recent history of this war ravaged country.

Its hard to believe that Americans would even be moralising about Afghanistan if there wasn't some premise for war there. That's right.. Afghanistan existed long before 9/11, so I find your political stance opporntunistic for both your blindness to American heavy handedness and excessive focus on some small central asian country that is only known in the States because Osama bin Laden was there.

Despite what you think and say, travellers have been moving through Afghanistan for centuries, and its people have a self-developed culture that suits their own needs and level of economic development. Have you heard of hostages being taken or westerners being attacked in Afghanistan prior to the war? Do you know of any violent international objectives/impostions of the Afghan people? Your views seem to me to be subjectively rooted in your own experience of a first world country (with much ill-gotten gains) and a morality that doesn't seem to get tested at home. Its just a fact that in the eyes of the First World, poor nations are either savage and independent, or pliable and backward.

>> Talibanism is not the only "authentic" or indigenous Afghan socio-political system (in fact, its an import from Pakistan and Deoband, India).

Typical imperialist banter, drawing boundaries around Muslims/Nations that they themselves would remove/transplant. But enforcing boundaries that noone wants/needs. If Deobandi Islam is so terrible in Afghanistan, why are its students such a peaceful grassroots activists in every other country around the world? Did Afghan people import this philosophy of Islam out of choice or was it imposed on them?

>> That is one alternative, one which does not have much credibility among Afghans it seems, since no one there appears to be agitating for the return on the monarchy.

Because in Muslim history, monarchs pledge their allegiance to the people they govern, and not the other way around. Noone is calling for a return of a monarch, just as Native Americans aren't calling for the returns of their kings/elders or the Swiss calling for the restoration of their monarchs. But for you, that indicates some greater intention in your interpretation of Afghan social structure.

The irony of this whole drama is that you've acknowledged in past posts that the United States doesn't have to act in the interest of the Afghan people because its own interests are priority. That makes the United States unaccountable for its dealings in the rest of the world ~ which you happily accept my anti-totalitarian friend. Yet you're holding people from a nation thousands of miles away accountable and its no small coincidence that your military happens to be occupying that country or that its president is in fact an All-American boy scout with commercial interests. Anti-totalitarian .. what a laugh.

I am quite well aware of the factors since I was an Afghanistan analyst long before it was "fashionable" after 9-11. I do, after all, know Persian and even a smattering of Pashtu and Uzbek and have actually been there and seen all this, including Talibanis, up close. Have you?

>>the Taliban accomplished more than anyone else could have.
Stopping the flow of heroine, restoring civil law and a judiciary,
anti-tribalism, education and health for all

Anti-tribalism = destroying stable and millennium old *workable* indigenous social structures for the benefit of pan-Arabist Islamism. How does that fit with your love of the indigenous?

Flow of heroin = how do you account for them coddling and protecting the drug lords today and their deal-making with them and taxing them even from the start of their movement?

Civil law = arbitrary executions along with striking the warlords was a very bad move on their parts.

Education for all = You, sir, must be kidding! They closed all girls schools and forbade new ones. Today, they bomb girls schools and assassinate female teachers and THEY READILY CLAIM CREDIT FOR IT AND ISSUE FATWAS TO JUSTIFY IT. Now, which one of us in uninformed??

>>Have you heard of hostages being taken or westerners being attacked in Afghanistan prior to the war?

Due completely to the tribal concept of Melestia / Mehmannawaazi...which is the domain of the tribes and tribal prestige, the same tribes you lauded the Taliban for pushing out of the way.

Its very telling that foriegn civilians are routinely kidnapped and killed in this post-tribal absence of traditional melmestia and mehmaannnawaazi.

>>> I am quite well aware of the factors since I was an Afghanistan analyst long before it was "fashionable" after 9-11. I do, after all, know Persian and even a smattering of Pashtu and Uzbek and have actually been there and seen all this, including Talibanis, up close. Have you?

It seems like you have an education to legitimise.

>>> Anti-tribalism = destroying stable and millennium old *workable* indigenous social structures for the benefit of pan-Arabist Islamism. How does that fit with your love of the indigenous?

You think that Afghans are going to voluntarily approach the United States or France for their initiation into modernity? If you think that somehow the United States government is more concerned with preserving that culture then you are even more blind to the reality. This respect for indigenous Afghan social structures is after the fact and comes from an anti-mullah agenda. Its the counterpoint and not the objective view. This respect for the "indigenous Afghan culture" would disappear if it didn't appear to garner support from some segment of the Afghan population.

>>> Education for all = You, sir, must be kidding! They closed all girls schools and forbade new ones. Today, they bomb girls schools and assassinate female teachers and THEY READILY CLAIM CREDIT FOR IT AND ISSUE FATWAS TO JUSTIFY IT. Now, which one of us in uninformed??

This is not about making their wrongs right. Its about recognising that whatever neat anti-Taliban definitions you've concocted, the Taliban is a more native borne resistance/growth and that this seemingly civilised Western concern is a farce (as its proved to be in the past). Prescribing western borne reforms is also the height of hypocrisy, when the agenda is always laced with healthy doses of self-interest and any notion of mutualism is discarded first and foremost by the US.

Simply put, the United States bombed one of the poorest countries in the world, resulting in the deaths of a tens of thousands of innocent lives, perpetuating suffering that is at times even worse than before the war ... and now needs to make educated justifications. If this type of heavy handedness was applied in American society it would certainly destroy the fabric of the country. From my pesrspective, it's the United States that is held accountable first.

As for the school bombings, I think you'll find (or won't care to admit) that its the secular institutions that are being attacked. As a South African I am also hurt by the excesses. A South African aid worker who made prosthetic limbs for bomb victims was gunned down by her Afghan driver. But if the larger agendas of ethics and high-level participation are never addressed, then the violence is a guaranteed continued reality. As a United States citizen, all you have to do is use your own civil war or war of independence as a reference to understand this.

>>As for the school bombings...that its the secular institutions that are being attacked.

Wow. Do you realize that you've committed yourself to a core Jihadist principle? That violence is ok since its against "secular" institutions... and what exactly do you mean by "secular"?? Are you truly asserting that schools can and should be destroyed in Afghanistan if they are not madrassah? How aware are you of the past 80 years of Afghan educational history?

@OmarG, its pretty cool that you're an Afghanistan analyst, I've always been interested in South Asia and took a course about it (I think its going to be the center of the Islamic world) and I have a few questions- do you think that the ISI is as active and influential in funding and training the Taliban as it was during the eighties? Or has the organization been folded into the Pakistani administration? My professor said that there are still powerful Islamists in the Pakistani army and that politicians are afraid to cross them, but I think their influence seems to weakening...Finally, is studying the region why you converted?

>> @OmarG, its pretty cool that you're an Afghanistan analyst.. <<

Maybe Nadia86 should pay OmarG a visit when she lands in the US. She can sit there like a drooling dimwitted female fan and listen to OmarG blabber on and on about American Foreign Policey and Persian Grammatical Structures. I suggest Taco Bell as an appropriate place for dinner. Jesus.

>>> Wow. Do you realize that you've committed yourself to a core Jihadist principle? That violence is ok since its against "secular" institutions... and what exactly do you mean by "secular"?? Are you truly asserting that schools can and should be destroyed in Afghanistan if they are not madrassah? How aware are you of the past 80 years of Afghan educational history?

More of that ridiculous bias. I did NOT condone the violence ... I am saying that you are conveniently ignoring the nature of the war that has been entered into and promoted and justified by the United States itself! The United States has no qualms bombing groupings of people if they suspect they are terrorists .. hence bomb WEDDING PARTIES. Has no problem targeting terrorist ideological strongholds ... hence bomb MADRASSAHS. Has no problem torturing insurgents ... hence abduct and torture CHILDREN. This never factors in your argument. Why? Isn't it ironic that you are a moral commentator when it comes to the natives, yet hold the occupying power to absolutely none (your country where you are free to hold your government to high ethical standards)


>> @OmarG, its pretty cool that you're an Afghanistan analyst, I've always been interested in South Asia and took a course about it (I think its going to be the center of the Islamic world)

You're so silly .. it IS the center of the Islamic world.

>> My professor said that there are still powerful Islamists in the Pakistani army and that politicians are afraid to cross them...

Why don't you just get the answers from the plethora of Pakistani sources that are readily available in English? This is where that whole American Muslim classification turns to fodder .. people pretend that the Ummah itself does not exist when all they have to do to activate its consciousness is by engaging with fellow Muslims.

>> I suggest Taco Bell as an appropriate place for dinner. Jesus.


The next time you take Isa AS name in vain and attack Christianity in this snide and absurd way, a religion no doubt that has been granted innate protection under our Islamic law (let alone the rules of this site), I'm going to request that your account be banned.

Now, now Haji/Greybeard, if you trying to run me out of this site like you did to Akenanubis then you're going to have to try much harder than that, like when you called me confused and infantile-that really set me off...Seriously dude you're losing your touch

>>>You're so silly .. it IS the center of the Islamic world.

You're the one whose silly, with all your incoherent crap, and why would you assert so forcefully that it is the center of the Islamic world, that's pretty unacademic if you ask me.

>> Now, now Haji/Greybeard, if you trying to run me out of this site like you did to Akenanubis then you're going to have to try much harder than that. <<

Well. I did not run Akenababganoush off this web-site. I am not here to run anybody off, this is not my web-site. My job here is to casually finger people and let them implode off their own insecurities. I rarely if ever get into arguments or fights, as I don't need them. Emotionally secure people like OmarG, Ghulam, Mrs.A. don't bite on my baits and rule the roost here. The Babganoush's fall victim to their devices, as shall you I imagine.